… maintaining with premium THC & CBD edibles. — 180 Proof

If they come in sour grape flavor perhaps it could be said that many Western Buddhist’s are sourgraping. :blush:

From my recollection, the five hindrances are admonitions about behaviours and psychological obstacles to liberation. I'd love to be able to report on what life is like when you're free of them, but no can do :fear:

I'm reading a pop-Zen book by Brad Warner, There is No God. — Shawn

with the subtitle 'and He is with you always'. Read the intro, totally get it. I quite like Brad Warner, he's a student of Zen teacher I have utmost respect for, Gudo Nishijima-roshi. His book To Meet the Real Dragon is on my all-time greatest hits list. (Not so keen on Nishijima's other prominent successor, who had many online run-ins on various Buddhist forums I used to frequent.)

On a more general note, I think 'westerners' views of Buddhism (and dharmic religions generally) is stereotyped by their own cultural-religious background. I had a debate with I Like Sushi recently where he was insisting that Buddhism is 'theistic', because of the worship of deities such as celestial bodhisattvas and meditation Buddhas - even though Buddhism has always eschewed any notion of creator-God. But because those figures are seen as deities, then Buddhism is stereotyped with the Biblical religions where really the underlying belief-structures are entirely different. See http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion.

It's a little too simplistic in my opinion. He creates an assumption that religion is full of idiots, like the guy killed in Jerusalem by being beaten to death in a street alley over doing nothing wrong apart from being a white westerner. Its not all that bad apart from the notion that absurdity isn't taken as a reduction and absurdom towards traditional religions.

The book by Nishijima that I mentioned is considerably more substantial.

From my recollection, the five hindrances are admonitions about behaviours and psychological obstacles to liberation. I'd love to be able to report on what life is like when you're free of them, but no can do :fear: — Wayfarer

I found this to be a very clear exposition of the five hindrances: https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/new-book/

Thanks! (Actually found that site via a link from @baker a few days back.)

I'm reading a pop-Zen book by Brad Warner, There is No God.
— Shawn

with the subtitle 'and He is with you always'. Read the intro, totally get it.
...
I had a debate with I Like Sushi recently where he was insisting that Buddhism is 'theistic', because of the worship of deities such as celestial bodhisattvas and meditation Buddhas - even though Buddhism has always eschewed any notion of creator-God. But because those figures are seen as deities, then Buddhism is stereotyped with the Biblical religions where really the underlying belief-structures are entirely different. — Wayfarer

Funny that you "totally get" Brad's 'no God and He is with you always' but don't get I Like Sushi's 'theistic' interpretation. Anything that spills forth from a Zen priest must be legit, I guess. :grimace:

We all know that the only possible reason that 'religion' exists is to give you something to argue about on internet forums. :wink:

I miss Jundo. :lol:

I know, you used to drive him totally spare. He was surprisingly easy to annoy, I must admit.

I had a debate with I Like Sushi recently where he was insisting that Buddhism is 'theistic', because of the worship of deities such as celestial bodhisattvas and meditation Buddhas - even though Buddhism has always eschewed any notion of creator-God. — Wayfarer

It's an interesting point. I think it depends on what you mean by theism. True, Buddhism has no creator God, but it does have many gods and above all else an "omniscient one". It is at least deistic, although it does not propose that we derive our wisdom from the deities, should worship or appease them and so on. Homage is paid to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, all of whom were once human. not sure if it is believed that the gods can become Bodhisattvas or Buddhas without becoming human first,

True, Buddhism has no creator God, but it does have many gods and above all else an "omniscient one". — Janus

But Buddha doesn't 'create the world'. Buddhism's focus is the negation of suffering - it points to the cause of suffering and the way to the cessation of suffering. Beings like us don't see 'how things are' because of our defilements and attachments which go down a long way into the psyche. Once freedom is attained from them, then we see things as they truly are. It is analogous to the Christian doctrine of original sin, but avidya has a more cognitive focus, as distinct from the Christian idea of sin, which is more volitional in nature. (I suppose you could argue that the Buddhist terms klesas and asavas, defilements and outflows, are also analogous to the Christian idea of sin, although 'sin' has become a real boo-word in modern culture.)

As to how the world was created, it's a meaningless question in Buddhism as it doesn't assume a singular moment of creation. Ancient Vedic cosmology which Buddhism incorporated, was cyclical in nature. That doesn't make it literally true, it was also embedded in many structures which were clearly mythological. But the sense of the beginingless and endless nature of the cycle of existence makes intuitive sense to me.

A saying I read on Dharmawheel - 'Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Liberation has a beginning, but it has no end.'

A saying I read on Dharmawheel - 'Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. Liberation has a beginning, but it has no end.' — Wayfarer

A nice one!

I agree that Buddhism is certainly not theistic if that term is taken to denote a purposely created cosmos.

By the way I also really liked the book To Meet the Real Dragon. I still have it on my shelves somewhere; way too many books! I sometimes wonder if accumulation of books would count as an unwholesome habit. :gasp:

I miss Jundo — praxis

I don't miss Jundo, since apparently I missed, or at least fail to remember, Jundo altogether.

I'm doing a big cull. We sold and bought within one week, moving to the Blue Mountains in February. I've got a list of books I really must read but hardly get around to. I think I do have to narrow my focus a bit, there's too many subjects to learn nowadays.

Jundo Cohen is the founder of an online zen center, Tree Leaf Zendo. He got banned from some Buddhist forums, I guess for being overly opinionated. Another other notable successor of Nishijima is Michael Luetchford, who recently published this book. He led some centres in the UK but has retired to Slovakia or Czech Republic - I corresponded with him recently. I am very drawn to the Sōtō Zen tradition but there's not many centres around Sydney.

Good move (to the mountains). I seem to remember there being a Sydney Zen Centre which practiced zazen, with a lady roshi and a retreat out near Wisemans Ferry somewhere. I looked at it years ago, but never attended. Not sure if it is still going, but you were probably already aware of it anyway.

Subhana Barzaghi. I did meet her. Some of my friends were members of Sydney Zen Centre. There are quite a few centres where we're moving.

Dear Jundo has been repeatedly banned for heresy, essentially, and general creepiness, online and in person. And this person given the stamp of approval from Gudo Wafu Nishijima. Hmm… make you wonder, right? It should.

I used to sit with a group that met monthly which was lead by another Nishijima devotee. Kevin Bortolin, a philosophy teacher at the local JC and someone I met at one of Brad’s sittings, practiced in Japan with Nishijima but never finished the program (whatever that entails). Cool guy, and I’d much rather sit though one of his talks than Brad’s.

And this person given the stamp of approval from Gudo Wafu Nishijima. — praxis

I don't hold that against Nishijima. Besides have been many fallings-out between Zen teachers and their putative successors the last few decades. I don't look at it through rose-colored glasses.

The Buddha, if it makes sense to say he "seeks" anything, seeks the cessation of "constants" (e.g. anicca, anatta, moksha). — 180 Proof

:up:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

   He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright. — Wittgenstein ladder

@Wayfarer can you help me? I can't seem to find the Zen story of leaving the boat behind after having crossed the river/sea

Well, no surprise that I prefer the doom of "Sisyphus" (defiance) to that of "Tantalus" (dissatisfaction) ...

Amor fati, Fool. :fire:

:up: :fire:

You must have a photographic memory! You seem to know/remember what you said to whom and where! :100:

To the OP's question, in a sense, "yes", the Buddha does make the fox's sour grapes move. Most of what is naturally pleasing, joyful, and desirable are ephemeral, in geologic time scales they're hardly even a blink of an eye. This simply means one and only one thing - if one's happiness is tied to that which changes so fast and so unpredictably, a world of misery awaits one. It simply can't go the way you want it to - th circumstances don't permit it.

What's the solution?

Prove to yourself, convince yourself that such objects are not worthwhile. The Buddha does this by defining true happiness is, as @Wayfarer put it, liberation - has a beginning but, get this, no end. Very foxy, won't you agree? Hounds, where are the hounds?

To the OP's question, in a sense, "yes", the Buddha does make the fox's sour grapes move. Most of what is naturally pleasing, joyful, and desirable are ephemeral, in geologic time scales they're hardly even a blink of an eye — TheMadFool

The Buddha had an unusually keen insight into what people with everyday concerns need to know, and The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity delivers the actual teachings that he gave to all those many people he encountered who were not monks or nuns or even meditators. This is practical advice on the important stuff of life, those things nearly all of us must deal with in order to enjoy a meaningful, lasting happiness:
- Taking care of children and aging parents
- Providing for our families
- Working with employees and business partners
- Finding and maintaining love relationships and marital partnerships
- Making responsible, ethical financial decisions
- Cultivating the best in your personality

Details

:up: To be honest, what I said was either a half-truth or completely false. There's a good reason why Aristotle believed that understanding is the highest virtue - as much misery, if not more, follows misunderstanding as from ignorance/not knowing.

True, our natural desires seem attuned to the ever-changing - we love beauty, it doesn't last; we love life, it too doesn't last; and so on - and even though the Buddha warns us - anicca (impermanence) - that in itself doesn't imply that we should now stop being enamored of beauty or that we should reject life. All anicca is meant to convey is don't be shocked and don't mourn the passing of beauty and life when that happens and that will, ceteris paribus, happen. Anicca does, in a sense, devalue that which is transient but it definitely doesn't recommend that we can't/shouldn't, for instance, enjoy the blossoms in spring while they're still around and pretty as can be.

I guess it all boils down to two simple rules:

1. Enjoy it while it lasts
2. Nothing lasts forever

:chin:

Nirvana

1. Seeking it is like a a magnet's north approaching another magnet's north. As you move towards it, it moves away from you.

2. Not seeking it is to place a magnet's south next to a another magnet's north. You don't have to lift a finger, the north automatically moves towards and makes contact with the south. Once you stop seeking nirvana, that is nirvana.

Now, why do I feel like I'm an inept love guru?

@Wayfarer

Our lives

1. Remember what I mentioned earlier about how our desires seem to be naturally directed towards, in Buddhist terms, the mercurial.

2. Buddhism enters the arena and says what we should really strive for/desire is the changeless, nirvana being the apotheosis.

What I believe is happening

Two simple rules:

(i) Enjoy it while it lasts
(ii) Nothing lasts forever

I believe we're all buddhas but the problem is we've forgotten rule (ii) since we always seem to get attached in an non-buddhist way to the ephemeral but we do remember rule (i) and that's why we're naturally drawn to the impermanent.

We respond to the hindrances otherwise they would not hinder us, no? I thought the idea is pretty standard Buddhist fare. I just performed a search and found plenty of references. Here's one on the top of the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances — Janus

I have never before heard of "responding to the hindrances". To "respond" to sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt?

Can you provide a Buddhist source that uses this formulation, "responding to the hindrances"?

The question is as to whether it is really possible (and desirable) to permanently cease responding to them, i.e. become liberated from them. Why would you try unless you believed it is possible?

The formulation used in Buddhist sources tends to be "abandoning / overcoming the hindrances". I have never heard "liberated" in this context.

Why would you try unless you believed it is possible?

Because you have faith in your teacher's instructions; because you've seen other people succeed in abandoning them; because you have a measure of insight that the hindrances are bad for you, already in a worldly sense, ie. that they hinder you and so it would be good to overcome them; because you've already had some success in abandoning them.

True, Buddhism has no creator God, but it does have many gods and above all else an "omniscient one". — Janus

In Buddhist cosmology, the heaven realms are blissful abodes whose present inhabitants (the devas) gained rebirth there through the power of their past meritorious actions. Like all beings still caught in samsara, however, these deities eventually succumb to aging, illness, and death, and must eventually take rebirth in other realms — pleasant or otherwise — according to the quality and strength of their past kamma. The devas are not always especially knowledgable or spiritually mature — in fact many are quite intoxicated by their sensual indulgences — and none are considered worthy of veneration or worship. Nevertheless, the devas and their happy realms stand as important reminders to us both of the happy benefits that ensue from the performance of skillful and meritorious deeds and, finally, of the ultimate shortcomings of sensuality.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/index.html

In Buddhism, a deva is not a permanent identity, it's a type of body that one can be born into if one has the merit.

Buddhism enters the arena and says what we should really strive for/desire is the changeless, nirvana being the apotheosis. — TheMadFool

No, there is no such universal should in Buddhism. All that the buddhas say is, if you want to be free from suffering, you should do such and such. But beyond that Buddhism is not a religion of commandments the way most other religions are.