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. — baker

I understand. It's just simpler to use concepts that we're, the majority are, familiar with. It muddies the water rather than clarifies the issue but then that's the whole point I suppose.

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

I recently read a book, the link to which I provided to @Wayfarer, which deals with the hindrances. I'm not claiming my terminology is "normal". Abandoning the hindrances would be to cease to respond to their demands, would it not? To abandon them would be to be liberated from them, no?

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. — baker

Yes, I'm aware of that. What's your point?

:ok:

-

Did (the Buddha) dismiss too easily life as it is usually lived? — baker

Well, in my opinion, yes. More significantly, though, I think that Gautama rather ignored the power of those human qualities which underpin "life as it is usually lived", in particular the universal mammalian drive for social status and what is properly called in human social contexts "authority" (but in actuality is good old-fashioned "dominance"); these things that the Ancient Greeks referred to as ἀγωνίᾱ (agonia, "struggle", "competition"). Renunciation of these "agonistic" drives is certainly possible, but only makes sense within the peculiar Hindu cosmological view within which Buddhism is based, one in which individual consciousness survives the body, the continuous reincarnation of said consciousness is fact, and cessation of said continuity of reincarnation is possible. I would argue that the practitioner who believes in Samsara and has become a Buddha, thought to have achieved moksha, is living in delusion based upon his acceptance of this cosmology. Even so, he has achieved the delightful bliss which the renunciation of desire imparts. However, for both him (because Samsara appears to be as false a doctrine as 'heaven' and 'hell') and the so-called 'secular Buddhist', whose practice is not based upon Samsara but on the achievement of said bliss alone, the entire Buddhist enterprise seems, as I have said elsewhere, a mere masturbatorial exercise, and the ultimate goal thereof seems akin to the pursuit of orgasm ("good feeling"). For my part, I would rather struggle on agonistically in search of world domination, even if it makes me miserable. Perhaps, though, this is because it has not yet caused me enough agony, has not yet made me miserable enough.

I recently read a book, the link to which I provided to Wayfarer, which deals with the hindrances. I'm not claiming my terminology is "normal". Abandoning the hindrances would be to cease to respond to their demands, would it not? To abandon them would be to be liberated from them, no? — Janus

I'm just saying that you have a terminology that is novel to me.

As for the details of abandoning the hindrances: this is worked out very well in the doctrine, see here, for example:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.064.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-d
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

To say that one ceases to "respond" to them is very abstract.

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.
— baker

Yes, I'm aware of that. What's your point?

This was in reference to an ongoing discussion as to whether and how Buddhism is theistic. While in Buddhism, there are deities, which could nominally make Buddhism "theistic", given that those deities are not such by their inherent nature, they are categorically different beings than the gods we know from other religions.

Well, in my opinion, yes. More significantly, though, I think that Gautama rather ignored the power of those human qualities which underpin "life as it is usually lived", in particular the universal mammalian drive for social status and what is properly called in human social contexts "authority" (but in actuality is good old-fashioned "dominance"); these things that the Ancient Greeks referred to as ἀγωνίᾱ (agonia, "struggle", "competition"). Renunciation of these "agonistic" drives is certainly possible, but only makes sense within the peculiar Hindu cosmological view within which Buddhism is based, one in which individual consciousness survives the body, the continuous reincarnation of said consciousness is fact, and cessation of said continuity of reincarnation is possible. — Michael Zwingli

No, nothing so elaborate is needed to see the problems inherent in the desire to dominate. One only needs to be aware of the limits of one's resources in order to pick one's battles (more) wisely, and sometimes, this means, not going into battle at all.

I would argue that the practitioner who believes in Samsara and has become a Buddha, thought to have achieved moksha, is living in delusion based upon his acceptance of this cosmology. Even so, he has achieved the delightful bliss which the renunciation of desire imparts. However, for both him (because Samsara appears to be as false a doctrine as 'heaven' and 'hell') and the so-called 'secular Buddhist', whose practice is not based upon Samsara but on the achievement of said bliss alone, the entire Buddhist enterprise seems, as I have said elsewhere, a mere masturbatorial exercise, and the ultimate goal thereof seems akin to the pursuit of orgasm ("good feeling").

I'll try to keep this criticism of Buddhism in mind ...

For my part, I would rather struggle on agonistically in search of world domination, even if it makes me miserable. Perhaps, though, this is because it has not yet caused me enough agony, has not yet made me miserable enough.

There is no such thing as "miserable enough", there is no rock bottom to hit after which one would be automatically and sufficiently inspired to change one's course.

I understand. It's just simpler to use concepts that we're, the majority are, familiar with. It muddies the water rather than clarifies the issue but then that's the whole point I suppose. — TheMadFool

The point isn't to "muddy the water". Concepts need to be clarified. In different religious contexts, the same word can mean different things. This is something to clarify, lest we continue with the wrong understanding.

There is no such thing as "miserable enough", there is no rock bottom to hit after which one would be automatically and sufficiently inspired to change one's course. — baker

Yes, that is what observation instructs. I do hope you realize that my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that last bit.

The point isn't to "muddy the water". Concepts need to be clarified. In different religious contexts, the same word can mean different things. This is something to clarify, lest we continue with the wrong understanding. — baker

I guess not but there's a way to makes sense of my statement. We're not supposed to see the truth!

Yes, that is what observation instructs. I do hope you realize that my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that last bit. — Michael Zwingli

Speak plainly. What exactly are your misgivings about Buddhism, and why?

I guess not but there's a way to makes sense of my statement. We're not supposed to see the truth! — TheMadFool

??
Why not? Says who?

??
Why not? Says who? — baker

I recall my college days - when my professors wanted to cull the herd in a manner of speaking, the exam questions were decidely harder.

Speak plainly. What exactly are your misgivings about Buddhism, and why? — baker

I have a couple:
(A) that in it's true, full iteration it is based in a Hindu cosmology, which appears as nonsensical as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,
(B) that in it's partial, bastardized, secular modern form it appears no more than masturbatorial in it's elevation of pleasure (bliss) over purpose as the ideal of life, and
(C) that both of the aforementioned forms demand espousal of an essentially dehumanising process. Mankind did not evolve as a being which is devoid of desire and/or agon. We evolved from former social mammals which were competitive to the core of their psyches, and which subdued that innate competitiveness only insofar as was necessary to coexist within an evolutionarily advantageous social group. Within the group, competitiveness reigned, as it still does within the core of the human psyche today. Because of this, I feel that Buddhism preaches an essentially unnatural doctrine. I'm not saying that this doctrine is inherently "bad" or "evil", just that it is unnatural. The man who has been able to to relinquish all of his desires and longings in the pursuit of Nirvana seems to have become essentially inhuman to me. If one has relinquished or utterly subdued one's essentially human qualities in the pursuit of a cessation of a Samsara which is non-existent in the first place, then all one is left with is bliss, and to have sacrificed essentially human (competitive) purpose for the simple achievement of bliss seems to me a bad trade.

I can tell you straight up, Buddhist meditation is infinitely less pleasurable than masturbation.

yes, but the meditation is the means in Buddhism, not the end, which is the achievement of Nirvana, is it not?

Jeez, masturbation is boring enough!

In Sōtō Zen, which is the first book I read on the subject - the well-known book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - there is a constant admonition throughout the text, 'practice for no gaining idea.' The message being, if you think you're going to get something - enlightenment, or some great experience - then you're 'wasting your time on your little black cushion'.

Try sitting still for hours on end with your legs crossed watching your breath. It's the very definition of un-fun. I can't bring myself to do it any more.

I understand; I meditated daily for about 18 years (with a few missed days and short lapses of practice). My biggest problem was not that I found it boring, but that my legs would get very bad pins and needles. I'm thinking of going back to it, but maybe I'll try a chair.

I’d recommend walking meditation for an hour then sitting meditation for an hour (alternating). Minimum six hours a day and minimum of 3 hr session. If you did this for 3-4 days you’d get used to it and once you returned to your usual routine you’d certainly feel the difference in your state of mind.

Honestly, I don’t really understand how anyone expects to get anything from a few minutes a day if they have no idea what it is they are working towards. So, do the meditation full time (for a week if possible) and if you get something out of it then you’re more likely going to stick to a daily rountine.

Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious - this might be good for some but might be bad for others.

This is fairly clear as buddhist meditations are generally about shifting attention away from unconscious items that arise rather than exploring them. Exploring them (which is not something to be taken lightly) is the process of Individuation - which is inevitably painful/scary.

With the religions you mention they all share something in common. You have one guy who had an extraordinary experience and (against their better judgement) expressed what they experienced as best they could for the benefit of others who would inevitably come after them.

Religion is an extension of ‘shamanism’. Shamanism, across the globe, shares particular defining features where shamans go through certain extreme stresses and relate their body being broken down, consumed and reconstructed. In religious traditions with whirling dervishes and flagellants pieces of such stress are induced. Just looking as Jesus, Mohammed and buddha we can see repetition of known physiological stresses that actively induce altered states of consciousness (ASCs) known to neuroscience. Examples are isolation, sleep deprivation, extreme focused thought, hyperventilation, fasting and trance dancing.

From personal experience I can say hyperventilation is something instinctual when it comes to inducing this state as I immediately started to hyperventilate ‘on purpose’ once I came out of the peak state and I had no idea why only that I was desperate to get back to it. My experience was induced by intense focus and inner battles, sleep deprivation and fasting (because I forgot to eat and sleep). Such physical stresses and strains will hit anyone with a mental sledgehammer.

It is possible I had a mini stroke maybe? Either way I’d recommend it even though it comes with necessary hell and torture. I certainly had what buddhist’s refer to as ‘ego death’. I went on to try and purposefully induce the same experience again and a year later bungled it (which I had to) and went to the most ‘hellish’ place imaginable that gave me perspective. What this taught me was how memories are very selective and I recalled several episodes from my past I had buried away. I also recalled the full pain of first experience I had but it was still outweighed by the benefit.

The closest I’ve come to explaining this is to come to the conclusion that it was DMT naturally produced in my brain (how I’ve no idea). I say this because reports from trails, and from others who’ve taken ayahuasca, are as close to what I can find that expresses what I experienced. The potential and power of this is not really something I can express (nor fully believe anymore), but I did make myself remember beyond doubt at that point exactly how ‘important’ it was.

There is a chance I am just an unusual person who had a moment of normality. If that is the case though the world would not be how it is now so I can only assume I’m relatively normal and insane like everyone else and just happened to glimpse naked sanity briefly. Now I’m just going along with the madness of everyone else because this species is still figuring itself out.

Note: I’m not a member of any temple (and never have been), both my parents are atheists and I generally abhor both states and religious institutions for the most part. My first love was physics.

...'practice for no gaining idea.' The message being, if you think you're going to get something - enlightenment, or some great experience - then you're 'wasting your time on your little black cushion'. — Wayfarer

If that is to be accepted as a premise, that Buddhism must be, or is best approached experientially, phenomenologically, rather than (I struggle for the word...) accusatively...objectively (in the specific sense of "with an objective to be reached"), then how can anyone's Buddhism be authentic save that of Siddhartha himself? The argument made for Buddhist pursuit is that "this way of llife will free you from the pain caused by your longing, from the burden of your desire and the oppression of yourself by your will, and ultimately (for "religious" Buddhists) a release from the cycle of Samsara". This argument inherently involves an objective or two: (a) the achievement of Nirvana, and (b) the achievement of Moksha. Since this essentially seems to be the argument put forth by Gautama himself to those who listened to him, and then by them to all subsequent "disciples", then all but Prince Siddhartha himself has had an approach to and experience of Buddhism which is 'tainted' (I use that word cautiously) by objectivism...by having the objectives of Nirvana and Moksha in mind upon entering into the franchise, would you not say? As "sushi" has noted,
the Buddha may be viewed as,

one guy who had an extraordinary experience — I like sushi

...but all who have followed him have not have the same experience as experientially as did he, based upon what I have noted above. Have not all but Siddhartha, then, according to the Zen admonition, simply been "wasting their time" on their little black cushions?

Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious... — I like sushi

Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)?

Jeez, masturbation is boring enough! — Janus

Please, understand that, given the shortcomings of my vocabulary, I only use the term "masturbatorial" as a shorthand for "pertaining to the pursuit of pleasure as a primary objective". I don't intend to suggest any references to the physical act of masturbation, which, while it may avoid being boring, always leaves one feeling terribly unfulfilled.

Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)? — Michael Zwingli

Sorry. Cannot recall off the top of my head where it came from. Likely from The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. I’ll have a quick look …

Found it! Was in Mysterium Coniunctionus:

These methods are of value only for increasing concentration and consolidating consciousness, but have no significance as regards effecting a synthesis of the personality. On the contrary, their purpose is to shield consciousness from the unconscious and to suppress it.

Note: From book ‘Jung on Active Imagination’ (p.169).

Mankind did not evolve as a being which is devoid of desire and/or agon. We evolved from former social mammals which were competitive to the core of their psyches, and which subdued that innate competitiveness only insofar as was necessary to coexist within an evolutionarily advantageous social group. Within the group, competitiveness reigned, as it still does within the core of the human psyche today. Because of this, I feel that Buddhism preaches an essentially unnatural doctrine. I'm not saying that this doctrine is inherently "bad" or "evil", just that it is unnatural. — Michael Zwingli

This is silly, as it’s obvious how natural it is for people to cooperate for mutual benefit.

I think they call that holotropic breathwork.

It wasn’t out of my control so that is a better way of expressing it. I thought ‘hyperventilating’ was also a term used for voluntarily breathing deeply/quickly as well as non-voluntary (panic attacks etc.,.).

I go the other direction in meditation because it’s naturally relaxing, stimulates the somatic nervous system and that helps to suppress the DMN (default mode network or ‘monkey mind’), and go down to one or two breaths a minute.

I can tell you straight up, Buddhist meditation is infinitely less pleasurable than masturbation. — Wayfarer

:rofl: That means...Buddhism is a big fat lie!

I think you're framing the issue wrongly. Actually, I think the awakening that Buddhism refers to is not pleasurable, it's exceedingly painful, as evidenced by the suffering that the Buddha himself went through in his six-year solitary sojourn. It is the abandonment of self-concern, egocentrism in all it forms. But at the end of that, according to lore, is a kind of happiness reached which is imperishable. Whereas it's natural for the worldly person to think only in terms of gain, 'what good will this do me?'