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
Can you provide a Buddhist source that uses this formulation, "responding to the hindrances"? — baker
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
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.Did (the Buddha) dismiss too easily life as it is usually lived? — 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? — Janus
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?
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
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 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
Yes, that is what observation instructs. I do hope you realize that my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that last bit.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
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
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
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? — baker
I have a couple:Speak plainly. What exactly are your misgivings about Buddhism, and why? — baker
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,...'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
...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?one guy who had an extraordinary experience — I like sushi
Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)?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
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.Jeez, masturbation is boring enough! — Janus
Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)? — Michael Zwingli
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.
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
I can tell you straight up, Buddhist meditation is infinitely less pleasurable than masturbation. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.