NationStates Jolt Archive

any buddhists on this board? my question is a very basic one: tell me about buddhism.

i'm becoming more "spiritual" and am not drawn towards christianity at all, but am curious about buddhism. i know nothing so anything you can tell me would be great!

thanks:)

I'm not a Buddhist but from what I understand of its teachings I have little tolerance for it. Buddhism tells us that suffering is caused by desire, which is a crock of shit. You could probably just google it or something; I don't know that much about it and I'm not particularly interested in finding out. It seems trendy for people to admire it these days, and I can't say as I see why.

No-sorry

I say you would do better by reading about it, than asking NS Generalites. If you are interested in spirituality without the religious overtones then look into shamanism.

I'm not a Buddhist but from what I understand of its teachings I have little tolerance for it. Buddhism tells us that suffering is caused by desire, which is a crock of shit. You could probably just google it or something; I don't know that much about it and I'm not particularly interested in finding out. It seems trendy for people to admire it these days, and I can't say as I see why.
i could google it or look it up on beliefnet, but i wanted a personal perspective

frankly there seems to be some truth in "suffering is caused by desire"

or...

I recently read a book called "The Power Of Now" by Eckhart Tolle which is actually probably better to read than the multitudes of books out there on shamanism. The Power of Now is one of the best sign posts toward self-realization I have yet to read.

It's anti-materialist, basically. Eliminating desire with some other things (can't remember) will get you happiness, which is bs imho. Basically, you're asking people to eliminate feelings or emotions. Desire to love, desire to hate, etc etc.

i could google it or look it up on beliefnet, but i wanted a personal perspective

frankly there seems to be some truth in "suffering is caused by desire"

I would argue that to have a complete lack of desire would mean you didn't have any compunction or will to improve your circumstances. If you have no desire for anything, why not just get rid of it all of your possessions? Why would you even wear clothes?

Besides, a desire to fullfil a particular value structure is still a desire. It cannot be eliminated, and I don't think its healthy to stifle it.

It's anti-materialist, basically. Eliminating desire with some other things (can't remember) will get you happiness, which is bs imho. Basically, you're asking people to eliminate feelings or emotions. Desire to love, desire to hate, etc etc.

That's a severe misunderstanding of the teachings. Basically, existence is suffering (the bad outweighs the good, and in the end most of the good turns bad), and you do not seek happiness but nirvana, which is a state of complete neutrality....nothingness. Which can't be acheived by death because they believe in reincarnation. That's as I understand it, anyway. And it is possible to eliminate pretty much all emotion.

http://www.buddhanet.net/index.html

That's a severe misunderstanding of the teachings. Basically, existence is suffering (the bad outweighs the good, and in the end most of the good turns bad), and you do not seek happiness but nirvana, which is a state of complete neutrality....nothingness. Which can't be acheived by death because they believe in reincarnation. That's as I understand it, anyway. And it is possible to eliminate pretty much all emotion.

My mistake, I meant nirvana. I don't get the point of neutrality... why not enjoy life or be a pessimist or something... eliminating emotion, though, does sound like an eerie way of control. good thing everyone's too intolerant to notice it. :D

I am buddhist

According to a National Geographic article I read, Buddhist Monks are technically some of the happiest people in the world.

I'm not a Buddhist but from what I understand of its teachings I have little tolerance for it. Buddhism tells us that suffering is caused by desire, which is a crock of shit. You could probably just google it or something; I don't know that much about it and I'm not particularly interested in finding out. It seems trendy for people to admire it these days, and I can't say as I see why. I can't see how your differing in one fundamental aspect of Buddhism can make it so "intolerable." Can you explain that?

I think the idea is that our desire to remain in the cycle of mortality, our desire to not search for our own meaning, our desire to avoid overcoming problems in our lives, underlies most of suffering. I think to define this desire as an organic, physical thing, such as hunger/tiredness/lust is superficial.

The desire I think Buddha refers to is that of avoiding taking responsibility for ourselves. I imagine that once you are fully self-realised, you overcome these superficial physiological desires by default, because you are released into Nirvana at death.

Well there is Buddhism, the philosophy and there is the Buddhist priesthood. Kinda like the way there was, "Christ, who said some pretty neat stuff, and then they went and made a religion out of it." ;) (just a joke folks)

It depends a lot on what you're going after in life. If you are looking for a belief system and a way or life/culture, find out more about the priesthood. If you are looking for insight and perhaps to start the journey towards self-enlightenment, look into the source material such as scriptures and such.

The Buddhist Priesthood has been around for hundreds of years, and have developed their own ways of looking at the teachings, there own ways of expressing themselves and such. The core philosophy of Buddhism has little to do with these ways of doing things. They were merely an aid to their studies. Your own path could follow theirs or your could shape yours to meet your spiritual needs.

Practicing Buddhist here.

There was a thread not long ago on Buddhism, where which answered a few questions and provided some good links:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406577&highlight=buddhism

My own quick and dirty definition of Buddhist philosophy:
Life sucks, cause you can't get everything you want, and even if you could you can't keep it. If you can learn to: be nice to people, be aware of what's going on around you, and understand it all; then you'll stop wanting, and life will be cool.


It's anti-materialist, basically. Eliminating desire with some other things (can't remember) will get you happiness, which is bs imho. Basically, you're asking people to eliminate feelings or emotions. Desire to love, desire to hate, etc etc.

That's a severe misunderstanding of the teachings. Basically, existence is suffering (the bad outweighs the good, and in the end most of the good turns bad), and you do not seek happiness but nirvana, which is a state of complete neutrality....nothingness. Which can't be acheived by death because they believe in reincarnation. That's as I understand it, anyway. And it is possible to eliminate pretty much all emotion.

The idea isn't to eliminate emotions. In fact, love is exceedingly important.

Here's some explanation: http://www.urbandharma.org/udnl2/nl022404.html
Sometimes the goal of Buddhism can be described in terms that lead me to think that what is being sought is a cold emotionless passionless heart - no response, no feeling, no desires, no motivation. This conflicts with our image of the Buddha as someone with a strong motivation, a strong compassion to lead a life that would be of greatest benefit to all beings.

Mature emotions are also those emotions that allow other people to mature. So when a person acts or responds with mature emotion, other humans are helped in a way that allows them to transcend, to grow beyond their limitations. This appears abstract; and yet when we consider how parents can best allow their children to mature, it is through the expression of mature emotion.

A Distorted View

There is a wide-spread impression amongst non-Buddhists that the Buddhist religion disregards human feeling. The notion of Buddhism as an aloof teaching that prizes detachment developed in Europe in the nineteenth century. This distorted view of Buddhism was largely propagated by British and German diletantes who had studied only the Theravadin approach as they found it in Thailand and Sri Lanka. This concept of Buddhism as preferring a dry and unfeeling way of living is built upon a misunderstanding of the objective of the Buddhist religion and a one-sided study of how monks and nuns address their emotional life. Let me look at these two areas briefly.

The Objective of Buddhist Living

The common (distorted) view of Buddhism which I am trying to correct presumes that the purpose of Buddhists is a detached life. But, Buddhist philosophy actually views detachment as an extreme as destructive as attachment. The historical Buddha, Sakyamuni, tried to guide us on a middle path between attachment to pleasures and possessions on the one hand and an ascetic detachment on the other. Both of these extremes are unworthy according to Sakyamuni Buddha.

How Buddhists Address Their Emotions

The oldest Buddhist advice regarding emotions is that we might do well to deliberately cultivate positive emotions. The classic example of this is Metta meditation, the cultivation of kindly intentions towards all living beings. This procedure probably goes back to the historical Buddha, 2,500 years ago.

Once Buddhism had established an elite of educated monks and nuns the concern with suppressing disturbing emotions became a matter of some urgency. In particular, monks found it hard to meditate when they were still moved by sexual desires. The classic way of suppressing sexual desire was to go to a graveyard at night, dig up a corpse and watch it decay. The corpse would usually be buried again before day break and then dug up again the next night. After watching the progressive deterioration of a woman's corpse over aperiod of a few weeks a monk would typically find his sexual desires to have become dormant. This practice was only engaged in by monks.

With the Chan tradition in China (Zen) an approach of simply observing the feelings as they are developed. Without trying to suppress unwanted feelings or trying to cultivate positive emotions, simple attentiveness to feelings was and is practiced. The nearly universal experience which comes from this approach is that the feelings become gentler, softer, more flexible. This is considered an intermediate or advanced practice of Zen. Generally, it is taught only following a long period of concentrating daily on some particular object such as one's breathing. An almost identical sort of sitting and allowing thoughts and feelings to unfold, as they will, is practiced in Tibet and referred to as Dzog-chen meditation. The Tibetans consider this a very advanced practice and it is only taught to a person who has spent many years doing rigorous visualizations.

In the Jodo and Jodo Shinshu schools of Pure Land Buddhism the emotions are similarly allowed to develop naturally. Generally, unlike Zen and Dzog-chen, no special effort is applied to being mindful of the emotions. In Jodo Shinshu the natural, relaxed but devout holding of the Buddha's name in one's mind and heart is allowed to work its magic off-stage. Without any special effort to become gentler or more caring, but with a grateful appreciation for the Buddha's gift of his name, the surrounding emotional environment, internal and perhaps interpersonal as well, tends to become more wholesome.

I'm not a Buddhist but from what I understand of its teachings I have little tolerance for it. Buddhism tells us that suffering is caused by desire, which is a crock of shit. You could probably just google it or something; I don't know that much about it and I'm not particularly interested in finding out. It seems trendy for people to admire it these days, and I can't say as I see why.

I agree that Buddhism is seen as trendy these days, and this does give it a bad name at times.

Well there is Buddhism, the philosophy and there is the Buddhist priesthood. Kinda like the way there was, "Christ, who said some pretty neat stuff, and then they went and made a religion out of it." (just a joke folks)

It depends a lot on what you're going after in life. If you are looking for a belief system and a way or life/culture, find out more about the priesthood. If you are looking for insight and perhaps to start the journey towards self-enlightenment, look into the source material such as scriptures and such.

The Buddhist Priesthood has been around for hundreds of years, and have developed their own ways of looking at the teachings, there own ways of expressing themselves and such. The core philosophy of Buddhism has little to do with these ways of doing things. They were merely an aid to their studies. Your own path could follow theirs or your could shape yours to meet your spiritual needs.

Bingo. However, I will say that a *good* teacher who is flexable, is very helpful.

I dont really know enough yet to call myself a buddhist, but im definatly a fan, so to speak

Well I can't really offer much here to help you, as a practicing Catholic (and I very much respect your choice not to be Christian, as I'm heatedly debating evangelicalism and conversion on another board), but my boyfriend is a practicing Buddhist and his roommate is a practicing Taoist, and both of them can offer suggestions that, should you want to look into either of them, they're both very spiritually based without the "spiritual expectations" of modern Christianity.

As for myself, the most I know about either is that, as a child, my parents gave me a battered copy of The Tao of Pooh, which is a great read if you want to look down that road as well as Buddhism. It explains Taoist theory in terms of Winnie the Pooh, while still presenting it in a fairly enlightening context. I think I still read that thing six or seven times a year.

Anyway, didn't know if you'd want my two cents (or rather, a cent from each of the boys :D ), but I hope it's in some way helpful. I hope you find something that satisfies you either way.

Simonist']Well I can't really offer much here to help you, as a practicing Catholic (and I very much respect your choice not to be Christian, as I'm heatedly debating evangelicalism and conversion on another board), but my boyfriend is a practicing Buddhist and his roommate is a practicing Taoist, and both of them can offer suggestions that, should you want to look into either of them, they're both very spiritually based without the "spiritual expectations" of modern Christianity.

As for myself, the most I know about either is that, as a child, my parents gave me a battered copy of The Tao of Pooh, which is a great read if you want to look down that road as well as Buddhism. It explains Taoist theory in terms of Winnie the Pooh, while still presenting it in a fairly enlightening context. I think I still read that thing six or seven times a year.

Anyway, didn't know if you'd want my two cents (or rather, a cent from each of the boys :D ), but I hope it's in some way helpful. I hope you find something that satisfies you either way.
its all appreciated hun :)

The basic ideas sound good but I have some problems with Buddhism (same problems with Hinduism). Poor are poor because they've deserved it (in their previous life). The existing situation is fair and there's no reason to help those in need. I do believe that if people would really try to follow Buddhist ideology, they would help those in need but I can't see that happening too often. I guess they have also used this ideology (wrongly) for political reasons.

The basic ideas sound good but I have some problems with Buddhism (same problems with Hinduism). Poor are poor because they've deserved it (in their previous life). The existing situation is fair and there's no reason to help those in need.
There is reason to help those in need, as part of the 8 fold path:

4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.

5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.

but I agree with,

I do believe that if people would really try to follow Buddhist ideology, they would help those in need but I can't see that happening too often. I guess they have also used this ideology (wrongly) for political reasons.

Every religion is exploited by those wanting power. :(



But for PM, start reading buddy boyo...

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/gqga2.pdf

and others such as this library...

http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_g.htm

That's a severe misunderstanding of the teachings. Basically, existence is suffering (the bad outweighs the good, and in the end most of the good turns bad), and you do not seek happiness but nirvana, which is a state of complete neutrality....nothingness. Which can't be acheived by death because they believe in reincarnation. That's as I understand it, anyway. And it is possible to eliminate pretty much all emotion.

Technically, they don't believe in reincarnation, but in rebirth. This is because they don't believe in the existence of a soul.

A 'modern' way of looking at Buddhism and Buddhist practise is accepting that it is almost impossible to attain Nirvana in one life, especially if you are having a difficult time of it. It's hard to elliminate 'desire' if you don't have enough to eat (for example). So a lot of buddhists work on the basis of, be nice to people, try to get some good Kharma going on so that the next life will be easier.

Whilst we on the subject of misunderstandings, technically the term 'suffering' is an incomplete translation. The word (IIRC) is Dukkha, and the closest translation of that is 'unsatisfactoryness', which is a tad unwieldy.

Blessings
Cyber
Nom Yo Ho Renge Kyo

People tend to pick only those parts of (any) religion that they find easy to follow and just skip the rest. I was unfair but it's hard to focus only on ideology if most of the followers don't live up to their beliefs. I like the basic ideology of most religions but people ruin (not to be taken too seriously) the beautiful ideas.

The basic ideas sound good but I have some problems with Buddhism (same problems with Hinduism). Poor are poor because they've deserved it (in their previous life). The existing situation is fair and there's no reason to help those in need. I do believe that if people would really try to follow Buddhist ideology, they would help those in need but I can't see that happening too often. I guess they have also used this ideology (wrongly) for political reasons. My problem with Hinduism is that I simply cannot understand it. That's not to say that it's not worth understanding. I wish I did understand it, but for the time being all I can do is persevere with my somewhat 'boggled' grasp. I have faith that I can usually understand most things at a rudimentary level if I make the effort. I've bought a text on Hinduism, so things should change when I sit down to read it.

I find great solace in the karma principle. Bad situations are the end of the cycle. For example, if I'm poor right now, through hard work I may change my circumstances. When I have alleviated my condition through hard work, my state of poverty is reduced, thus the "punishment" or bad karma event has been endured and is over. I have survived it. Of course, this process requires some external variables, like capitalism and reward for merit, but for each individual, in whatever circumstance he lives, I believe that karmic cycles can be survived.

I disagree with the contention "that the existing situation is fair and there's no reason to help those in need." When you face terrible circumstances, and you allow your courage and strength to grow, it changes you. Change in this way can make you view your future misfortune with new eyes. There are countless moments when I have been grateful for terrible experiences in my past because they have taught me that I already had the courage to survive my present.

It's halfarsed to sit back and say "Well, if that person is suffering, they brought it upon themselves." Our obligation to others is to encourage them to survive and grow from their bad circumstances. We acknowledge that previous actions have resulted in bad karma (this helps to rationalise traumatic, random events) but the focus must be on what can be learned from the karmic cycle, and how the being can grow from it into Nirvana.

I wasn't that aware of Buddhism being used as a political motivator or justification. Could you explain this please?

Whilst we on the subject of misunderstandings, technically the term 'suffering' is an incomplete translation. The word (IIRC) is Dukkha, and the closest translation of that is 'unsatisfactoryness', which is a tad unwieldy.

Dukkha is a multi-faceted word. Its literal meaning is "that which is difficult to bear". It can mean suffering, stress, pain, anguish, affliction or unsatisfactoriness. Each of the English words is either too strong or too weak in their meaning to be a universally successful translation. Dukkha can be gross or very subtle. From extreme physical and mental pain and torment to subtle inner conflicts and existential malaise.

hehe

Buddhism is (primarily) based on the teachings of the Shakyamuni, or sage of the Shakya tribe; also known as Guatama Buddha. He lived at some time between approximately 560 BCE and 480 BCE in North India, just south of what is now Nepal. Although the Shakyamuni taught many things, among the most important where:

The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an inherent part of existence; that suffering is caused by craving; that craving can be ceased; and that following the Eightfold Path will lead to the cessation of craving (and suffering).

with the Eightfold Path being:
Proper understanding, proper thought, proper speech, proper action, proper livelihood, proper effort, proper mindfulness, and proper concentration.

through the following of these edicts an individual might gain enlightenment and therefore become a Buddha.

The basic ideas sound good but I have some problems with Buddhism (same problems with Hinduism). Poor are poor because they've deserved it (in their previous life).

This seems to be a common misconception on what the concept of rebirth and kharma actually mean, all complicated by the lack of soul part of the system.
The way my RE teacher explained it was by comparing life to a candle. Is the flame at the start of the candle the same as it is at the end? Chemically, it can't be, because it's made up of competely different particles. But it kinda looks the same, although always flickering, moving and changing-so there is no visible direct and complete change. Yet it is not the same. So rebirth is actually like moving a flame from one candle to another, rather than the transition of a soul, or continuing personality from one life to another.
Rather than believing that who you are is 'the soul', they believe that you are made up of aggregate, parts, or 'skhandhas', of which there are traditionally 5:
(i) body, or form
(ii) feelings or sensations
(iii) thoughts or perceptions
(iv) will, mental acts, volition
(v) consciousness

These all differ from life to life, and indeed through the various stages of your life.

So how can karma work if there is no 'you' that continues?
Well, every thing you do in this life has moral consequences (sometimes called vipaka, which means fruit). When you die, the fruit of your actions seeks out a form (i.e. the skhandhas) that best reflects them. Karma is a natural law (or is believed to be by buddhists), it is not revenge, reward or judgement of any kind. Think of it as being a bit like physics laws. I forget which law it is, but it states that all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. No one believes that this 'reaction' is a judgement or a punishment for the first action. It's just the way it is. Karma and rebirth work much the same way.
So, since you are not the same person that you were in a 'past life', and karma is not a judgement, a buddhist could not 'blame' you for misfortune in this life.

Blessings
Cyber
Not getting much work done today!!

hehe

Heh, well I got one of the definitions.
What confuses me the most is the fact that the same definitions exist in Buddhist teachings in about three different languages, and they vary depending on who you are reading. I always (try) to stick to the sanskriit, although I find that sometimes a word will imprint on my consciousness that isn't the sanskriit one, and then I get confused again!

Blessings
Cyber

Heh, well I got one of the definitions.
What confuses me the most is the fact that the same definitions exist in Buddhist teachings in about three different languages, and they vary depending on who you are reading. I always (try) to stick to the sanskriit, although I find that sometimes a word will imprint on my consciousness that isn't the sanskriit one, and then I get confused again!

Blessings
Cyber

The 'hehe' was because I was looking at that very passage as soon as you posted :) I do without one strict definition, I take as many varied ones as possible and try and suss out my own personal meaning.

TBH, i'm no buddhist, but the 4 Noble truths and the 8 fold path make sense to me, as does much surrounding those core truths, but as long as I try to live my life according to those principles then maybe i'll do ok.

The 'hehe' was because I was looking at that very passage as soon as you posted :) I do without one strict definition, I take as many varied ones as possible and try and suss out my own personal meaning.

TBH, i'm no buddhist, but the 4 Noble truths and the 8 fold path make sense to me, as does much surrounding those core truths, but as long as I try to live my life according to those principles then maybe i'll do ok.

I always liked the sound of Buddhism in general, and studying it (admitedly at high school level, but we do the best we can!) just gave me more respect for it. I don't call myself a buddhist, but I love learning about it and discussing it.

Blessings
Cyber

This seems to be a common misconception on what the concept of rebirth and kharma actually mean, all complicated by the lack of soul part of the system.
The way my RE teacher explained it was by comparing life to a candle. Is the flame at the start of the candle the same as it is at the end? Chemically, it can't be, because it's made up of competely different particles. But it kinda looks the same, although always flickering, moving and changing-so there is no visible direct and complete change. Yet it is not the same. So rebirth is actually like moving a flame from one candle to another, rather than the transition of a soul, or continuing personality from one life to another.
Rather than believing that who you are is 'the soul', they believe that you are made up of aggregate, parts, or 'skhandhas', of which there are traditionally 5:
(i) body, or form
(ii) feelings or sensations
(iii) thoughts or perceptions
(iv) will, mental acts, volition
(v) consciousness

These all differ from life to life, and indeed through the various stages of your life.

So how can karma work if there is no 'you' that continues?
Well, every thing you do in this life has moral consequences (sometimes called vipaka, which means fruit). When you die, the fruit of your actions seeks out a form (i.e. the skhandhas) that best reflects them. Karma is a natural law (or is believed to be by buddhists), it is not revenge, reward or judgement of any kind. Think of it as being a bit like physics laws. I forget which law it is, but it states that all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. No one believes that this 'reaction' is a judgement or a punishment for the first action. It's just the way it is. Karma and rebirth work much the same way.
So, since you are not the same person that you were in a 'past life', and karma is not a judgement, a buddhist could not 'blame' you for misfortune in this life.

Blessings
Cyber
Not getting much work done today!!

Good explanation, Cyberpolis. That's Newton's 3rd Law, BTW.

Heh, well I got one of the definitions.
What confuses me the most is the fact that the same definitions exist in Buddhist teachings in about three different languages, and they vary depending on who you are reading. I always (try) to stick to the sanskriit, although I find that sometimes a word will imprint on my consciousness that isn't the sanskriit one, and then I get confused again!

Blessings
Cyber

Add Japanese, Tibetian and English to Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrit, and then talk about confusion! :)
(My teacher is a Canadian from the Vajrayana school and we live in Japan. He uses terminology from all 6 languages in Dharma lectures in order to best explain to different students.)

Good explanation, Cyberpolis. That's Newton's 3rd Law, BTW.

*blush*
Thank you :)
Was worried that it was getting a bit 'rambling', but at least someone understood!

*Doh!* Never was much good at physics. No Biochem, *that* I understand :D

Blessings
Cyber