NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm reading Majjhima-Nikaya and the Buddha makes no sense to me.....I can't decide if I have a religious/cultural bias that's causing me to reject the things that disagree with how I've been indoctrinated or if it's an incoherent translation....

Is there a good translation? Is there some sort of primer so I can understand what's going on better? Is the Buddha just crazy smart? Help?

I'm not a Buddhist, really, but I've read a lot about some Buddhist traditions. (heh, I almost typed "I play one on tv".) What are you having issues with?

what do you want to know ?

Raised as one, though I've long since left it. I remember enough to give a decent run through on how it works though.

Im actually starting to really delve into it.

Read "The Buddihst's Bibe". Its pretty much the best english translation of a Buddhists "beginer's manual". Its a collection of essays from various traditions.

I'm not one myself, but I'd recommend the Penguin Classics edition Buddhist Scriptures, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., and Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism: Teaching, History and Practices as two very good introductory texts.

EDIT:

Be very wary when buying texts on Buddhism, or on any other Dharmic tradition for that matter. There's a load of bullshit authors out there, churning out Westernised, feel-good 'Buddhist' texts. Also, there's countless books written by nice-looking bald dudes in orange robes which have a similar lack of any real content.

my deal with religion is you should jsut get drunk and what ever house of worship you wake up in you follow.

my deal with religion is you should jsut get drunk and what ever house of worship you wake up in you follow.

..which becomes a problem when you always wake up in a bar.

I assume there's as many forms of Buddhism as there are in any religion, pick and choose what you want to agree with.

..which becomes a problem when you always wake up in a bar.

Depends on your definition of a problem :p

..which becomes a problem when you always wake up in a bar.

I assume there's as many forms of Buddhism as there are in any religion, pick and choose what you want to agree with.

you got to stumble out of the bar after getting drunk.
thus far no luck on house of worship though one time i joined ship's crew. that was a tad embarrassing and 3 times i woke up in a hospital.

Be very wary when buying texts on Buddhism, or on any other Dharmic tradition for that matter. There's a load of bullshit authors out there, churning out Westernised, feel-good 'Buddhist' texts. Also, there's countless books written by nice-looking bald dudes in orange robes which have a similar lack of any real content.

Ill second this.

I'm reading Majjhima-Nikaya and the Buddha makes no sense to me.....I can't decide if I have a religious/cultural bias that's causing me to reject the things that disagree with how I've been indoctrinated or if it's an incoherent translation....

Is there a good translation? Is there some sort of primer so I can understand what's going on better? Is the Buddha just crazy smart? Help?

I doubt it's a religious/cultural bias. I was raised in the US by devout Christians too, and I have never had any particular problem with understanding any Buddhist teachings I've read. Or any of the Taoist writings. I find both very enjoyable, and they often contain interesting or valuable insights.

Be very wary when buying texts on Buddhism, or on any other Dharmic tradition for that matter. There's a load of bullshit authors out there, churning out Westernised, feel-good 'Buddhist' texts. Also, there's countless books written by nice-looking bald dudes in orange robes which have a similar lack of any real content.

I am having an Idea to make money.

Be very wary when buying texts on Buddhism, or on any other Dharmic tradition for that matter. There's a load of bullshit authors out there, churning out Westernised, feel-good 'Buddhist' texts. Also, there's countless books written by nice-looking bald dudes in orange robes which have a similar lack of any real content.

OMG, spiritual texts that make you feel good? Put an end to it, now!

I understand where you're coming from, but Buddhism IS a living, changing spiritual path/philosophy, which has many different traditions, and there are (in my opinion) some very good Western authors such as Lama Surya Das that have devoted their whole lives to the study of Buddhism.

OMG, spiritual texts that make you feel good? Put an end to it, now!

I understand where you're coming from, but Buddhism IS a living, changing spiritual path/philosophy, which has many different traditions, and there are (in my opinion) some very good Western authors such as Lama Surya Das that have devoted their whole lives to the study of Buddhism.

nah anyone who shaves their head and wears a yellow robe is clearly fit to write a book on Buddhism.

I'm not one myself, but I'd recommend the Penguin Classics edition Buddhist Scriptures, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., and Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism: Teaching, History and Practices as two very good introductory texts.

EDIT:

Be very wary when buying texts on Buddhism, or on any other Dharmic tradition for that matter. There's a load of bullshit authors out there, churning out Westernised, feel-good 'Buddhist' texts. Also, there's countless books written by nice-looking bald dudes in orange robes which have a similar lack of any real content.

Another good translation:

http://www.amazon.com/Platform-Sutra-Sixth-Patriarch/dp/0231083610/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236418532&sr=8-1

Though I've often found myself reading the translator's footnotes as much as the actual text.

Buddhism's a big a bunch of shite as Islam and Christianity, in my opinion.

OMG, spiritual texts that make you feel good? Put an end to it, now!

I understand where you're coming from, but Buddhism IS a living, changing spiritual path/philosophy, which has many different traditions, and there are (in my opinion) some very good Western authors such as Lama Surya Das that have devoted their whole lives to the study of Buddhism.
As with anything else in life that one wants to learn about, one must not just assume that the author of a book knows what he is talking about, but must read as many sources as possible and apply one's own critical judgment to all of it.

"See for yourself", as I read somewhere the Buddha once said to some guy who asked him about something once.

Okay, so last night I learned not to read while drunk, today I learn not to read while hungover.

I have not explained the world is eternal or not eternal. I have not taught that the world is finite or infinite. I have not explained that the soul and body are identical or that the soul and body are not identical.

I'm lost.

So, basically.......he teaches nothing?

Buddhism's a big a bunch of shite as Islam and Christianity, in my opinion.

Your opinion doesn't count. Also I'm reading it for educational purposes.

Okay, so last night I learned not to read while drunk, today I learn not to read while hungover.



I'm lost.

So, basically.......he teaches nothing?

He is saying question things yourself don't just blindly accept teachings.

Real Buddhist teachings, as distinct from the proclamations of New Age gurus, are incompatible with liberal values. The suggestion that we should not struggle to improve our material condition, that we should invest in an otherworldly bunch of hocus-pocus by becoming detached from our own passions, is dehumanizing. We must affirm genuinely human desires, nourish genuinely human needs, not disdain them through some perverse ideal of detachment.

We should struggle for advancement in the here-and-now, we should put all thought of future reincarnations and the possibility of Nirvana aside.

The same ethic that is criticized in Christianity, that it devalues the world for the sake of some invisible being and the slim hope of afterlife, is a cornerstone of Buddhism.

For one, I hope the Chinese groom a Marxist-Leninist replacement for the Dalai Lama the minute he croaks in his Indian monastery-palace.

I'm lost.

So, basically.......he teaches nothing?

I always took it as something that has to be experienced, it can't be understood by explaining it. That's where the meditation bit comes in and stuff.

At least that's what a Buddhist dude told me.

I always took it as something that has to be experienced, it can't be understood by explaining it. That's where the meditation bit comes in and stuff.
Aye, Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, stresses that heavily analytic thinking will not lead to enlightenment. You can't encompass it in a neat set of easily-communicable concepts. You must let go, think by transcending any sensory or mental object to help you.

(Which, incidentally, leads on to Zen thinking.)

Real Buddhist teachings, are something I have no idea about, so I'm going to spout a bunch of crap and hope someone takes the bait.

Fixed. *nods*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIBSeaJ9YI

Take a look at this video. Buddhism isn't the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. Buddhism, at least as it is traditionally conceived, is not a product of the enlightenment and Western liberalism. We shouldn't expect it to be anything but medieval and regressive. There's a crazy, romanticist conception, though, of Buddhism as a progressive, humanizing force we'd all do well to emulate.

I should also mention that Tibet was once a theocracy. It was liberated by the Chinese under Mao.

Buddhism deserves no more respect than any other religion, which is none. Its scriptures should be burnt, its most violent and vociferous proponents jailed (as they are in China), and its buildings appropriated to public use.

Okay, so last night I learned not to read while drunk, today I learn not to read while hungover.



I'm lost.

So, basically.......he teaches nothing?

He teaches that these are irrelevant questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIBSeaJ9YI

Take a look at this video. Buddhism isn't the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. Buddhism, at least as it is traditionally conceived, is not a product of the enlightenment and Western liberalism. We shouldn't expect it to be anything but medieval and regressive. There's a crazy, romanticist conception, though, of Buddhism as a progressive, humanizing force we'd all do well to emulate.

I should also mention that Tibet was once a theocracy. It was liberated by the Chinese under Mao.

Buddhism deserves no more respect than any other religion, which is none. Its scriptures should be burnt, its most violent and vociferous proponents jailed (as they are in China), and its buildings appropriated to public use.

I'd rather just munch tacos. *nod*

He teaches that these are irrelevant questions.

Ah, thanks.

Buddhism isn't the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. Buddhism, at least as it is traditionally conceived, is not a product of the enlightenment and Western liberalism. We shouldn't expect it to be anything but medieval and regressive. There's a crazy, romanticist conception, though, of Buddhism as a progressive, humanizing force we'd all do well to emulate.
Buddhism isn't always the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. But, like any religion, there are many who follow it and lead good, peaceful lives.

Moreover, there's a long tradition, particularly in Zen Buddhism, of anti-authoritarianism.

I should also mention that Tibet was once a theocracy. It was liberated by the Chinese under Mao.
AP?

He teaches that these are irrelevant questions.

Nothing gives the illusion of depth like a koan. Sooner you realize it means absolutely nothing like everything else the happier you are.

Nothing gives the illusion of depth like a koan. Sooner you realize it means absolutely nothing like everything else the happier you are.

If you know candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago. *nod*

If you know candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago. *nod*

Geek.

Geek.

*pushes you into mud*

To answer Smunk's inquiry a bit of history may be in order:

The story of Buddhism begins with the birth of Siddhartha Guatama in modern-day Nepal around the year 500BCE. As was the fashion of the time, his father, King of Shakya, took his newborn son to an oracle to have his future read. The oracle told the King that Buddha would grow up to either be a great spiritual teacher, or a mighty king. King Suddhodana preferred that his son follow in his own footsteps, and so young Siddhartha was raised with every desire fulfilled but without being allowed to leave his father's palace.

Fast forward 29 years. Siddhartha is now married and is in the prime of his life. But he wonders how he can be an effective king if he has never even left the palace to see his kingdom. So his father relents and allows Siddhartha a single day outside the palace. But King Suddhodana secretly sends his ministers to pre-arrange every sight that Siddhartha will see, removing from public view all of the beggars, lepers, and dying subjects. His plan however fails.

As Siddhartha walks the street greeted by his subjects, he catches sight of an old man. Having been sequestered in a false, but perfect world up until this point, he is forced to ask his chariot-driver what is wrong with the elderly individual. He is told that it is an old man, and all men will someday grow old like him. Siddhartha is shocked, and continues looking into the crowd in ernst.

The second sight that Siddhartha sees is a leper. Again, he is shocked by the unhappiness that is visited upon mankind, and embarrassed by his naïvité. The third sight that he sees is a decaying corpse, and is told by his driver that it is the fate of all human beings to die. At last, he comes upon the fourth sight - a Hindu ascetic monk. Siddhartha casts off his kingdom and family in order to follow this monk, who he hopes will lead him out of the cycle of misery that afflicts all humankind.

The Hindu ascetics were extremely severe, and they ate and drank so little that some of them would even die of starvation. Siddhartha himself almost died of hunger and misery while pursuing the ascetic lifestyle, but a peasant girl brought him a bowl of rice to eat and he accepted her generosity. His five ascetic companions were scandalized, and fed up, Siddhartha planted himself under a Bodhi tree and refused to budge until he received enlightenment.

For 49 days, Siddhartha struggled with his ignorance under the tree. Tempted by the goddess of illusion Mara, assaulted by flies, distracted by all of the drama that comes with being human, he refused to give in to any illusion and continued seeking absolute enlightenment. At age 35, under a Bodhi tree, Siddhartha reached enlightenment and became the "Buddha," a Sanskrit word meaning "One who is awake."

The Buddha had realized that the trouble with being human came from clinging and attachment. Everything that comes into existence goes out of existence - all our friends, lovers, family, video game consoles, health, and even our very lives. The trouble wasn't that these things happen to us, but that we approach life with a flawed set of expectations. One who can accept what happens to them without complaint and without desire will never, ever be disappointed. A person who finds happiness within themselves can be happy no matter what the external circumstances of their lives are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIBSeaJ9YI

Take a look at this video. Buddhism isn't the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. Buddhism, at least as it is traditionally conceived, is not a product of the enlightenment and Western liberalism. We shouldn't expect it to be anything but medieval and regressive. There's a crazy, romanticist conception, though, of Buddhism as a progressive, humanizing force we'd all do well to emulate.

I should also mention that Tibet was once a theocracy. It was liberated by the Chinese under Mao.

Buddhism deserves no more respect than any other religion, which is none. Its scriptures should be burnt, its most violent and vociferous proponents jailed (as they are in China), and its buildings appropriated to public use.

Oh, oh, I get it! This is AP, isn't it?

Buddhism isn't always the joyous, happy, free thing it's made out to be by so-called progressives. But, like any religion, there are many who follow it and lead good, peaceful lives.

Moreover, there's a long tradition, particularly in Zen Buddhism, of anti-authoritarianism.


AP?

Dammit! Beat me to it.

AP? WTFIST? Kthx.

Oh, oh, I get it! This is AP, isn't it?

Cant be. The word 'bourgeoisie' was not said once.

To answer Smunk's inquiry a bit of history may be in order:

That's not history. At best, it's mythologized history and is subject to all the pernicious forces that cause legends to aggregate around the founders of spiritual movements.

For some reason, many are eager to press the Jesus-as-myth idea, struggling to go behind the accretions to arrive at the "historical Jesus," yet give the benefit of the doubt to the more unfamiliar stories of Buddhist and Islamic origins. Reading some secular western historians, you'd swear Mohammed, totally unfamiliar with writing and anything like poetry, actually received revelations from an angel in a cave and dictated the Koran to his followers, and it is now preserved unaltered from the 7th Century.

Likewise, we should take the story about Siddharta, who lived 2500 years ago, with a tremendous grain of salt. The whole denying-a-kingdom nonsense and being raised without any exposure to pain and ugliness is the stuff of legends. His extraordinary ascetic feats are no different. In historical reality, Gautama was a spiritual teacher who was discontent with current religious/philosophical circumstances and came to develop his own system, which was received by his followers. Anything more than that is sketchy. Even recent non-religious figures are subject to myth-making. In the 19th century, most folks bought into the whole Washington-and-the-cherry-tree story.

That's not history. At best, it's mythologized history and is subject to all the pernicious forces that cause legends to aggregate around the founders of spiritual movements.

For some reason, many are eager to press the Jesus-as-myth idea, struggling to go behind the accretions to arrive at the "historical Jesus," yet give the benefit of the doubt to the more unfamiliar stories of Buddhist and Islamic origins. Reading some secular western historians, you'd swear Mohammed, totally unfamiliar with writing and anything like poetry, actually received revelations from an angel in a cave and dictated the Koran to his followers, and it is now preserved unaltered from the 7th Century.

Likewise, we should take the story about Siddharta, who lived 2500 years ago, with a tremendous grain of salt. The whole denying-a-kingdom nonsense and being raised without any exposure to pain and ugliness is the stuff of legends. Likewise about his extraordinary ascetic feats. In historical reality, was a spiritual teacher who was discontent with current religious/philosophical circumstances and came to develop his own system, which was received by his followers. Anything more than that is sketchy. Even recent non-religious figures are subject to myth-making. In the 19th century, most folks bought into the whole Washington-and-the-cherry-tree story.


Its not history, but your Maoist revisionist history is history?

lulz rofl.

The problem with this reglion is that the whole point of it is to become happy by making sure everything in life has no value to you. That if you don't have any expections,hopes or dreams then you can never be disapointed. Nirvana to me seens to be a state where ones gives up their humanity. They seek to control their emotions like a depressed teenager or a hurted lover may walled up their hearts. And one care to enlighten me why they think I wrong?

Okay, so last night I learned not to read while drunk, today I learn not to read while hungover.



I'm lost.

So, basically.......he teaches nothing?


Sounds like a koan

It's a sort of a mental discipline to help you focus on nothingness.

http://www.essortment.com/all/zenkoanspiritu_rlmp.htm

The problem with this reglion is that the whole point of it is to become happy by making sure everything in life has no value to you. That if you don't have any expections,hopes or dreams then you can never be disapointed. Nirvana to me seens to be a state where ones gives up their humanity. They seek to control their emotions like a depressed teenager or a hurted lover may walled up their hearts. And one care to enlighten me why they think I wrong?

The idea is more that you realize that everything in life is fleeting, and you take joy where you can. If you understand that in the end it's all meaningless you're free to ignore anything you don't like.

Look at it this way, say you play an MMORPG. You spend perhaps years building a character, fighting, dying, making friends and enemies. In the end, the servers come down for the last time, and all you have is your memory of it. Now whether it's a good memory of times with friends, or laments of all you "lost" is up to you.

Life is a long string of moments, and each one once gone is irrevocably gone. There's no point angsting about things you can't change. It's not a cynical thing, it's a liberating idea.

The idea is more that you realize that everything in life is fleeting, and you take joy where you can. If you understand that in the end it's all meaningless you're free to ignore anything you don't like.

So its ok to get drunk and not bring in a paycheck to a wife or kids if your having fun and it oks to pretend that the homeless guy who stepped over on the sidewalk doesn't extist?

Look at it this way, say you play an MMORPG. You spend perhaps years building a character, fighting, dying, making friends and enemies. In the end, the servers come down for the last time, and all you have is your memory of it. Now whether it's a good memory of times with friends, or laments of all you "lost" is up to you.

Of course if you playing just for items and value of gold or "special items" in a game and not for the fun or the pursit of being good then you have a problem. Just like trying to get rich is less important then throwing the baseball in the backyard with your kids.



Life is a long string of moments, and each one once gone is irrevocably gone. There's no point angsting about things you can't change. It's not a cynical thing, it's a liberating idea.

Yes I agree 100% and that what I try to do everyday. So (and this is probably why I became a atheist) wouldn't that be common sense? Why do you need another reglion to teach you what you should already know by the time you get out of high school?

So its ok to get drunk and not bring in a paycheck to a wife or kids if your having fun and it oks to pretend that the homeless guy who stepped over on the sidewalk doesn't extist?

Sure, why not? Your karma is really your problem. Assuming you exist.

The problem with this reglion is that the whole point of it is to become happy by making sure everything in life has no value to you. That if you don't have any expections,hopes or dreams then you can never be disapointed. Nirvana to me seens to be a state where ones gives up their humanity. They seek to control their emotions like a depressed teenager or a hurted lover may walled up their hearts. And one care to enlighten me why they think I wrong?
Sure. For starters:

The problem with this religion is that the whole point of it is to become happy by making sure everything in life has no value to you, that if you don't have any expections, [space] hopes or dreams then you can never be disapointed. Nirvana, to me, seems to be a state where one gives up one's humanity. One seek to control one's emotions like a depressed teenager or a hurt lover might, keeping them walled up one's heart. Anyone care to enlighten me as to why they think I am wrong?

The bolded parts are all things you are wrong about. Your errors have been corrected, yet you did not experience the correction. Therefore, were you corrected? Meditate upon that until you figure out that, in addition to having bad grammar, you also know nothing at all about the teachings of Buddhism. Then, when you have exposed the demon of your lack of insight, trap it in your bathroom and don't let it out until it has answered the following questions:

> How is it possible to be detached from the world without thinking that the world is without value?

> How is it possible to be liberated from the bonds of self without losing a sense of self, but rather by experiencing and expressing it to the fullest?

> What is the difference between controlling one's emotions and being free of emotional attachments?

After the demon has either been destroyed or enlightened (which is the same as destruction) by a lightning bolt of insight into those matters, spend three days explaining to your dog why Pirates of the Caribbean is a better movie than Lord of the Rings. Do not relent in your efforts to explain until (a) your dog expresses understanding and/or (b) you realize that it doesn't even matter whether either of those movies is any good.

Then go read a book about Buddhism.

my favorite Lama video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qg0aX0KVSQ&NR=1

Sure. For starters:



The bolded parts are all things you are wrong about. Your errors have been corrected, yet you did not experience the correction. Therefore, were you corrected? Meditate upon that until you figure out that, in addition to having bad grammar, you also know nothing at all about the teachings of Buddhism. Then, when you have exposed the demon of your lack of insight, trap it in your bathroom and don't let it out until it has answered the following questions:

> How is it possible to be detached from the world without thinking that the world is without value?

> How is it possible to be liberated from the bonds of self without losing a sense of self, but rather by experiencing and expressing it to the fullest?

> What is the difference between controlling one's emotions and being free of emotional attachments?

After the demon of your ignorance has either been destroyed or enlightened (which is the same as destruction) by a lightning bolt of insight into those matters, spend three days explaining to your dog why Pirates of the Caribbean is a better movie that Lord of the Rings. Do not relent in your efforts explain until (a) your dog expresses understanding and/or (b) you realize that it doesn't even matter whether either of those movies is any good.

Then go read a book about Buddhism.

You forgot the cupcake in the pants. That's the most important part. *nod*

You forgot the cupcake in the pants. That's the most important part. *nod*
That comes after the book. There's no point in rushing the process, or he will gain nothing but more illusions.

By the way, Smunkee, in case it is not obvious from my post to Fighter4u, I tend towards the Tantric/Zen school of thought involving direct experience.

I read zen works, studied zen art, meditated in za-zen manner, and did all that sort of thing until I kind of got what it was all about. Then I carried on being an animist and never gave it another thought -- which is kind of what it is all about.

I also studied Tantric teachings, especially about death and tranformation, which has, sadly, left me incapable of discussing with Christians why an omnibenevolent god would let evil exist in the world.

Well that is one way to look at it.. :p





And yes I know my grammar is bad. That why I don't post much on NS even those I lurk a lot. But Buddhism is one of those things I always wondered about in a long complex way that only teenagers who have noting better to do on a Saturday can do.


edit: And their cupcakes? Where?
Oops. Look at that. All your profound thoughts vanished like the illusions they were because you did not break up the quotes properly. Think more deeply and try again.

(EDIT: In violation of zen teaching protocols, I will warn you in advance that if you do not try to correct your grammar at the same time that you correct your quote breaks, I will only throw your answers back at you for grammar-fixing. Seriously, some of those sentences are painful to read.)

Sure, why not? Your karma is really your problem. Assuming you exist.

Well that is one way to look at it.. :p


Sure. For starters:


The bolded parts are all things you are wrong about. Your errors have been corrected, yet you did not experience the correction. Therefore, were you corrected? Meditate on that until you figure out that, besides having bad grammar, you also know nothing at all about the teachings of Buddhism. Then, when you have exposed the demon of your lack of insight, trap it in your bathroom and do not let it out until it has answered the following questions:


Well I never claimed to have a good understanding of Buddhism(or grammar for that matter.) I am just a non-existing teenage boy posting in an internet forum and for that matter it why I still had not gone to the washroom yet. :$

> How is it possible to be detached from the world without thinking that the world is without value?

It is possible to think that the world has value. Value as to the beauty of a morning sunrise or even in the sexy legs of a Jamaican whore who rubs them against Ayn Ryan at night. It doesn't really matter what you think value is. What is important is if you think that the morning sun is an evil thing that can sometimes sadden you. You hide in your bedroom until you convince yourself that the total darkness is what makes you happy and not the sunlight.

> How is it possible to be liberated from the bonds of self without losing a sense of self, but rather by experiencing and expressing it to the fullest?

I'm confused. As in I don't get what counter point you're trying to make as I can't seen to figured out what point your are attempting to counter.


> What is the difference between controlling one's emotions and being free of emotional attachments?

The difference of controlling one emotion instead of being "free" of emotional attachments is that the ones who controls their emotions are still human. They still think the world has value. They just don't think it worth the effort or risk of being hurt to be happy. And while they may have been hurt from interacting with the world they aren't going to just pretend it doesn't exist. They aren't going to pretend that one can't be sad, or one can't want something that another person has. Being free of emotional attachments to me feels like someone who won't go through the cycle of being sad, so they can be enjoy being happy. If you have no emotional attachment then you neither feel happy about a baby being born or sad that a boyfriend/girlfriend has left you. In short you can't enjoy being human which from a scientist viewpoint is about mating and such carrying on your genes. In other words you're not fulfilling the reason you are one way or the other "here" on earth.

I mean I can see the benefits of not having your happiness being a measure of how much money you got in the bank. But what about your children or a house that you have memories of. If they get taken away from you are you supposed to pretend they have no value?


After the demon of your ignorance has either been destroyed or enlightened (which is the same as destruction) by a lightning bolt of insight into those matters, spend three days explaining to your dog why Pirates of the Caribbean is a better movie then Lords of the Rings. Do not relent in your efforts explain until (a) your dog expresses understanding and/or (b) you realize that it doesn't even matter whether either of those movies is any good.

Then go read a book about Buddhism.

First, I actually have to watch LOTR which is mean, second my dog ran off with some bitch and do you have any books you suggests? :D


And yes I know my grammar is bad. That why I don't post much on NS even those I lurk a lot. But Buddhism is one of those things I always wondered about in a long complex way that only teenagers who have noting better to do on a Saturday can do.


edit: And their cupcakes? Where?

Buddhism boils down into 2 main doctrine. The 4 noble truths and the Noble 8 fold path.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.




Noble Eightfold Path



The Noble Eightfold Path describes the way to the end of suffering, as it was laid out by Siddhartha Gautama. It is a practical guideline to ethical and mental development with the goal of freeing the individual from attachments and delusions; and it finally leads to understanding the truth about all things. Together with the Four Noble Truths it constitutes the gist of Buddhism. Great emphasis is put on the practical aspect, because it is only through practice that one can attain a higher level of existence and finally reach Nirvana. The eight aspects of the path are not to be understood as a sequence of single steps, instead they are highly interdependent principles that have to be seen in relationship with each other.

1. Right View

Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realize the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.



4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavors that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualize sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualization in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration

The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

*snip*

Yes I already knew that TB, religion class was last year and what I learned gave me the impression that Buddhism is (no offend) BS( just like you might think atheist is BS or whatever.) Nirvana is not something that I had reached but something that I understood until I stopped because all it did was make me depressed.

I as a human being need to want a lover or to feel happy or feel that working for 30 years of my life will give me a house I love. Not some a building that means noting to me. I learned from tv shows and reading books that you should not "cling" to things. I don't need a religion to tell me to feel like a robot. I mean how can you feel happiness if you reach Nirvana? In the end all they teach you is to control your angry and to live life to the fullest.
This the basic of Buddhism and is what made me fall in love with it. This is something I reach for these days even if it means I don't lust after girls as much because I don't rely on them for my happiness and such I find myself turning down a girl I may actually like. This is ingrain in me yet doesn't this stop me from being happy(from enjoying each moment of happiness as Buddhism aims for?

If you ask me Buddhism aims to give you happiness by lowing the standard you have for happiness and I can't find the benefits of it. So unless somebody can convince me otherwise we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes I already knew that TB, religion class was last year and what I learned gave me the impression that Buddhism is (no offend) BS( just like you might think atheist is BS or whatever.) Nirvana is not something that I had reached but something that I understood until I stopped because all it did was make me depressed.

I as a human being need to want a lover or to feel happy or feel that working for 30 years of my life will give me a house I love. Not some a building that means noting to me. I learned from tv shows and reading books that you should not "cling" to things. I don't need a religion to tell me to feel like a robot. I mean how can you feel happiness if you reach Nirvana? In the end all they teach you is to control your angry and to live life to the fullest.
This the basic of Buddhism and is what made me fall in love with it. This is something I reach for these days even if it means I don't lust after girls as much because I don't rely on them for my happiness and such I find myself turning down a girl I may actually like. This is ingrain in me yet doesn't this stop me from being happy(from enjoying each moment of happiness as Buddhism aims for?

If you ask me Buddhism aims to give you happiness by lowing the standard you have for happiness and I can't find the benefits of it. So unless somebody can convince me otherwise we will have to agree to disagree.

I think you misunderstand. Buddhism doesn't lower your standards, it changes them. The aim of Buddhism isn't happiness, it's transcendence. By meditating on nothingness, you ultiimately transcend need, you don't need things, you don't need love, you don't need happiness, you don't need to need. You just are/not. Eventually, you attain Nirvana (not the band but this -http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm) - which is the ultimate in being/not being.

Well that is one way to look at it.. :p





Well I never claimed to have a good understanding of Buddhism(or grammar for that matter.) I am just a non-existing teenage boy posting in an internet forum and for that matter it why I still had not gone to the washroom yet. :$
Well done. Now we can get into it.

It is possible to think that the world has value. Value as to the beauty of a morning sunrise or even in the sexy legs of a Jamaican whore who rubs them against Ayn Ryan at night. It doesn't really matter what you think value is. What is important is if you think that the morning sun is an evil thing that can sometimes sadden you. You hide in your bedroom until you convince yourself that the total darkness is what makes you happy and not the sunlight.
This is relevant to what, exactly, in your imagination? When I ask you about detachment from the world, why do you come back with remarks about thinking the sunrise is evil?

I'm confused. As in I don't get what counter point you're trying to make as I can't seen to figured out what point your are attempting to counter.
I am not making a counter point to any point of yours. I am asking you a question. Please answer it.

The difference of controlling one emotion instead of being "free" of emotional attachments is that the ones who controls their emotions are still human.
How is it possible for a human being ever to do anything that is not human?

Can a bird do something that is not bird? Can water do something that will cause it to stop being water? A human is a human, expressing human nature, and thus everything a human does is necessarily human because it is done by a human.

Therefore, explain how a human freeing him/herself of emotional attachments stops being human. If the detachment is attained by a human, is that not then a human action? And is the condition of such a human not a human condition? Therefore, how can it cause the human to stop being human?

They still think the world has value. They just don't think it worth the effort or risk of being hurt to be happy. And while they may have been hurt from interacting with the world they aren't going to just pretend it doesn't exist. They aren't going to pretend that one can't be sad, or one can't want something that another person has. Being free of emotional attachments to me feels like someone who won't go through the cycle of being sad, so they can be enjoy being happy. If you have no emotional attachment then you neither feel happy about a baby being born or sad that a boyfriend/girlfriend has left you. In short you can't enjoy being human which from a scientist viewpoint is about mating and such carrying on your genes.
You are losing the plot on your grammar again. I commend you for your efforts so far, but do try to stay on the Path of Right Speech.

Also, kindly explain how not being attached to one's emotions means you are not feeling them.

In other words you're not fulfilling the reason you are one way or the other "here" on earth.
What is the reason you are on earth?

I mean I can see the benefits of not having your happiness being a measure of how much money you got in the bank. But what about your children or a house that you have memories of. If they get taken away from you are you supposed to pretend they have no value?

Again, please explain how not being attached to your emotions means you do not feel emotions.

First, I actually have to watch LOTR which is mean, second my dog ran off with some bitch and do you have any books you suggests? :D
1) Then watch it. Use the experience to practice detachment from the experience of suffering.

2) Any dog will do.

3) No. Get your own damned education.

And yes I know my grammar is bad. That why I don't post much on NS even those I lurk a lot. But Buddhism is one of those things I always wondered about in a long complex way that only teenagers who have noting better to do on a Saturday can do.


edit: And their cupcakes?
Yes, Buddhism has cupcakes.

Where?
In their pants. Didn't you read the freakin' thread?

Yes I already knew that TB, religion class was last year and what I learned gave me the impression that Buddhism is (no offend) BS( just like you might think atheist is BS or whatever.) Nirvana is not something that I had reached but something that I understood until I stopped because all it did was make me depressed.
Then you failed to understand it at all. Don't be discouraged. You have the endless cycles of the Wheel of Time and the Wheel of Life, and infinite reincarnations, in which to figure it out.

Start by asking yourself this (after you explain the movies to the dog):

Why do most Buddhists not find it depressing at all?

<snip for pointlessness and bad grammar>

If you ask me Buddhism aims to give you happiness by lowering the standard you have for happiness, and I can't find the benefits of it. So unless somebody can convince me otherwise we will have to agree to disagree.
You are doomed. The reason you are doomed is because your mind is closed. You have been offered guidance towards something that might answer the question you raised, but instead of acting on that guidance, you continue to repeat your objections, which are based on ignorance.

You have been given a list of questions to think about and a task to carry out. The questions and the task are specifically designed to lead you towards an understanding of the nature of Nirvana and the purpose of Buddhist practice, about which you are currently mistaken. Instead trying to find an answer to those questions and carrying out that task, you cling to a set of shallow preconceptions that do nothing but feed a self-indulgent desire to wallow in emotionalism. You repeat and repeat them as if you think other people are interested in them.

The bottom line is this: You are mistaken about Nirvana. You can choose to do something about that error, or you can choose not to. On both the level of the illusion of manifest existence in the becoming universe and the level of my personal interest, it makes no difference whatsoever. But you asked the question. I offered one possible answer in the form of a set of experiences you could choose to have (in keeping with my arbitrarily preferred way of learning about things like this). But whether you follow the hints I gave you, or accept anyone else's answers, or continue blathering ungrammatically about how you need feelings, it will all be as the wind to me.

I think you misunderstand. Buddhism doesn't lower your standards, it changes them. The aim of Buddhism isn't happiness, it's transcendence. By meditating on nothingness, you ultiimately transcend need, you don't need things, you don't need love, you don't need happiness, you don't need to need. You just are/not. Eventually, you attain Nirvana (not the band but this -http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm) - which is the ultimate in being/not being.
Also key to understanding this is the realization that, even upon achieving Nirvana, one does not stop being and living. One no longer suffers from love or lack of love, but that does not mean that one stops feeling love. Just as one no longer suffers (emotionally/psychologically) from hunger, but that does not mean one stops eating. Whatever is, is. Whatever is one's condition at the moment, one lives in that moment.

Yes, Buddhism has cupcakes.
Unless you're in Japan, then you have mochi. :cool:

Unless you're in Japan, then you have mochi. :cool:

Okay, they really need to work on their pastry industry. :p

Smunkee, the only comment I can really add at this point is that one problem with reading Buddhist texts is that they are highly metaphorical, and it may take a lot of explanation to get all of the metaphores. To give an example from Nerdvana, think of the ST:TNG episode Darmok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok) - Buddhist texts are rather like that...

Muravyets, your experience with the Dharma is close to mine - Zen and Tantric traditions. :)

Okay, they really need to work on their pastry industry. :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Wagashi.jpg/280px-Wagashi.jpg

Note that those actually really are Zen "cupcakes". They're tea ceremony sweets, and the tea ceremony is deeply connected with Zen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Wagashi.jpg/280px-Wagashi.jpg

Note that those actually really are Zen "cupcakes". They're tea ceremony sweets, and the tea ceremony is deeply connected with Zen.

http://lordmarcusmaximus.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/chocodiles_top_450w.jpg

Those are chocodiles and they are deeply connected to yumminess. :)

Smunkee, the only comment I can really add at this point is that one problem with reading Buddhist texts is that they are highly metaphorical, and it may take a lot of explanation to get all of the metaphores. To give an example from Nerdvana, think of the ST:TNG episode Darmok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok) - Buddhist texts are rather like that...

Muravyets, your experience with the Dharma is close to mine - Zen and Tantric traditions FTW. :)
Fixed. :D

I like to conduct my own little versions of the tea ceremony around my afternoon coffee and donut. It's very centering. *nods*

I like to conduct my own little versions of the tea ceremony around my afternoon coffee and donut. It's very centering. *nods*

:)
At the end of the month I'll be doing my first retreat with Shingon... My Tantric study has all been Tibetan schools.

Mind the gap...

I read zen works, studied zen art, meditated in za-zen manner, and did all that sort of thing until I kind of got what it was all about.
Ahh, then maybe you'd (or Daistallia) be so kind as to give me some advice?

Would you happen to know a good commentary on the Shōbōgenzō (or Zen in general)? I've been doing some zazen and would like to read some more; thinking of getting this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0824814010/sr=8-2/qid=1236451372/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1236451372&sr=8-2&seller=).

Any thoughts?


Mind the gap...
Lollerz.

Ahh, then maybe you'd (or Daistallia) be so kind as to give me some advice?

Would you happen to know a good commentary on the Shōbōgenzō (or Zen in general)? I've been doing some zazen and would like to read some more; thinking of getting this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0824814010/sr=8-2/qid=1236451372/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1236451372&sr=8-2&seller=).

Any thoughts?



Lollerz.
Well, I'm so fucking zen, that I'd say "why bother"? I really don't have a library of recommendable titles. As soon as I read something and wrap my brain around the concept, I take the concept and forget its author. The only books I keep are collections of poetry and zen art.

I hope Daistallia will be more helpful. Sorry.

Well, I'm so fucking zen, that I'd say "why bother"?
:P

I hope Daistallia will be more helpful. Sorry.
Not at all.

Ta anyhoo.

I as a human being need to want a lover or to feel happy or feel that working for 30 years of my life will give me a house I love. Not some a building that means noting to me. I learned from tv shows and reading books that you should not "cling" to things. I don't need a religion to tell me to feel like a robot. I mean how can you feel happiness if you reach Nirvana? In the end all they teach you is to control your angry and to live life to the fullest.

If you ask me Buddhism aims to give you happiness by lowing the standard you have for happiness and I can't find the benefits of it. So unless somebody can convince me otherwise we will have to agree to disagree.

I used to think that lack of attachment meant not caring or being passionate, too. But I do not think these are at all incompatible. I see the attachment which causes suffering as attachment to the idea that anything in this world is permanent--attachment to life as it is right now or as you would like it to be. I may feel great love and passion for a person, for instance; there's nothing wrong with that. But if, instead of enjoying the single moment I live in, I am instead attached to the idea of this person as an unchanging object, as something that will always be in my life, as something I rely upon for happiness--then when inevitable change comes I will experience suffering, because I am clinging to the illusion of permanence and past/future instead of acknowledging that the only moment that exists is the present one.

Okay, they really need to work on their pastry industry. :p

I love mochi. :(

I love mochi. :(
Me too. I'd take it over cupcake any day.

I love mochi. :(

Me too. I'd take it over cupcake any day.

Really? Hmm... maybe I'm prejudiced against the idea because of the horrid diet food called rice cakes, but I will temporarily retract my disdain of them until I have had a chance to thoroughly sample them. *nod*

Really? Hmm... maybe I'm prejudiced against the idea because of the horrid diet food called rice cakes, but I will temporarily retract my disdain of them until I have had a chance to thoroughly sample them. *nod*
Rice cakes are COMPLETELY different from mochi. Mochi are much, much better.

Rice cakes are COMPLETELY different from mochi. Mochi are much, much better.

Plain or with red bean filling?

Plain or with red bean filling?

Both! And with ice cream filling!

The frozen yogurt place nearby makes four different flavors of mochi every morning. They're lovely people.

Both! And with ice cream filling!

The frozen yogurt place nearby makes four different flavors of mochi every morning. They're lovely people.

Okay, that sounds interesting.

Ahh, then maybe you'd (or Daistallia) be so kind as to give me some advice?

Would you happen to know a good commentary on the Shōbōgenzō (or Zen in general)? I've been doing some zazen and would like to read some more; thinking of getting this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0824814010/sr=8-2/qid=1236451372/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1236451372&sr=8-2&seller=).

Any thoughts?



Lollerz.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/shinji.htm

Really? Hmm... maybe I'm prejudiced against the idea because of the horrid diet food called rice cakes, but I will temporarily retract my disdain of them until I have had a chance to thoroughly sample them. *nod*

Aha. The stuff sold as "rice cakes" in the west is something I've never seen over here. Mochi is steamed glutinous rice pounded into paste, and is often used like dough in Japanese pastries.

Rice cakes are COMPLETELY different from mochi. Mochi are much, much better.

Indeed

Okay, that sounds interesting.

http://sweetbridgeusa.com/ seems to offer some nice samples.

And Fugetsu-do (http://www.fugetsu-do.com/) offers chocolate mochi...

And I seem to have found several places selling "mochi ice cream". Wouldn't stuffing a bunch of sticky rice paste and ice cream down somebodies pants be fun? :tongue:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReviews/shinji.htm
Many thanks.

Interesting looking site, too.