Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I think I must have some circuits missing... practical does it for me. I like Emerson, Thoreau, Twain etc... but hyperbole tends to make things needlessly complex. I think you need more than there is to the nature of suffering when associated with desire...it is pretty obvious, but mankind has a great track record of missing the obvious... Basically, can you dispute that it doesn't speak to a default state of humanity? 'But it's not very deep is it?' just sounds like typical bitching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Basically, can you dispute that it doesn't speak to a default state of humanity? 'But it's not very deep is it?' just sounds like typical bitching... Ah, I love it when you get all crusty and prickly gramps (really). Default state = suffering? No, suffering is only one part of the human experience, which is a rainbow of at least several other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 since when did 'a'='the' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 since when did 'a'='the' Maybe when A-The-ism was invented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If it wasn't jokes like that, that killed vaudeville, it's certainly the type of material that stops it coming back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If it wasn't jokes like that, that killed vaudeville, it's certainly the type of material that stops it coming back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Just to rattle off my own two cents... As I've expressed many times before, I admire Buddhism. To me, it seems a simple, rational philosophy that encourages the adherent to seek balance, knowledge, and peacefulness in life. It discourages extremes of thought or action, especially those which lead us to become over-attached to desires or anything else in an unhealthy fashion. To me, that is it. That is the meat-and-potatoes of basic Buddhist thought, and though the meditation traditions and extra concepts tacked on by the various schools of Buddhism may or may not have any merit, this is what I get most out of Buddhism. It is simple on one hand and yet profound, in that it speaks a few timeless truths that we humans can benefit from. Even so, it's not perfect. Nothing is. For example, I disagree heavily with the teaching that we must avoid doing harm - it is not possible to exist and do no harm. Even walking on grass squashes the blades themselves, or we digest innumerable microrganisms when we drink or eat or even breathe. If we want to survive, we need to destroy and devour (or at least displace) many animals and plants, directly or indirectly. It is simply impossible to not do harm and survive - but since Buddhism encourages us to question its own teachings and apply them as we see fit to our lives, questioning and mostly denying this concept is perhaps a very Buddhic thing to do. I simply avoid doing unecessary harm, and think that should be the proper understanding of that concept, but again, that's me. I'm still rather new to Buddhism, after years of rejecting it under the false premises that Buddhism is anti-desire, anti-pleasure, antagonistic to the concept of "ego" or "self" or worships the Buddha like some god. As with any concept or belief, I will never be a totally traditional adherent and will find some things to deny or take issue with, but I cannopt help but think the Buddha himself would smile on that sort of disposition. And he'd be a hell of a guy to smile on my disposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 What is the Buddhist take on what has been called by some "the first basic dualism." This dualism is the distinction that we make between ourselves and everything else. There is me and then there is my ambience. There is me and there is also my environment. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Then here is my criticism of Buddhism Jun. I can't help but feel that you've done some fancy footwork around a very important question. This answer feels evasive to me. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. This is from the Heart sutra which asserts the "emptiness" of all "things" and simultaneously the "thingness" of all "emptiness." Actually, the question of dualism and non-dualism in Buddhism is usually answered with "Things remain distinct while not being separate." Dualism is illusory. The true nature of reality is non-dualistic. There is also the concept of 'inherent existence'... a chair is only a chair because we call it one, from the point of view of the chair (if a chair can be said to have a 'point of view') our imputed definition is of no import. It depends on many things for both its role and its existence. A Chippendale chair relies on not just a maker, but also trees, that need soil, water and sunshine. Soil is a planetary phenomenon... and so on all the way up to the universe... Thus the chair has no inherent or 'real' existence independent of all other causes and conditions. I have the feeling that it's possible to explain that SO much better in predicate calculus than it is in English... You are probably right! But, math removes the necessary pointing finger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 But couldn't it also be said that Everybody everywhere feels joy? In my life I have experienced many things and suffering is only one of them. Why would the first noble truth focus on just one area of life? Yes of course we all feel joy. The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering/desire because that is what brings us unhappiness - sorrow - pain. It occurs to me that the ultimate outcome of this would be essentially the same effect that the drug lithium brings to users. Without desire it is likely true that pain is eliminated, but so is joy. Er, the idea is not to eliminate desire. The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires. Yes, it's wonderful to have a new cadillac, but don't be the guy with the megaphone on those commercials shouting, "I'm making up for my shortcomings!" Your posts are reflecting my own thoughts Jun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires. I don't even know what any of this means. Thanks for bringing it up though, this is my third criticism (you did ask for them ). Buddhists seem to make meaningless statements that are somehow supposed to be deep. I'm sure the problem is the fact that I'm just obtuse, but I don't know what Buddhist are even talking about half the time. Is the rock inside or outside your mind? Dunno, but the question makes my mind feel like a rock and I suspect that the correct answer to the question won't raise my level of consciousness whatever that may mean. To 'grasp' means to invest a load of personal identity and place condition of continuing happiness into a desire... You know, like Christians do in Christ... Hey, I said that first somewhere! Damn...I'm having a crisis of self today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If it wasn't jokes like that, that killed vaudeville, it's certainly the type of material that stops it coming back Ooh, come on! Admit that you did smile a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 IF common sense were truly common then there'd be a parcel fewer fundies... Ah, you are quick. I tried to delete that. As I noted with Casey though, common sense may not be common, but it is certainly not profound. Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence... I think it is profound to people that have never considered that the "self" wasn't something that was permanent. It was very profound to me because it was so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If the self was permanent, we'd all still be Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If the self was permanent, we'd all still be Christians. Isn't that the truth! Yet even when I learned that the self wasn't permanent, I didn't apply that to my daily life. It just didn't connect. I still thought that I could find my identity somewhere outside of myself in material things or in other people. I only dropped the God part of my identity. People can and do bring wonderful happiness to me, but I no longer rely on them for my own happiness. Ironically, this makes everyone even more happy! It's those subtle messages that I missed and I needed some insight. Many philosophies and religions point to this, but I was one of the group that misunderstood what was being said. I took the messages and looked outward (or skyward at first). So, it does go a little deeper than just knowing I think (so I probably phrased my first response wrong!) Oh well...one of those days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Er, the idea is not to eliminate desire. The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires. There are things one needs, and things one merely wants. The trick is to know the difference between the two. Would it be then true to say that a person is only truly happy when their desires (or wants if you like), happen to coincide as nearly as possible with their needs? Casey I think you can enjoy things you want as well. Just don't become dependant on them for your happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires. I don't even know what any of this means. Thanks for bringing it up though, this is my third criticism (you did ask for them ). Buddhists seem to make meaningless statements that are somehow supposed to be deep. I'm sure the problem is the fact that I'm just obtuse, but I don't know what Buddhist are even talking about half the time. Is the rock inside or outside your mind? Dunno, but the question makes my mind feel like a rock and I suspect that the correct answer to the question won't raise my level of consciousness whatever that may mean. To 'grasp' means to invest a load of personal identity and place condition of continuing happiness into a desire... You know, like Christians do in Christ... Hey, I said that first somewhere! Damn...I'm having a crisis of self today! Who listens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 If it wasn't jokes like that, that killed vaudeville, it's certainly the type of material that stops it coming back Ooh, come on! Admit that you did smile a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Personally, I identify much more with Socrates and Aristotle (and, to a lesser extent, the cynics and stoics) than the Buddha. I understand his philosophy and agree with most of it, but the western philosophers "speak my language" in a way Siddhārtha doesn't. Chalk it up to the cultural divide between east and west, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Personally, I identify much more with Socrates and Aristotle (and, to a lesser extent, the cynics and stoics) than the Buddha. I understand his philosophy and agree with most of it, but the western philosophers "speak my language" in a way Siddhārtha doesn't. Chalk it up to the cultural divide between east and west, I suppose. Well, being raised Christian, one would... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I'm normally sharp enough to catch your references, GH, but I'm afraid this one went just over my head. Explain for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I'm normally sharp enough to catch your references, GH, but I'm afraid this one went just over my head. Explain for me? Western culture is Judeao-Christian. The base philosophy owes more to Aristotle and Socrates than it does a 1st century Jewish mystic. Aristotle's and Socrates' philosophies have their roots in Persian and Western Vedic thought... Western Philosophic ideas and ideals get a double dose of Middle Eastern Philosophy since both Persian and Jewish mystical thought became syncreted into Classical thought well prior to the Romans. The Romans took Classical Greek philosophy and did their own thing for their own ends... but the primary influence in the Ur-Philosophy of the West is Latinate-Hellenic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires. I don't even know what any of this means. Thanks for bringing it up though, this is my third criticism (you did ask for them ). Buddhists seem to make meaningless statements that are somehow supposed to be deep. I'm sure the problem is the fact that I'm just obtuse, but I don't know what Buddhist are even talking about half the time. Is the rock inside or outside your mind? Dunno, but the question makes my mind feel like a rock and I suspect that the correct answer to the question won't raise my level of consciousness whatever that may mean. To 'grasp' means to invest a load of personal identity and place condition of continuing happiness into a desire... You know, like Christians do in Christ... Hey, I said that first somewhere! Damn...I'm having a crisis of self today! Who listens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. I thought it was my usual meandering nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 People tend to read about a third and understand a fifth of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts