Basic Buddhism

[Renegnicat]

Ok. Instead of waiting for a topic on buddhism to be initiated by anyone else, I've decided to set aside a basic primer on buddhism. Now, before I begin, let me first say that there is much debate and interpretation even within buddhist communities. Also, I am not overly concerned with the extent to which my words coincide with any particular buddhist teacher. I will gladly give credit to whoever original said or understood the things which I am now going to say. As a result, I am not going to take extreme care to be completely orthodox or attribute my views to any particular sect. I am simply, to quote another, reporting things as I see them.

The first thing that buddhism deals with is a direct observation of the problems we face as human being. The first noble truth states that "life is dukha" where, dukha is commonly translated into "suffering". This is an ok statement, but it's produced a lot of confusion, too. It is much easier simply to observe the first noble truth as, "People want things."

In this way, the essence of the first observation is that people, you, I, she, he, everyone, wants things. And what do they want? Everything!. People's desires are never fulfilled. We are like sisyphus with his boulder, who constantly pushes the boulder to the top of the hill, only to have it roll back down. And through it all, he is not satisfied. In the same way, we are not satisfied.

This basic observation serves as both the first noble truth(We suffer), and the second noble truth(because we want things). Basically, because we grasp, and because we want things, but because we can never have them, or, when we have them, they eventually are taken away, we suffer.

It's a given that we can never have what we want, because everything in the universe is constantly changing. And anything that we like, anything that we enjoy, is bound to change into something that we may not like as much.

Now then, the third noble truth is commonly interpreted as, "Just as all things arise and cease, so does this arise and cease." Really, though, this generates a lot of confusion as well. Many people think that if "samsara"(the universe) is constant flux, and that if samsara itself ceases, then the road to enlightenment is some sort of thing outside of samsara. People tend to think that buddhism points to a path outside of the universe, where we can finally be happy. But this is incorrect. You see, samsara, while usually interpreted as the universe, is actually the same thing as our grasping. Samsara "is" our wanting, and our restlessness. Samsara isn't "out there" as in the universe, but it's not "in here" as in ourselves either. Rather, it lies at the boundary of ourselves and the universe. It lies in the type of interaction between ourselves and the universe.

These are the three noble truths, then: 1. That we grasp for things, 2. that we can never have what we grasp, and never get rid of what we don't want. and 3. We can stop grasping, and thus, stop suffering.

Now then, the fourth noble truth has caused much confusion amongst practitioners of the dhamma. Those who know what it means are not confused, but it is so tempting to misinterpret or bring false expectations to the noble eightfold path that I have opted to take a simpler route. As you may know, the eightfold path is the way to allow us to stop grasping. and thus, stop suffering. But it's so given to confusion, that I will simply give my own method:

The best way to follow the eightfold path is through observation without conception. This means that we should observe our wants. Observe our grasping, but do not dwell on them.Don't cling to them. And certainly don't judge your grasping as either "good" or "bad".

There are some techniques that I use to help one achieve this. The first technique is to listen to some music that doesn't have lyrics, and that has distinct notes. It doesn't matter what type of music, so long as you can distinguish the notes and so that it doesn't have lyrics. Classical music works fine.

Now, what you do is settle yourself in a comfortable position and play the music. It helps if there is less ambient noise, though you don't need it. Now, when the music starts playing, focus your attention on each individual note. When you hear a note, don't think, "that's a note" or judge the note or anything. Just listen to the note. And when the note is gone, it is gone, don't remember the note that you heard, listen to the next note! Do not fall behind or start contemplating anything. Simply listen to each note in sequence. Literally, give each note your undivided attention. But don't dwell on them, stay with the music.

A proper maxim might be, "when meditating, first, focus on what comes first. Second, focus on what comes second." The music is intended to help you realize this goal. It works, because in general music goes faster than an individual breath. a note is much faster, so there is less time for distraction. But go ahead, give it a try.

Another technique, one that might be more helpful is similiar to the music exercise, but with feelings and desires. Everytime you feel something, whether it be anger, sadness, joy, loneliness, and everytime you want something, or even want to not want something, follow these steps: 1. Observe your emotion/want 2. IMMEDIATELY observe what "comes next". In this case, it may not always be the soundof music. It doesn't matter what comes next either, just observe it. But wait! Don't stop there! Now observe what comes next, and what comes next, until you run out of stamina. Then repeat the process the next time you feel anything or want anything or don't want anything.

As you progress, you'll be able to go longer and longer without dwelling on anything. In the words of a famous buddhist master, "your mind will rest nowhere". It should become progressively easier.

And then, sooner or later, it will just "click", and you'll realize that this is all there is. You will "see" that this is all there is. You will understand that ultimately there is nothing to understand. This is nirvana. Enlightenment. Note, however, that Nirvana is a byproduct of the eightfold path. It is not Nirvana that solves all your problems. It is simply being, simply seeing, that does. Nirvana is just the realization. Once you achieve it, do not dwell on it, simply observe what comes next.

Any questions?  

[Sophus]

Thank you Renegnicat. I did not know those were the steps in Buddhism for overcoming a whim. From what I've read of Eckhart Tolle, who struck me as sort of a Buddhist, he suggested we become aware of ego and laugh it off. The "Being" solution is a very nice one and reminds me of Mr. Erich Fromm's book To Have Or To Be? If you're not familiar with it: You will love it! Highly profound and much of his philosophy is very closely related to Buddhism. In fact, as psychoanalyst he spent much time studying the Buddhist psyche as it had stirred "a profound interest among psychologists." Fromm explains what Being in such an elegant way. I would be delighted to hear your input on it, compare/contrast with Buddhist idea of being, if you're interested in the read.

[AlP]

I see parallels with existentialism and also differences. The existentialist in me says, "no systems and no easy way out! Embrace the absurdity of life." You used the metaphor of Sisyphus and his rock. To me every day I am Sisyphus pushing the rock up the mountain and every night it rolls back down. From a detached standpoint, life is just as meaningless as Sisyphus and his punishment. But from a human perspective I imagine Sisyphus happy with his situation, as Camus did. This is absurd of course. But I take the absurdity by the horns and run towards death nonetheless. The trick, in my opinion, is not to take the guided tour bus to death. Run.  

[Renegnicat]

Sisyphus and his rock holds a very interesting situation, A|P. It's interesting, because though buddhism advocates an end to suffering, you could say that the buddha makes no remarks on samsara. In fact, it is entirely appropriate to say that when we are not enlightened, we are like sisyphus and the rock. But, when we are enlightened, we are also like sisyphus and his rock.

I find it interesting that you imagine Sisyphus to be happy: Indeed, one could say that sisyphus "is" enlightened. Samsara is the same both ways, and we are the same both ways as well. What changes, then, is our interaction with the mountain and the rock. Our interaction with samsara.

Indeed. Sisyphus is happy.  

[Sophus]

How many forms of Buddhism consists of Ethical Nihilism, if any at all?

[notself]

Thank you Renegnicat. I did not know those were the steps in Buddhism for overcoming a whim. From what I've read of Eckhart Tolle, who struck me as sort of a Buddhist, he suggested we become aware of ego and laugh it off. The "Being" solution is a very nice one and reminds me of Mr. Erich Fromm's book To Have Or To Be? If you're not familiar with it: You will love it! Highly profound and much of his philosophy is very closely related to Buddhism. In fact, as psychoanalyst he spent much time studying the Buddhist psyche as it had stirred "a profound interest among psychologists." Fromm explains what Being in such an elegant way. I would be delighted to hear your input on it, compare/contrast with Buddhist idea of being, if you're interested in the read.

Eckhart Tolle reminds you of Buddhism because he regularly uses Buddhist concepts but presents them as his own. He spent several weeks living with Buddhist monks in England. He also does this with Hindu concepts.  IMHO, Tolle is a spiritual plagiarist who waters down complex ideas into a sort of weak soup that he charges way to much money for.

If you want to read a good introduction to Buddhism without too much jargon, try The Buddha, by Karen Armstrong.

[notself]

How many forms of Buddhism consists of Ethical Nihilism, if any at all?

Buddhism is neither nihilistic nor eternalistic.  

294. Having slain mother (craving), father (self-conceit), two warrior-kings (eternalism and nihilism), and destroyed a country (sense organs and sense objects) together with its treasurer (attachment and lust), ungrieving goes the holy man.---Dhp

[Ellainix]

How many forms of Buddhism consists of Ethical Nihilism, if any at all?

Buddhism is neither nihilistic nor eternalistic.  

294. Having slain mother (craving), father (self-conceit), two warrior-kings (eternalism and nihilism), and destroyed a country (sense organs and sense objects) together with its treasurer (attachment and lust), ungrieving goes the holy man.---Dhp

He said ethical, not eternalistic... right?

[notself]

How many forms of Buddhism consists of Ethical Nihilism, if any at all?

Buddhism is neither nihilistic nor eternalistic.  

294. Having slain mother (craving), father (self-conceit), two warrior-kings (eternalism and nihilism), and destroyed a country (sense organs and sense objects) together with its treasurer (attachment and lust), ungrieving goes the holy man.---Dhp

He said ethical, not eternalistic... right?

Buddhism has an excellent ethical code based on non-harm. Life does have meaning in the way it is lived and its affect on others.  The purpose of life is in the effort to develop happiness and peace.  One develops happiness and peace by overcoming craving, eliminating self-conceit, understanding that both pleasure and suffering are temporary, realizing that lust (for sensory experience) is ultimately empty.

I guess I was too cryptic.  Buddhism does not consist of Ethical Nihilism.

[pinkocommie]

Buddhism has an excellent ethical code based on non-harm. Life does have meaning in the way it is lived and its affect on others.  The purpose of life is in the effort to develop happiness and peace.  One develops happiness and peace by overcoming craving, eliminating self-conceit, understanding that both pleasure and suffering are temporary, realizing that lust (for sensory experience) is ultimately empty.

I guess I was too cryptic.  Buddhism does not consist of Ethical Nihilism.

I always thought Zen Buddhism was the least woo-ish form of Buddhism a person could ascribe to.  What's the difference between Zen Buddhism and the Buddhism you practice?  Is it essentially a matter of semantics, or is there an important difference which requires distinction between the two?

[notself]

I always thought Zen Buddhism was the least woo-ish form of Buddhism a person could ascribe to.  What's the difference between Zen Buddhism and the Buddhism you practice?  Is it essentially a matter of semantics, or is there an important difference which requires distinction between the two?

I don't know very much about Zen. Zen emphasizes meditation and koans which tradition says can lead to sudden enlightenment.  Theravada emphasizes meditation and the suttas which tradition says is a gradual training of the mind which then leads to sudden enlightenment.  There is a great deal of crossover between practitioners of Zen and those of Theravada.  There are differences between the two traditions which people like to argue about but in the long run the traditions are like a finger pointing to the moon.  They are not the moon itself.

The word enlightenment does not exist in the suttas.  The word used translates as awake.  The title Buddha means one who is awake (to the way things really are).

There can be a whole pile of woo in all traditions of Buddhism.  Some woo was always there such as the 32 realms of existence but most was added on as Buddhism spread and picked up rituals, traditions and customs of the local population.  Westerners tend to get hung up on woo and miss the forest for the trees.

[pinkocommie]

Westerners tend to get hung up on woo and miss the forest for the trees.

I've actually noticed that myself.  I think Buddhism is unique in that I hardly ever hear a Buddhist try to out-Buddhist another Buddhist.  It goes against the whole philosophy to claim that your way to enlightenment is the only true way to enlightenment because the nature of enlightenment is not exclusive.  I think when people think of religion in terms of the Abrahamic traditions (Western thinking), they don't understand a religion which is just as accepting of those who believe in god/reincarnation/whatever as those people who are atheists.  Buddhism is capable of existing as an atheist philosophy AND a religion simultaneously whereas Christianity/Islam/Judaism are religions whose main focus is a deity and without that deity, they would have no basis for their philosophy.

[notself]

Westerners tend to get hung up on woo and miss the forest for the trees.

I've actually noticed that myself.  I think Buddhism is unique in that I hardly ever hear a Buddhist try to out-Buddhist another Buddhist.  It goes against the whole philosophy to claim that your way to enlightenment is the only true way to enlightenment because the nature of enlightenment is not exclusive.  I think when people think of religion in terms of the Abrahamic traditions (Western thinking), they don't understand a religion which is just as accepting of those who believe in god/reincarnation/whatever as those people who are atheists.  Buddhism is capable of existing as an atheist philosophy AND a religion simultaneously whereas Christianity/Islam/Judaism are religions whose main focus is a deity and without that deity, they would have no basis for their philosophy.

Sadly there is a type of Buddhism that claims to be the one true Buddhism.  It is SGI-Nichiren Buddhism started in Japan in 13th century.    SGI has spread world wide through active proselytization of college students.  It requires attendance at retreats and in my opinion is a full blown cult.  Like Christian Evangelicals it also proselytizes through charity work. Other forms of Nichiren Buddhism are just other forms of Buddhism.

Your right that Buddhism is capable of existing as an atheist philosophy and a religion and most Buddhists are atheists.  Those who are theists tend to import gods from other religions.  I have been told that it is not unusual to see Hindu shrines and gods in Buddhist Temples. And, of course, superstition relating to horoscopes and amulets are rampant in Asia even though there are suttas specifically condemning such nonsense.  Some people just love this kind of stuff and since there is no controlling authority in Buddhism or concept of sin, people pretty much do what they like. They are still Buddhist but not very knowledgeable Buddhists.