Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

You're confused about what hedonism and the purpose of Buddhism is. Hedonism: a school which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Buddhism says that in order to find true happiness, we must see the true nature of the sense media and not over or under-indulge in such concepts such as "pleasure" or force "pain" upon ourselves like some yogis did and do. The Buddha taught that sense pleasure does not bring any semblance of lasting happiness, but the understanding of the true nature of suffering does.

The various Buddhist orders have existed for 2500+ years not because they are beggars merely taking, but because they supply support for the laypeople. If we do not offer teaching in a physical, mental, and spiritual manner, we would not receive food or the necessary requirements for life. It is only because monks give that we receive, if we are not helping the community in some way, then our lives are forfeit.

No sect's purpose is to attain enlightenment in order to feel more enlightened than anyone else. The center of the practice is suffering/stress/pain, and understanding that desire and clinging cause pain, and that there is a path to happiness. This is what the Buddha taught and what we continue to teach, a path to lasting happiness.

I wasn't talking about the philosophy of the matter, since philosophy means crap when it's applied to reality (just look at the shining Utopian dream of communism and what happened there), I was talking about what the two groups actually do. From what I've seen one sits around and meditates, the other sits around and drinks. You never did answer what you do all day.

So desire and clinging cause pain. Problem with that is that in order to escape this you have to desire to escape and cling to a specific method of doing so. Seems paradoxical.

[KaelGotDwarves]

You never did answer what you do all day.

I did answer. We support the community and teach whoever wishes to be taught the method to lasting happiness and understanding. I can describe the way of the path to anyone that wishes to walk it; However if you do not wish to walk it, you will not get any closer to the end (should you not want to hear it or by listening to words without walking down the path yourself). People will walk their own path; the Buddha taught one that leads to a happy end, and has been shown to be practical and real. No one is forcing it down anyone's throat.

So desire and clinging cause pain. Problem with that is that in order to escape this you have to desire to escape and cling to a specific method of doing so. Seems paradoxical.

Desire causes suffering in wanting what we do not have and perhaps can not have, but the Buddha never said that all desire is bad. What about the desire to be a good, moral being? The desire to help others? These are not things that would generally cause suffering. Likewise, a desire to attain nibbana and enlightenment isn't bad, unless we let this desire consume us and control our mind, distracting us from the original goal of complete understanding.

The Buddha also never said that his way was the only way and that slight deviation from the path would lead to you not being able to reach the goal (ala Hell). He taught the Dhamma (dharma in sanskrit) which translates into "the way" or the nature of being. The Buddha never claimed that he taught the whole truth to the nature of reality. Here is a translation of part of the Pali Canon, the Tripitaka which contains the Buddha's teachings as they have been passed down through the ages.

The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

A useful resource might be the novel Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, which theoretically describes another Siddhartha's path to Enlightenment.

[KaelGotDwarves]

anyway, my own question. If the importance in your particular form of Buddhism focuses on the self and self improvement as a way of eventually helping others, how is self sacrifice viewed? I.e. if someone were to have the things necessary to help people, but they lost their life helping someone and those things went elsewhere to places where they would benefit no one or would benefit only one ungrateful person. Would the sacrifice be viewed unkindly due to the loss of their ability to help people? That sort of thing.

I'm unsure if you meant that someone lost their life, unpurposely, helping someone so therefore their other talents and assets went to waste?

Perhaps a bit of clarification would be better, but if anyone gives up their life for the improvement of others' lives without harming others, it is not in my jurisdiction to apply any sort of negative label to their memory. These are also the sort of people whose actions inspire new thoughts and actions; that is the field of kamma - more well known as karma.

[piecewise]

I did answer. We support the community and teach whoever wishes to be taught the method to lasting happiness and understanding. I can describe the way of the path to anyone that wishes to walk it; However if you do not wish to walk it, you will not get any closer to the end (should you not want to hear it or by listening to words without walking down the path yourself). People will walk their own path; the Buddha taught one that leads to a happy end, and has been shown to be practical and real. No one is forcing it down anyone's throat.

Yeah, ok, thats still not saying what you do really. What do you actually DO in a typical day? Your answer is pretty darn vague on specifics. Do you tend to the cats? Work in the garden? Walk around with your bowl? Sit and talk to people? meditate? Etc? You keep giving lofty overall goals without talking about the specifics. I just want to know what a monk actually does after putting on their robes every morning.

Desire causes suffering in wanting what we do not have and perhaps can not have, but the Buddha never said that all desire is bad. What about the desire to be a good, moral being? The desire to help others? These are not things that would generally cause suffering.

The Buddha also never said that his way was the only way and that slight deviation from the path would lead to you not being able to reach the goal (ala Hell). He taught the Dhamma (dharma in sanskrit) which translates into "the way" or the nature of being. The Buddha never claimed that he taught the whole truth to the nature of reality. Here is a translation of part of the Pali Canon, the Tripitaka which contains the Buddha's teachings as they have been passed down through the ages.

The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

A useful resource might be the novel Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, which theoretically describes another Siddhartha's path to Enlightenment.

I've read siddartha, it's one of the reasons I feel that Buddhism is so odd. It seems to be nothing more then one guy's ideas about how people should act laced with religious rhetoric and silliness. It would be like declaring stoics or cynics a religion. 

[silverskull39]

anyway, my own question. If the importance in your particular form of Buddhism focuses on the self and self improvement as a way of eventually helping others, how is self sacrifice viewed? I.e. if someone were to have the things necessary to help people, but they lost their life helping someone and those things went elsewhere to places where they would benefit no one or would benefit only one ungrateful person. Would the sacrifice be viewed unkindly due to the loss of their ability to help people? That sort of thing.

I'm unsure if you meant that someone lost their life, unpurposely, helping someone so therefore their other talents and assets went to waste?

Perhaps a bit of clarification would be better, but if anyone gives up their life for the improvement of others' lives without harming others, it is not in my jurisdiction to apply any sort of negative label to their memory. These are also the sort of people whose actions inspire new thoughts and actions; that is the field of kamma - more well known as karma.

Well, that mostly answers my question, but I meant that they knowingly gave up their life, even perhaps realizing that they could do so much greater if they didn't and instead continued to live, and by doing so forsake all those they could/would have helped. At what point does intent trump action, I wonder? If a man tries to kill someone but instead ends up saving someone else inadvertently, is he a hero or a monster?

also, @piecewise
Why couldn't someone declare stoics or cynics a religion? by definition, a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith " (merriam-webster dictionary). In this sense, if one holds to the principles of cynicism/stoicism with "ardor and faith" is it not a religion? You know what? Screw it, I now declare myself a member of the holy church of the Cynics  .

On a more serious note (sort of), all religions could be considered odd. Christianity, for instance, is about a Jewish zombie who is his own father that wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I don't think there's any religion that isn't "odd" under the right light.

[piecewise]

anyway, my own question. If the importance in your particular form of Buddhism focuses on the self and self improvement as a way of eventually helping others, how is self sacrifice viewed? I.e. if someone were to have the things necessary to help people, but they lost their life helping someone and those things went elsewhere to places where they would benefit no one or would benefit only one ungrateful person. Would the sacrifice be viewed unkindly due to the loss of their ability to help people? That sort of thing.

I'm unsure if you meant that someone lost their life, unpurposely, helping someone so therefore their other talents and assets went to waste?

Perhaps a bit of clarification would be better, but if anyone gives up their life for the improvement of others' lives without harming others, it is not in my jurisdiction to apply any sort of negative label to their memory. These are also the sort of people whose actions inspire new thoughts and actions; that is the field of kamma - more well known as karma.

Well, that mostly answers my question, but I meant that they knowingly gave up their life, even perhaps realizing that they could do so much greater if they didn't and instead continued to live, and by doing so forsake all those they could/would have helped. At what point does intent trump action, I wonder? If a man tries to kill someone but instead ends up saving someone else inadvertently, is he a hero or a monster?

also, @piecewise
Why couldn't someone declare stoics or cynics a religion? by definition, a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith " (merriam-webster dictionary). In this sense, if one holds to the principles of cynicism/stoicism with "ardor and faith" is it not a religion? You know what? Screw it, I now declare myself a member of the holy church of the Cynics  .

On a more serious note (sort of), all religions could be considered odd. Christianity, for instance, is about a Jewish zombie who is his own father that wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I don't think there's any religion that isn't "odd" under the right light.

Lets not get into the mythology of religions, because thats just a sure way to derail anything. All religions have batshit crazy mythology behind them, but thats not the important part. It's true that pretty much any philosophy could become a religion, I just don't see why it needs too. I don't see why these ideas need people to dress in pajamas and shave their heads in order to stay alive. It would be like me living in a pot just because I value the ideas of Diogenes of Sinope.

[silverskull39]

Well, if you want to just talk about why it became a religion, why are there any religions, then? I personally think it's a way of approaching the human ideal. It started out of the emulation of something, maybe a person, maybe a set of beliefs, and as more and more people discovered this, they wanted to be more like it. To be "virtuous" so to speak. Over time, it took on the rote of ritual and became a religion. I guess. It no more has to be a religion than a smile has to mean you're happy. It's just sort of the way it is. That's a bad example, I guess, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to convey.

[Zai]

It's amazing how much of one's identity is based on hairstyles.

It really is.

[piecewise]

Well, if you want to just talk about why it became a religion, why are there any religions, then? I personally think it's a way of approaching the human ideal. It started out of the emulation of something, maybe a person, maybe a set of beliefs, and as more and more people discovered this, they wanted to be more like it. To be "virtuous" so to speak. Over time, it took on the rote of ritual and became a religion. I guess. It no more has to be a religion than a smile has to mean you're happy. It's just sort of the way it is. That's a bad example, I guess, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to convey.

I get what you're saying. Its just what I hate is that as it goes from emulation and praise to outright worship people tend to start looking down upon others who aren't following the same thing. They start talking about hell or its  equivalent. Buddhism seems a better in this regard, but it's still passive aggressive and implies that the life it preaches is better then the life of others. I guess what I really dislike is the way that it seems impossible to have a religion and not inherently say that it is better then other ideas. I mean, with philosophy, it's just ideas; there's no reason to think yours would work better for everyone else or to hold on to your idea above all else. With religion you can't easily give it up or hold two at the same time. It seems inefficient to present ideas that way.

It's amazing how much of one's identity is based on hairstyles.

It really is.

Am I the only one that thinks people who define any part of their personality based on their hair style are pretty much as deep as a thimble in death valley? It's hair, who cares?

[Willfor]

To be fair, if there is a conflict blending two religions with Buddhism on one side of equation, it's not generally on Buddhism's side where the conflict lies.

[piecewise]

To be fair, if there is a conflict blending two religions with Buddhism on one side of equation, it's not generally on Buddhism's side where the conflict lies.

True, though Buddhism does have a hell of sorts (Naraka) so it's still conflicting.

[silverskull39]

In regards to the hair thing, identity and personality are two entirely different things, although I agree that it doesn't really matter.

That is certainly an annoying part of dealing with religious people isn't it? However, I believe that is a problem with the people who believe succumbing to human nature more than a problem with the belief itself. Were there no religion, this would still be present in society. It would just hide behind a different mask. It is better then, I think, that these fools wear their masks openly under the label of their beliefs and expose themselves for the shallow beings they might be, than that I must condemn every man for such a fool until proven otherwise. Not that I believe every religious person is like this, or that there are no athiests/agnostics out there with these traits, but it certainly makes it easier to prepare myself for the stupidity. I think there's something about people that feel such superiority that makes them flock to religion. Maybe it has to do with justifying their feelings. A related quote I'm quite fond of goes like this; "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Another semi related quote that is humerous; "Religion is like an erection. You have every right to have one, but don't go waving it around in public, and for the love of all that is sacred don't try to shove it down my children's throats."

.... I may be paraphrasing a little with those.

[piecewise]

In regards to the hair thing, identity and personality are two entirely different things, although I agree that it doesn't really matter.

That is certainly an annoying part of dealing with religious people isn't it? However, I believe that is a problem with the people who believe succumbing to human nature more than a problem with the belief itself. Were there no religion, this would still be present in society. It would just hide behind a different mask. It is better then, I think, that these fools wear their masks openly under the label of their beliefs and expose themselves for the shallow beings they might be, than that I must condemn every man for such a fool until proven otherwise. Not that I believe every religious person is like this, or that there are no athiests/agnostics out there with these traits, but it certainly makes it easier to prepare myself for the stupidity. I think there's something about people that feel such superiority that makes them flock to religion. Maybe it has to do with justifying their feelings. A related quote I'm quite fond of goes like this; "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Another semi related quote that is humerous; "Religion is like an erection. You have every right to have one, but don't go waving it around in public, and for the love of all that is sacred don't try to shove it down my children's throats."

.... I may be paraphrasing a little with those.

I like you.



Yeah, I agree it's not the religion's problem and that people would act like they do with or without it. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion, but I do think that the format of it makes it very easy for people to use it as a justification for their own ideas. When you start throwing around concepts like eternal salvation and universal truth you don't leave a whole lot of room for compromise. With a philosophy or normal ideas you can just shrug it off but once you bring faith in then it becomes less of "these are my ideas about what is right" and more "This is what is right. Believe this or burn forever/reincarnate as a tree stump/make mother earth very cross/etc".

[KaelGotDwarves]

Yeah, ok, thats still not saying what you do really. What do you actually DO in a typical day? Your answer is pretty darn vague on specifics. Do you tend to the cats? Work in the garden? Walk around with your bowl? Sit and talk to people? meditate? Etc? You keep giving lofty overall goals without talking about the specifics. I just want to know what a monk actually does after putting on their robes every morning.

Wake up, clean up, morning prayers, morning chores, breakfast, greet, talk, teach lay people, accept food offerings, give blessings, various ceremonies such as funerals, remembrance, weddings, meditate throughout the day, evening chanting and meditation, study, write, wash up, sleep. Some days I travel to places and meet people.

I've read siddartha, it's one of the reasons I feel that Buddhism is so odd. It seems to be nothing more then one guy's ideas about how people should act laced with religious rhetoric and silliness. It would be like declaring stoics or cynics a religion.

The Buddha never claimed to be starting a religion or that he was a god worthy of worship. In his time he found statues and bowing to him quite silly, but he let people do what they were happy to do, pay respect towards him. Is it true some people do it in a religious manner that isn't the original purpose of paying homage to the Buddha as a teacher? Yes, but if they aren't hurting anyone, let people be happy doing what they are happy to do.

I don't see why these ideas need people to dress in pajamas and shave their heads in order to stay alive

To reach the ultimate goal is one of renunciation, of giving up material goods and ties to your former life. So monks and nuns give up their clothes and their hair, among other things. As mentioned before, if you have had hair all of your life and then shave it off, you will see an impact on personal identity. It is not "personality" or an exaggerated sense of self worth tied to hair, but merely how the ego and mind identifies itself based on the face and hair. If you have never shaved all your hair off or lost all your hair, it is quite easy to scoff at the idea, and I forgive you for that.

Quite a few women (and men) who have taken up the robes have told me that losing all their hair was a bigger change/shock for them than giving up anything else in their past life. It's a physical reminder of the renunciation of former self, of losing the life and self you had. Same with the brave patients I've spoken to who are going through the final stages of terminal cancer and are undergoing treatment that makes their hair fall out. Some of which are young girls. Why do you think we have 'Locks of Love' and other such programs to give a gift of hair to the dying? Hair restores their sense of humanity as they are battling for their lives.

Like I said, no one in the Buddhist camp -at least mine- is looking down on anyone for their beliefs. That is wrong view to assume superiority. There's more a sense of compassionate understanding, that we're all in this together. We are all suffering and understanding is more important than choosing sides in beliefs.

True, though Buddhism does have a hell of sorts (Naraka) so it's still conflicting.

The cosmology which bled over from Hinduism is unimportant within the Theravadan sect. The personal mental, physical, and spiritual hells we create for ourselves and others are far more important to us. This is based on the untold suffering that we are fully capable of creating for others in this moment and universe.

No one is forcing anyone to adopt Buddhism. Let me quote the Buddha himself:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” 

People love Buddhism because it offers a scientific way to happiness that can also lead to the happiness of others. If you follow a path of understanding, you will see results that the Buddha listed. That's what karma is. Causes bring effects into being. Intentional actions can have intentional and unintentional effects; unintentional actions can have unintentional effects. We should be mindful of what our actions do. This will help us, and it will help society. The Stanford School of Neuroscience recently had the Dalai Lama over to give a talk, they're very interested in how Buddhism affects human psychology, much as how we're fascinated by how tiny electrical impulses affect the mind.

[Taco Dan]

Screw it, I now declare myself a member of the holy church of the Cynics  .

I'd join that.

Kael, Are there things that you're not allowed to eat while you're there?