Buddhist Inclinations

AllbuddhaBound

Buddhist thought tends to turn all of the things we, in the west, take for granted, on its head. Westerners see things as solid, a Buddhist sees them as transitory. Buddhists see their warriors as compassionate Buddhisattvas' whereas in the west, a warrior is someone who is aggressive and whose purpose is to conquer others. In the west, we are expected to be quick on our feet making snap decisions (it is called decisiveness) whereas the Buddhist ideal is more along the lines of slowing things down, contemplating and being aware.

So one of the beliefs' in the west, is also go with your gut. This would appear to be counter to Buddhist thought. But there are instances in Buddhist insight meditation where a person does go with thoughts that occur. Does a Buddhist contemplate his insight, or does he/she act on it?

lobster

I would suggest insight/intuition plus discernment, especially for the macho gutted . . .

genkaku

Buddhists see their warriors as compassionate Buddhisattvas' whereas in the west, a warrior is someone who is aggressive and whose purpose is to conquer others.

@AllbuddhaBound -- If you honestly believe this dichotomy, I would strongly suggest that you read a bit of, for example, Brian Victoria, an academic and Soto monk who has written with persistence and excellent research about the complicity of Zen Buddhism in both the Japanese invasion of China and Japan's attitudes towards World War II.

The critical appreciation he brings to bear is the same appreciation that might be brought to any religion with its connection to literal, horrific war: Religion, which relies on the state for its livelihood, is largely complicit in expansionist and militaristic ventures and fails to acknowledge its own hypocrisy as it lays claim to such precepts as, "thou shalt not kill."

Whether such hypocrisy necessarily upends the religion in question is not so much the point. The point is to what extent serious Buddhists are willing to swallow, support and regurgitate such hypocrisy.

Nek777

@AllbuddhaBound said:
Buddhist thought tends to turn all of the things we, in the west, take for granted, on its head. Westerners see things as solid, a Buddhist sees them as transitory. Buddhists see their warriors as compassionate Buddhisattvas' whereas in the west, a warrior is someone who is aggressive and whose purpose is to conquer others. In the west, we are expected to be quick on our feet making snap decisions (it is called decisiveness) whereas the Buddhist ideal is more along the lines of slowing things down, contemplating and being aware.

So one of the beliefs' in the west, is also go with your gut. This would appear to be counter to Buddhist thought. But there are instances in Buddhist insight meditation where a person does go with thoughts that occur. Does a Buddhist contemplate his insight, or does he/she act on it?

I disagree. I suggest you look deeper in to the Western philosophical traditions and re-evaluate if Buddhist thought turns anything on its head. Maybe if you just starting to go deep ... things may seem different, but if you study up, you will be surprised at the similarities.

Feel free to start anywhere and plug away ...

Alfred Whitehead is good ....

For Whitehead, an actual occasion (or actual entity) is not an enduring substance, but a process of becoming. As Whitehead puts it, actual occasions are the “final real things of which the world is made up”, they are “drops of experience, complex and interdependent”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Also, the debate surrounding Ontic and Epistemic Structural Realism is pretty interesting. To sum it up in an absurdly short manner---perhaps nothing really exists (Ontic), perhaps we just can't know if anything really exists (Epistemic).

It's worth noting, that none of the above is really fringe ... granted Whitehead is pretty old (~1920s).

For a more cursory overview, I would suggest Fritjof Capra's The Turning Point

Good luck.

David

I'm from the west (depending on which side of me one is standing) and my idea of a warrior growing up was Billy Jack.

I think in learning how not to think we can then act fluidly and naturally instead of trying to react.

Just as once we learn how to catch a ball we need not put thought behind the action of catching a ball.

SarahT

Overthinking definitely isn't good for ball catching! That's why my best find here is the idea of "now the laundry"

AllbuddhaBound

I guess I should have stressed that I meant average thinking rather than academics who spend much of their time thinking about thinking. I believe if you speak to the average person in the west, they think about the world in the way I described. By the same token, I would dare say most Buddhists would not be violent or war like. Of course there are exceptions but then there always is.

Nek777

@AllbuddhaBound said:
I guess I should have stressed that I meant average thinking rather than academics who spend much of their time thinking about thinking. I believe if you speak to the average person in the west, they think about the world in the way I described. By the same token, I would dare say most Buddhists would not be violent or war like. Of course there are exceptions but then there always is.

Eh ... nah. It still seems, IMO, you are painting with a broad brush and not giving people who participate in Western traditions enough credit and people who participate in Eastern too much.

Anyhow, I would contend the average person in the East and West are more concerned with the mundane and if you tried to convince anyone that a rock is transitory and not solid, I would be prepared to dodge said rock as it hurled toward your head.

AllbuddhaBound

@Nek777 said:
Anyhow, I would contend the average person in the East and West are more concerned with the mundane and if you tried to convince anyone that a rock is transitory and not solid, I would be prepared to dodge said rock as it hurled toward your head.

But I think it is you who is generalizing when you describe all people from the east. I meant practicing Buddhist vs the west which is predominantly Christian.

Hamsaka

@AllbuddhaBound said:
I guess I should have stressed that I meant average thinking rather than academics who spend much of their time thinking about thinking. I believe if you speak to the average person in the west, they think about the world in the way I described. By the same token, I would dare say most Buddhists would not be violent or war like. Of course there are exceptions but then there always is.

ANYONE, EVERYONE will end up getting far off base plugging the 'values' you are using into your question. Don't get too defensive, just sit back and consider the feedback. No one is calling you stupid or wrong. Why defend what might be wrong? You want to see and know clearly, without delusion. That means NOT defending your favorite, preferred or cherished assumptions. Allow people to point them out. It is VERY uncomfortable, remember, these are deeply cherished and relied upon ASSUMPTIONS. You are attached to them, you rely on them to tell you what's going on. Being a Buddhist is being willing and open to have your erroneous and cherished assumptions about yourself, life and other people replaced with truth.

Kundo

@Hamsaka said:
Being a Buddhist is being willing and open to have your erroneous and cherished assumptions about yourself, life and other people replaced with truth.

Truth _ /|\ _