Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Some questions. Answers would be much appreciated.
Hi, I'm fairly new to Buddhism and if you feel you can help me with these questions, please do. I have read several books on Buddhism and am now reading Buddhism is not what you think by Steve Hagen which has led me to some of these questions:
1) Love between husband and wife can be the ultimate connection between people. Problems are shared and suffering is shared. Should we really want to detach ourselves from this bond? Is it even realistic/practical?
2) Is Buddhism something you can get better at with practice?
3) How does Buddhism help the addict in us? Addiction to alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc?
4) If we are to stay, as much as possible, away from the 'thinking world' (the intellectualising and mental projections of reality) and, instead, live in the 'here and now', how can we ever make informed decisions and choices without such reflection?
Many thanks for your replies.
1) Love between husband and wife can be the ultimate connection between people. Problems are shared and suffering is shared. Should we really want to detach ourselves from this bond? Is it even realistic/practical?
2) Is Buddhism something you can get better at with practice?
3) How does Buddhism help the addict in us? Addiction to alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc?
4) If we are to stay, as much as possible, away from the 'thinking world' (the intellectualising and mental projections of reality) and, instead, live in the 'here and now', how can we ever make informed decisions and choices without such reflection?
Many thanks for your replies.
0
Comments
3) by bringing mindfulness to the situation. you see what the addiction promises. you see why you do it, what you hope to get. and you see that it doesn't deliver in the long run. you find the present moment has all you need and that you don't need to dull out or run from your feelings by getting your fix. You learn that the voice that tells you to take the fix is just thinking and does not need to be listened to. Meditation is a lab where you see that you don't need to listen to all the judgements, hopes, and fears. You just sit with whatever comes up and see. Later or concurrently you bring that light to daily life. Its usually not a 'cold turkey'
affair it developes as insight into the problem developes.
1) On the contrary buddhism teaches that we are all connected. Not only is your happiness dependent on your spouses, but it is also dependent on your neighbor. For that matter it is dependent on the whole global situation. Which is to express that we are connected and that kindness to others is rational. Not to suggest that you are powerless and dependent on others. Its a little more complicated than just one line of text can express! In other words others affect you. BUT you can work with whatever they give you. You can take it to the path.
2) In some sense 'the path is the goal'. This is a metaphor that is very pertinent. The present moment of awareness has all it needs. In another sense as we begin to grasp less and let go of our preconceived notions about reality it causes the strangled flow of energy to begin to flow correctly (my understanding,,, not to be taken literaly but a way I think of it) and then the treasures of the buddha nature are revealed such as universal compassion. These treasures are limitless in number.
2) Absolutely.
3) It may help... or it might not. Ultimately, a determined individual will beat addiction with or without Buddhism... if Buddhism gives you that determination, then sure.
4) What do you mean by thinking? Thinking about what? You should be able to see how replaying the same thoughts over and over in your head is unhelpful. If you examine your mind, you'd be surprised how little original thought there is. It seems like 90% of my thoughts were concerns with things I was constantly concerned or worried about... which were ultimately outside of my control. All those thoughts were multiplied and built upon and I went through many possible scenarios of what could happen. Ultimately, they were fantasies which didn't mean anything. Do you have situations where you are worried about something, then you build it up so much in your head that when it happens, you're surprised that it wasn't what you expected at all?
See what I mean? That thought accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, a part of being mindful can be thinking. Instead of taking things as your mind perceives them you spend a little bit of time thinking or just observing and that can give you a new outlook on things you've never really noticed. By all means think all you want, but you may find that not thinking for a while clears your mind and in turn makes your thinking more productive. By not thinking and clearing your mind, you learn which ideas are false and find other hindrances, so when you make decisions you may find that they are better decisions than those made when your mind is a whirlwind of false ideas.
To answer all of your questions... nothing is that black and white. Everything is somewhere in between. Instead of thinking of what should and shouldn't be, observe how things ARE, what's the cause of them and what's the effect of them.
Disclaimer: I am not a Buddhist, so I am speaking from very limited experience.
Personally, I have a lot of attachment to my girlfriend and I know that if she left now, it would've all been worth it. Naturally, I'd go through a period of grief. That form of suffering is acceptable to me.
Because of impermanence, clinging is rarely beneficial. Attachment does not have to lead to clinging though. For example, I also have a motorcycle... I am very attached to it as well. However when something goes wrong, it doesn't bother me... I can take it or leave it, as long as I enjoy it while I have it.
In the same way, if you recognise impermanence of your loved ones and realise that you won't be around forever and neither will they, you may find that you are more kind and loving to them. That way you don't take them for granted.
Getting back tot he practice bit, don't think about getting 'better'... there's no better or worse in Buddhism. Many Buddhists do indeed think of themselves as better Buddhists than others, but that's arrogance and it's counter-productive. So, focus instead on the path and not how far along it you are.
Some things to read about and understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTJHmmUNRRw
Dependant co-arising
The Middle Way
Mindfulness
I hope at least some of that is helpful.
Buddhism is the practice.
If we rely on a resolution to stop drinking that comes when we have a hangover.... Unfortunately that moment is impermanent and then our craving comes up and we are not guarding our senses we are swept away by the desire due to a lack of mindfulness.
We also have additional suffering heaped on us when we indulge in the addiction. We can't even enjoy the experience. The hangover is made worse by a guilty conscience. On the contrary with mindfulness we are not in the past or future and we are attending to those guilt thoughts and just observing them rather than grasping onto them and suffering. So all we need to bear is the pain or negative karma but we are at least not swept away by a painful attitude - guilt.
In my experience guilt and self bashing leads to stress. Which then leads to more addictions to escape. Or agression.
I have been trying to kick a habit, but simply being aware of it being there didn't really help. However, I then started noticing when the urge come up and what that urge feels like. Then one morning I was brushing my teeth and noticed how a lot of the movements were automatic in a way. I started paying attention to how these automatic movements are chained together. The 'urge' to grab the towel to dry the hands felt very much the same as the urge associated with the addiction. That led me to think that my addiction was there because it was so ingrained in my mind that it was automatic.. like drying the hands, turning on the lights or closing the door behind you.
That realisation removed a lot of the power of that addiction... when it creeps up on me, I just see that it's there and know I don't need to follow through.
They say that a major part of smoking addiction is the actual act of smoking rather than the nicotine. It becomes habitual, so even if you can withstand the nicotine cravings, you may find that you buy cigarettes, ask for one or otherwise have the urge to reach for one as a force of habit. Getting to know that feeling right before you reach for a cigarette can help you overcome the habitual aspect of smoking.
'course the same applies to other addictions.
The Buddha never said that we must detach ourselves from bonds with wise and skillful people, although he does advise we refrain from associating with unwise and unskillful people. In fact, the Buddha says that, "To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing" (Snp 2.4). Moreover, in DN 31, the Buddha gives advise on how to maintain a happy relationship.
Of course, it's called a gradual path for a reason (Ud 5.5). Until we achieve moral perfection (i.e., the ending of kamma and the elimination of the skillful/unskillful dichotomy altogether), I'm pretty sure that we all have the potential do both skillful and unskillful things; that's why it's so important to be as mindful of our actions and the intentions behind them as we can. As the Buddha said, "all skillful qualities are rooted in heedfulness, converge in heedfulness, and heedfulness is reckoned the foremost among them" (AN 10.15).
I think it can help by helping us understand the feeding habits of the mind. You can read some of my thoughts about it here.
We aren't taught to stop thinking in Buddhism as much as we're taught to think in more skillful ways, or as Jeffery put it, we don't stop thinking, but we don't lose ourselves in thinking, either. In fact, the Buddha himself often admonished his followers to reflect on things constantly. In MN 61, for example, the Buddha specifically tells his son, Rahula, that "bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."
From Steve Hagen's book, I seem to be made to understand that all mental projections (meaning concepts, values, ideas and so forth) are but just dreams. The aim is to step away from them, as they're not reality, and instead just simply see. It may seem impossible, but it's the overall aim, nonetheless.
In regards to your point about simply being more constructive with your thinking, aside from not finding this to be a tenet of Buddhism, so far (see point above); however, even if it was, it seems to be simply just an arguable point, for instance: on the one hand you may be right that mulling over scenarios induces pointless stress; on the other hand such activity may have uses in terms of preparedness, contingency planning, development of further useful ideas, etc.
In this regard, does Buddhism really just represent one side of a 'What is constructive thinking' argument? Really?
There are two kinds of love. One is a sensitive regarding of the mandala (what I describe above). In that sense your wife it makes more sense to give more to her.
The second type of love is the type that if you saw a stranger child playing by a well and they were too young to know the dangers.... you would not want them to be hurt. You might even take action. It is the impulse that can cause a fire fighter to risk life to save someone in a burning room who is a stranger. It can be like a universal love that you don't wish someone to come to harm. You wish suffering would not happen.
Thats how I see it anyway. The first type is more personal while the second type is quite amazing to me too. We also feel the second type for people who we are close to.
And the first type can extend to distant. For example we give the unemployed people a welfare so that they will be better citizens and not mug us as much. (example). Much like we give the wife something she wants so that she will help us.
Both are features of awareness. Skillfully reacting to your mandala need not be abandoned. Just the grasping. Post already too long or I'd elaborate.
The second type is like the universal compassion developed in the four immeasurable minds meditation (metta is one of them, kindness).
2: have a look at the Access to Insight website as a whole. It's really very good, and may help your personal progress.
3: read loads of other books.
There are 4 Noble Truths - these are indisputable and time-proven,
All other matters are subject to personal evaluation depending on your perception, state of mind and acceptance - or resistance - at the time.
I think the idea is to dis-identify with our intellections — i.e., not think of them in terms of 'I am the intellect' or 'The intellect is mine' (SN 35.69) — not to pretend that they're unreal. This is done to lessen the suffering inherent in clinging to these experiences as 'I' or 'mine.'
A less abrasive way of saying that ideas are illusions is to say that they are shifty. They are not voices of lordly judgement but rather they are passing thinking. Because the thinking is habitual it seems like our beliefs are permanent fictures but actually they are just arisings which are brought together by causes and conditions.
Actually, both ideas are implicit in what I said. Thoughts (mental fabrications) are non-self as much as that which thinks; you can't separate the two. Each is subject to the laws of conditionality (SN 12.44), and upon closer inspection, appear "empty, void, without substance" (SN 22.95).
The above seems like protecting and pleasing the self?
Steve Hagen's Buddhism is not what you think (it's even implied in the title) is ironically the first book on Buddhism that I've read which appeals to my intellect.
Funny enough, although I'm somewhat doubtful of the concept of stepping away from the thinking world, I find it quite a liberating idea and one that's attracting me to Buddhism.
But you and Jeffrey seem to point only to the non-ownership of the intellect, however Hagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hagen) really doesn't appear to be saying that, or at least is saying that and much more. In a nutshell, he says that reality and the 'thinking world' are not the same, and that we should try to reside in reality rather than the thinking world.
Btw, isn't the attempt to live without thought the essence of Zen?
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.
Which four?
1. "The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
2. "The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2
3. "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
4. "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
The above, to which you link to, doesn't really mean a lot to me (jhana-range, Buddha-range, madness and vexation). Thanks, but I'm not sure what it is driving at. It seems like elusive language.
What is the Access to Insight website? Thanks.
I'm afraid that might be true, which is not very reassuring. I'd like to think that the word 'Buddhism' meant actually something more agreed upon. The 4 Noble Truths culminate and point to the Eightfold Path. If that's a matter of 'personal evaluation' then, logically, so is the 4 Noble Truths. Without agreed definitions and limits, it would seem 'Buddhism' is a meaningless word.
Buddhism is a meaningless word. The word wasn't coined until the rich and varied practice was seen as something to codify by a bunch of nerds obsessed with codification and wordsmithery. It wasn't until east met west that nerds in the west felt a habitual need to reduce the practice of buddha dharma into an anemic conceptual framework that compelled those nerds to invent the mind numbingly unoriginal word 'Buddhism'.
If you are looking for a reassuring, comfortable cocoon, "Buddhism" isn't for you. The actual practice of Buddhism is an insult. It just keeps on tossing you against your worst fears and tells you what a pussy you are if you don't face them. Liberation from suffering is not for those seeking the comfort of a cocoon. It's not comfortable, it is deeply unsettling, turns all your beliefs on their head and is scary and unfamiliar.
If reassurance is what you seek then just believe that upon death you will be transported to heaven and perfected and some omnipotent entity will do all the work for you.
Buddhism is a human religion. When was the last time you met any grouping of humans who agreed upon anything where money wasn't involved?
100% correct.
Yes, the word is meaningless.
Or
If I cannot liberate myself how am I going to liberate others?
Taking care of yourself first seems to me to contravene everything I've ever come to learn about Buddhism. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Remember, people grieved over Buddha's death? Did they suffer? I don't know. Is grief and suffering the same? I don't think it has to be.
The thing with translating between languages is that you tend to lose meaning. I think the original word instead of suffering was something more along the lines of dissatisfaction. I would say grief and dissatisfaction are different things, which in English fall under the same word 'suffering'.
I am not sure about that though.
Here's how I see it. We share our world with people all the time. Our experiences, our thoughts and memories make up what we see as our 'selfs'. When you share experiences, thoughts and memories with someone you share a self. When you love someone, you feel as one with them. When a part of you is abruptly torn out, it takes a while to heal. That's what I think grief is... healing.
However, some people refuse the concept of self altogether. Especially when one is enlightened, the distinction between self and other becomes less obvious.
Optional sidetracking:
Studies showed that Tibetan Lamas were able to pick up human microexpressions (split second expressions which don't lie) much better than trained professionals. They have a level understanding that many people just don't have. I think it comes from compassion, understanding and seeing ourselves (or lack thereof?) in others. Ultimately, at the very basic core, we are all the same, so if you know yourself well enough, you will understand others much better. In the words of the All Mighty Dave Mustain of Megadeth: "The more of you that I inspect, the more of me I see reflect. The more I try to read your lips, the more the mask you're wearing rips".
Back to the point, I don't know how these people who reject the idea of 'self' react to death. Do they still grief? Do they suffer? I don't know, maybe someone who's enlightened will give an accurate answer.
Either way, what does it matter? Buddha offered a path, he didn't expect his laypeople to lose all attachment... that's something that comes naturally... maybe even only after enlightenment. I don't know, I don't wish to know. I wish to experience.
Again, the path is what matters... if you follow it, you'll probably stumble upon the answers.
Oh, I am not a Buddhist, so if you want a Buddhist answer, then I am not the best person to ask.
Here's what I wrote in another topic... I feel it's relevant.
Thinking only gets us that far. I don't think Buddhism gets us any further, but it does complement it very well.
You may notice I use the word 'think' a lot... because I do think a lot. For example, Jeffrey answered your question in a couple of minutes, while it took me half an hour to write essentially the same thing. I don't have the experience to answer without thinking.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
So the more skilful you become in your practice, the less you have to think about it. I think Jeffrey is skilful so he could answer your questions straight away, while I had to think. Not because I am a 'worse Buddhist', but because I don't have that level of skill yet.
Again... follow the path, the answers become self-evident. There's no part of the path that says don't think... but there is "right view". You bring up the fact there's no tenet saying you have to be mindful of your thinking. Well there's no tenet that says 'don't think', right?
Compassionate and self-effacing are two different things. Compassion feels good. But if you deny your own needs eventually you will become mentally unstable and lash back. Well I've seen that happen to some people who sacrifice their needs for others.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying you shouldn't donate to charity so that you can have expensive jewelry. I disagree with things like that. But if you are not happy it is hard to share joy and appreciation with others don't you think?
I don't know. I guess, I'm trying to specifically find out what the Buddhist beliefs are and how they can work in practice. Everything beyond that seems to just fade into a myriad of different arguable veiwpoints.
Are you saying the above quote is in line with Buddhism? I thought we were not to worry about our suffering but only concern ourselves with others' suffering? Serving the self due to grouchiness, etc, is something I didn't know was part of Buddhist doctrine.
The teachings of Buddhism are perfect. The practice of Buddhism is imperfect.
Why?
Resistance would be a start.
The Noble Truths are so-called, because they are Noble. That is, Indisputable.
Uncomfortable? Sure.
Arguable? Be my guest.
Resistible? Up to a point. But you won't be content...
Great quotation I heard last week:
"Peace is a process to be engaged in and not a Goal to be reached."
There is Peace, even if you feel dissatisfied, unsettled, and questioning.
Disappointment occurs when we set expectations upon something we cannot grasp as absolutely perfect exactly as it is.
Stop being dissapponted in humans.
In the study of Buddhism, other humans are not your concern.
Your primary objective is to come to an understanding of Buddhism that does not disappoint you.
Who cares if we all have a slightly different perspective?
Look at a diamond from every faceted angle... the light shines subtly differently from every facet. We all perceive a slightly different Luminosity.
But it's our vision that differs. The diamond is the same diamond, whichever angle you perceive it from.
But you claim not to be a Buddhist. Are you trying to be a Buddhist? If not, then you won't acquire that skill you talk of, will you? If you don't have a set of beliefs to refer to, as with Buddhism, then your thinking can go on indefinitely without bounds, no?
But isn't this where Zen comes in? Hagen said meditation has nothing to do with sitting. Meditation could be happening during a conversation with someone, or while you're making tea, etc.
You're mixing up concepts. What do you think meditation is? Hagen is wrong on that point, meditation is a measurable state of mind. You can measure how deep a meditation session is based on brainwave activity. Sure, you can be mindful of a conversation, but that's not the same thing. You meditate SO THAT you can be mindful in everyday situations. That doesn't mean that being mindful in everyday situations is therefore meditation.
Why do I not call myself a Buddhist? Simple... I don't want to be pigeon-holed into an ideology. I try to stick to the path, meditate and read once in a while, but that's about it. There was no 'Buddhism' when Buddha was around and I find that I don't share the same views with Buddhists, so I don't think it's an accurate label/category to put myself in. Depends on the definition, doesn't it?