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.
Does Buddhism work in daily life?
My questions regarding Buddhism are:
1) How would a 100% detached person be? Free or apathic?
2) How could a completely detached person survive?
3) How selfish is a person who detaches oneself from everyone and everything?
4) How do the ideas of detachment and compassion match together?
5) How is a person without wishes and desires? Cold and uninterested or open-minded?
6) What sense makes life if finally everything is empty?
7) How can somthing come from nothing (existence from emptiness)?
8) Is it worth to follow Buddhism, because people of this religion/philosophy are different from other people in the world; because they are more compassionate, more content, happier?
9) Can a buddhist nun/monk at all detach, if she/he has to follow fixed rules and a fixed philosophy? Is this not a contradiction?
10) Can one attach to detachment?
11) Did not the Buddha say (if we still can know what he said) that the cause of suffering/restlessness/
discontent are wishes and desires? What about the wish to become enlightended then?
12) Why do so many so-called buddhist countries wage war? Does their philosophy not stand life?
13) How much of Buddhism is theory, how much is practiced?
14) Are religions/philosophies just illusions put upon illusions?
Okay, that's what I can share with you. Life has many questions for us, doesn't it?
1) How would a 100% detached person be? Free or apathic?
2) How could a completely detached person survive?
3) How selfish is a person who detaches oneself from everyone and everything?
4) How do the ideas of detachment and compassion match together?
5) How is a person without wishes and desires? Cold and uninterested or open-minded?
6) What sense makes life if finally everything is empty?
7) How can somthing come from nothing (existence from emptiness)?
8) Is it worth to follow Buddhism, because people of this religion/philosophy are different from other people in the world; because they are more compassionate, more content, happier?
9) Can a buddhist nun/monk at all detach, if she/he has to follow fixed rules and a fixed philosophy? Is this not a contradiction?
10) Can one attach to detachment?
11) Did not the Buddha say (if we still can know what he said) that the cause of suffering/restlessness/
discontent are wishes and desires? What about the wish to become enlightended then?
12) Why do so many so-called buddhist countries wage war? Does their philosophy not stand life?
13) How much of Buddhism is theory, how much is practiced?
14) Are religions/philosophies just illusions put upon illusions?
Okay, that's what I can share with you. Life has many questions for us, doesn't it?
0
Comments
free
2) How could a completely detached person survive?
Exactly the same way as anybody else. But with no attachments
3) How selfish is a person who detaches oneself from everyone and everything?
It depends. Are they Buddhist-detached, or non-Buddhist detached? Detachement doesn't mean selfishness. it means complete empathy and harmony.
4) How do the ideas of detachment and compassion match together?
Compassion is matched with Wisdom, not detachment.
5) How is a person without wishes and desires? Cold and uninterested or open-minded?
Even detached people have wishes and desires. I think you need to review your notion of detachment....
6) What sense makes life if finally everything is empty?
Everything is full too. You're talking nihilism, not Buddhism. Mpre homework!
7) How can somthing come from nothing (existence from emptiness)?
How can nothing come from something? in the same way! What's the point of all this questioning? Does it actually do anything to enhance your practice and keep you focussed? I don't think so....
8) Is it worth to follow Buddhism, because people of this religion/philosophy are different from other people in the world; because they are more compassionate, more content, happier?
No, we're the same as other people in the world. We're all in Samsara, and working towards Nibbana. In every aspect, we are exactly like any other human being. No more, no less....
9) Can a buddhist nun/monk at all detach, if she/he has to follow fixed rules and a fixed philosophy? Is this not a contradiction?
like I said, you need to review your notion of detachment. Being detached does not mean abandoning everything. You need some attachment to something. But you have to be equally prepared to detach as and when necessary. Just where have you been doing your research? 'The Christian's concise encyclopedia of Buddhism'?
10) Can one attach to detachment?
Of course!
11) Did not the Buddha say (if we still can know what he said) that the cause of suffering/restlessness/
discontent are wishes and desires? What about the wish to become enlightended then?
Read my comment above. You have a warped idea on some matters....
12) Why do so many so-called buddhist countries wage war? Does their philosophy not stand life?
Why do so many God-fearing countries wage war? Does their philosophy not do the same? Pointless question...
13) How much of Buddhism is theory, how much is practiced?
all of it.
14) Are religions/philosophies just illusions put upon illusions?
Not if they're practicable. If they are practised, they are not illusory. if they are not practised, they are illusory. If they are practised, they are illusory. if they are not practised, they are not illusory.
There is a duality you are not aware of.... Not really.
The questions that matter are the ones you ask that enhance your practice here and now. Simplify.
Follow the Four, the Eight and the Five. All teachings stem from, and are born from these. To these they always return.
Focus on these, and the rest follows.
__________________________________________________________
This is the important question, SwissSis.
In theory, Buddhism is pretty nice ... maybe a little airy-fairy, but pretty nice. In theory, it's a religion or philosophy with ethical parameters and encouragements. In theory, students can use their emotions and intellect and understand Buddhism. They can get their logical questions answered and have understandable reactions. In theory, Buddhism is limited.
But the practice is a bit different. Maybe it is like the difference between reading books about playing the piano and actually playing the piano. In the books phase, people use words like "Buddha" and "enlightenment" and "emptiness" and "compassion" and "detachment" ... and, bringing emotion and intellect to bear, they issue judgments and beliefs and pretend to know what they are talking about: What a lovely piano; what a confusing piano; what an inspiring piano; what a dissonant piano!
In practice -- for those who try it out -- there is a rousing of some determination to find out (to actually find out) if they can realize and actualize what they are talking about. A piano is fun to theorize about, but can never express the beauty of music. Who am I...really? What is peace...really? What is compassion...really? If Buddhism were simply a belief system, would it be any more useful than any other belief system? What if Buddhism were referring to something true -- something as simple and delightful as a laugh? Something limitless.
Meditation practice is one way of realizing and actualizing what is no longer limited by intellect and emotion. But it takes some practice ... practice to make music instead of only theorizing. Practice is intimate and requires personal effort.
Some make the effort. Others don't.
Federica was answering questions in regards to Buddhism. Her answers seem rather accurate and I don't think she was presumptious or meant to "know everything". Oh and it is that simple to Buddha.
The questions you ask are the same tried and true questions everyone has heard over and over. You probably felt the frustration Federica must have felt with her short concise to the point answers.
For example it doesn't take much digging to see that freeing ones self from attachment doesn't mean letting go of everything. It doesn't mean you never feel anything. It only means not attaching to your future happiness or sadness to concepts. There is more to it than that and the search is your friend.
Also suggesting that "Buddhist nations" (which ones by the way?) start wars. This implies that people who practice Buddhism will somehow keep evil forces from controlling over their government. This is a bit short sighted and suggests that we Buddhist somehow have claimed Buddhism cures all ails and helps those who don't even follow it.
Look to the Dalai lama as a living example to get the answer to some of your questions.
Q, #1 is very important. I've read that some lamas interpret the teachings to mean that it's not good to feel emotions. They use Dzogchen or other techniques to stifle or eliminate their emotions. This creates an apathic human being. Really, it's our emotions that make us human; someone without emotions would be a scary thing, perhaps bordering on sociopathic. The Dalai Lama explains that one feels one's emotions at the appropriate time (at the death of a loved one, for example), but one doesn't allow the emotions to take over and dominate (such as falling into depression). It's healthy to feel emotions and to process feelings. This is what allows us to practice compassion. If we had no feelings, how would we be able to relate to others and feel compassion towards them?
Q. #11 Excellent observation, SwissSis. It is said that the Buddha did have one attachment; he was attached to the goal of reaching enlightenment, and showing others the path to enlightenment. There are good, constructive attachments, and unproductive, or samsaric attachments.
#13: "How much is theory, how much is practiced?" That depends on the individual. Some are more advanced, or more realized practitioners, than others. Some have difficulty with patience and compassion, and non-discrimination. Others have other shortcomings. We're all working to put the principles into practice at our own pace, our own way. Nobody's perfect, we all fall short in some respects.
Why I asked the question of waging war: It’s not that I think that only Buddhist do wrong with this. I had the same question regarding other religions. What lies deeper in this question is, if any philosophy can prevent us from waging war. Many wars were waged, BECAUSE OF different philosophies/ideas. To me it seems this question leads me directly back to myself and my own responsibility in this world. If not a philosophy, what then will prevent me from waging war?
I would like to know more about what the buddhist idea of detachment is. Maybe it’s not the best word for what it means? Federica wrote: „You need some attachment to something. But you have to be equally prepared to detach as and when necessary.“ And she wrote: „Even detached people have wishes and desires.“ Is this now describing detachment? Sorry, I don’t get it. Does the buddhist idea of detachment mean, that one attaches and detaches? This is very common, nothing special, it’s what we do every day. To me this describes attachment AND detachment, but not detachment in itself. Is a 100% detached person an illusion, because there is always both? Please help me, I really don’t understand this. Is an enlightened person also like this, always changing from detachment to attachment, and attachment to detachment? I’ve never met one. I could not ask.
Regarding emotions: I’ve met Buddhists who „raped“ their emotions, because they only lived the positive ones. For sure the negative ones are not that nice, but to suppress it does also not free us. In tibetan buddhism there are some strong tendencies into this direction as I perceive it. Federica asked where I did my research: I joined a one month intense course in a monastery in Nepal and I’ve read different buddhist books, have also traveled in Tibet, Nepal, Ladakh, Sri Lanka and have worked in a buddhist project in Ladakh for some months.
What also made me think: There is this huge buddhist community. Already within this community there are so many questions. Buddhism is very complicated in my opinion. How to explain it to a child, to a mentally disabled person for example? I think, you could only explain aspects. Now I’m back to the question, if an ant can explain the universe. I've turned around in a circle for a while, but I've come back to the point, that the whole life is based on a guess. I don't know why I still try to understand it.
All need to be abandoned at some point. The skill is clinging to the useful and using it as far as it is needed, then permitting it to go when the time comes.
Winning the medal isn't unskillful.Wanting to win, isn't unskillful.
But basking in the glory, and believing we are the best, is unskillful.
Like crossing a river requires a raft, once the river is crossed, you don't need the raft any more....
I congratulate you. That's a whole lot more activity than I've had.
But if I may say so, it's not the quantity, it's the quality.
I'm glad you came here to ask questions.
I apologise if my manner was brusque.
Sometimes I forget myself.
Not everything.
But my policy is this:
if I understand it, and I agree with it (It sits well with me, and I accept it as a truth for me), then I make effort to live by it 100%, 100% of the time.
If I understand it, and I do not agree with it, I abandon int, but still see that others might view it as their truth, and choose to live by it. Fine, that's their choice, but I've made mine, and I'm ok with that, either way.
If I do not understand it, it is a puzzle to me, and I cannot make my mind up one way or the other, I leave it be. Maybe I'll pick it up again later, and maybe it will make sense to me.... maybe not....but I'm going to keep an open mind.
I think this isn't a bad policy to adopt....
Metta,
Todd
re: waging war--Even Tibet armed itself and fought in self-defense against the Chinese.
You're right about the tendency in Tibetan Buddhism to suppress negative emotions, as if there were a stigma attached to certain emotions. But in light of what the Dalai Lama says about it, it's reasonable to conclude that this is an incorrect interpretation of the teachings. I've seen him express righteous indignation (which some would call "anger") in speeches he gave in Asia after the demonstrations by Tibetans in China in 2008. I think there is healthy anger, and unhealthy anger; healthy sadness/grief, and unhealthy grief, etc. It's a middle way, a balance.
But seriously, what causes many countries to wage war is political considerations that have nothing to do with religion, a need to control the supply of natural resources,economic considerations, etc. Although with George W. Bush, it does seem that religion played a role.
Good luck. You're fortunate to have had that experience in the Himalayan communities.