Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Did the Buddha miss the mark?

A long time ago my friend used to say the following (I am paraphrasing): Buddha was a sensitive dude and couldn't handle the stress and turmoil of the material world. He gave it up and started introducing spiritual stuff like metta, nibbana etc. as substitutes. So basically the material world alone is real, but since it's a harsh reality the mind would rather give it up and seek refuge in feel-good concepts like nibbana etc., whether or not they're real.

So maybe buddha was right about dukkha but wrong about the ending of it? THat's my friend's argument. He is saying, Most people, having experienced dukkha at some point, would acknowledge it as part of this world (and would also seek an end to it). So buddha simply capitalized on it and promised a system to end it. Demand and supply thing.

Agree or not? The reason I am asking is, anytime someone promises something does it become suspicious?

Comments

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    The Buddha's focus on the problem of suffering does look quite pragmatic.

    Shoshin
  • ShoshinShoshin No one in particular Nowhere Special Veteran
    edited June 2015

    @genie Has your friend read the Kalama Sutta

    "Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."

  • PöljäPöljä Veteran
    edited June 2015

    I see the ending of Dukkha as an evolution. I experience the material world really stressful, but maybe it will be a peaceful place long after my body is decayed.

    "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

    Addition: Maybe "reducing" is a more exact word than "ending"?

    Shoshin
  • Buddha was a sensitive dude and couldn't handle the stress and turmoil of the material world.

    Buddha was a prince who was pampered beyond belief and who had the mental discipline to leave a life of luxury for starvation in a forest. This is the opposite of what he's describing.

    He gave it up and started introducing spiritual stuff like metta, nibbana etc. as substitutes.

    Gautama didn't invent any of that. The Arahant tradition and teaching existed in that culture before his ministry. All he did was transform the existing teaching into something called the "Middle Way" of neither clinging to nor rejecting the material world.

    So basically the material world alone is real, but since it's a harsh reality the mind would rather give it up and seek refuge in feel-good concepts like nibbana etc., whether or not they're real.

    Have some tea.

    KundoInvincible_summer
  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    The best way to avoid spreading other people's half truths and partial understanding of something, @genie, is to sit down and study oneself.
    To understand something as complex as Buddhadharma entails some heavy-duty homework, and to attain a bird's eye-view, you have to be ready to walk the walk, not put stock in a friend's misunderstanding of the subject.
    Of course, you'll only be able to discern truth from untruth when you learn yourself.

    Shoshinsilver
  • geniegenie Explorer

    Thanks, everyone.

    According to my friend, Epicurus makes more sense and is more practical without all the religious trappings:

    When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Philosophy

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited June 2015

    If there is no end to suffering then what do we lose by trying? And what if there is an end?

    Cinorjer
  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    @genie said:
    Thanks, everyone.

    According to my friend, Epicurus makes more sense and is more practical without all the religious trappings:

    When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Philosophy

    Sure, he said that rather well...but then lots of lesser knowns say things that are just as wise. Fwiw, the Buddha did not consider The Way to be some sort of religion at all.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    edited June 2015

    To each their own, whatever works for him. Religion only has to be a trap if one jumps in after smelling the cheese and doesn't investigate. I personally never enjoyed philosophy, though I enjoy the writings of some philosophers. It's a lot of mental masturbation (IMO), a lot of thinking in circles but with interesting quotes and soundbites.

    Sometimes, I think that when we fully adopt someone else's ponderings as our own, it turns into a trap right then. What I like about my Buddhist practice is that Buddha, and my teachers, point things out, but they don't tell me "this is how it is." Sometimes I read something and I think, "Yes!! This is what I have thought/experienced, I'm glad someone could put it into words." but most often it is like reading a book, then watching the movie, then reading the book again. I can't remember what I thought Harry Potter and his friends looked like when I read the books. Because they have been replaced with the movies characters-with someone else's perception, description and vision. And for me, the same happens with other experiences. The words might ring true...but it takes away something from my experience if I assign them the same attributes (if that makes any sense at all, lol).

    That's why I say, for example, the precepts are guidelines. Not because they are meant to be taken lightly, but because they are the perception of someone (even a great someone) from a time and place and culture I did not live in. They are still valuable today, but we also have much more information and understanding about certain things today (sorry, not giving up garlic, it doesn't increase my libido) that I think we have to take both into account and not simply say that we can apply "rules" from 2000 years ago, precisely to our lives today.

    Doubts creep in. There's nothing wrong with that. Investigate them, see what they are about. But don't automatically accept someone else's doubts as your own.

    JeffreyCinorjerlobsterBuddhadragon
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran

    That requires rolling up your sleeves, putting down the books, and getting your hands dirty doing the hard work of living the 8-fold path.

    Oh! [lobster stamps his foot]

    I'm off to Catholic confession, then I will be forgiven. The rest of the week I am free. The cool bit is I can confess that I lied about going to confession as part of my confession. Heaven here I come!

    Cinorjer
  • So what are you suspecting, my friend?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @lobster said:> I'm off to Catholic confession, then I will be forgiven. The rest of the week I am free. The cool bit is I can confess that I lied about going to confession as part of my confession. Heaven here I come!

    "Bless me father, for I have sinned, it has been 45 years since my last confession and we might be here for some time...." ;)

    lobsterWalkersilverKundo
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @genie said: Thanks, everyone. According to my friend, Epicurus makes more sense and is more practical without all the religious trappings:

    Try it and see.

    federica
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran

    It seems a healthy philosophy. I was unaware of anything but the modern usage. So many thanks to you and your friend @genie. <3

    I can find many parallels to Buddhism, possibly influences as there is a long history of influence from Greek ideas.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

    For me the important thing is pragmatism. How to implement? I would suggest epicureans contemplate and think. Buddhists meditate and practice mindfulness.

  • PöljäPöljä Veteran

    And the New Testament was written in Greek by Hellens.

    Philosophies create concepts and ideas for thinking and debates, like should slaves be free. Lot of wisdom and rhetoric.

    "A society grows great when old men..." is a Greek proverb.

  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited June 2015

    Disagree.
    Based on my own personal experience of long-term Buddhist practices and qualified personal guidance.
    Buddha knew exactly what he was talking about, and it is the practices that produce the insight and inner change.
    Be careful of intellectualization .. that occurs in a different brain hemisphere than the hemisphere that meditation "lights up". Buddhism realities are not understood through intellectualization.

    As for the claims of Buddhism, is up to each individual to try them out and see for themselves if it is so, or not.
    (The catch is that it takes years and it needs to be done properly, but the pianists face the same obstacles in developing their skills don't they?)

    lobsterBuddhadragonmmo
  • PöljäPöljä Veteran

    I like Buddhism as a philosophy, but I don't care about it as a religion. I'm not a religious man at all. Religions are clinging into the power structures, hierarchies, societies, beliefs, habits. I have my personal experiences of "spirituality" I cannot explain to you. And it's not important are them Buddhists at all.

    lobstermmo
  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran
    edited June 2015

    You seem to be very attached to your friend's seemingly very narrow choice of philosophical orientations, @genie.

    The worst thing anyone can do is to voice other people's opinions without duly questioning them with one's own critical faculties, take them for granted unchecked, and pass them on as cheap currency.

    I would sit down with a good Buddhadharma book, and hefty Philosophy book if I were you, and start doing my homework from the Prologue till the last index page.

    Much metta to you <3

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    I'm always very suspicious of people who begin narratives with 'my friend said....' but then fail to offer their own responses.

    If ever I enter into dialogue with anyone I would recount the whole discussion, (not just one side) and give both views aired, and then submit them for perusal and cogitation by others, in order to glean a wide range of perspectives.

    But coming in and saying 'my friend said * this * and offer no clue as to personal response, smacks of "this is me really, I'm just using a 'friend' as a front"...

    Besides, I find it difficult to believe that given his somewhat erratic and outspoken views, genie wouldn't have come up with some type of riposte to his friend, to recount to us...

    lobsterBuddhadragon
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran

    @DhammaDragon said:
    The best way to avoid spreading other people's half truths and partial understanding of something, genie, is to sit down and study oneself.
    To understand something as complex as Buddhadharma entails some heavy-duty homework, and to attain a bird's eye-view, you have to be ready to walk the walk, not put stock in a friend's misunderstanding of the subject.
    Of course, you'll only be able to discern truth from untruth when you learn yourself.

    This! ^^

    _ /\ _

    lobsterBuddhadragon
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran

    The modern form of epicurean philosophy is probably voluntary simplicity
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Simplicity

    There is merit in that. However the epicurean philosophy is linked and lends itself to hedonism. Not as skilfull and pragmatic as dharma which naturally leads to independence from circumstance.

    As pointed out by others, dharma works. It targets the nature of our being, the cause of our difficulties and provides community, tools and continuos means towards an improved life. You don't have to be religious to be involved with Buddhism.

    Theswingisyellow
Sign In or Register to comment.