situations like this are why god invented the headphones
praise the lawd
Is that all? Well, gosh, if I had only known.
I don’t know if any of this comes easy to you, phon, but most people would kill for a skill like that. To a guy like me, that comes across as: if you want to get out of prison, just break through the bars… leaves a huge whopping: HOW!!!
There’s a trick the human mind plays on itself: when life is going great, when we’re happy, comfortable, and secure, we think happy thoughts. But we fall for the causation vs correlation fallacy. We think our happy thoughts are causing our life to be so great, so we start preaching about: just think happy thoughts, just let that shit go, don’t worry, relax. Well, easy for you to say with your life going so great and not a worry in the world to stress over. ← Not saying this is you, but when I hear shit like you said, the first thought that comes to mind is: I wonder if they’re just in a good place in their life right now.
Now, here’s the part where I bring this full circle. I’m no expert in Buddhism, but (and here’s where Karpel Tunnel will come in and correct me) I believe the original intent of Buddhism was to free man of all life’s woes, from simple pet peeves to life crushing catastrophes. This is what sets apart classic Buddhism from modern day Dudism. Modern day Dudism isn’t even Buddhism Light, it’s more like ordinary human coping mechanism on steroids. It takes the usual defense mechanisms that human beings apply to their stresses and worries and pushes them as far as they can go, which is why they usually encounter a limit–the “real” worries as you put it–because no matter how strong a skill, no matter how much you exercise it, it will never be infinite. Classic Buddhism, on the other hand, takes an entirely different approach–we can call it the “dream” approach to align it with your analogy of waking from a nightmare–which removes the worries rather than mitigates them. It removes them on the grounds that they’re not real, artifacts of a dream, which means it can apply to all worries, even the death of your children. If one of your children dies, and you realize it’s just a dream, you breath a sigh of relief even over that. The ultimate holy grail of classic Buddhism is to wake from the dream, not turn nightmares into happy dreams; this is why you get devoted practitioners going hard core with their meditation: meditating on hot embers, in ice cold water, at the top of a pole for days. They’re trying to overcome the most grueling pains of life, not just the first world problems we’re used to complaining about.
So while you may have an awesome approach to coasting through life worry free (and believe me, I envy you), I don’t think this is real Buddhism.
Simple cares for simple minds.
Eat…shit…sleep…fuck…repeat.
Manimals.
Regress to animal cares.
Think of nothing else. Taking nothing else seriously. Hope for the best.
A recipe of degeneration.
To free one from The distressed reactions to the woes, and then from identifying with the reactions to the woes. And yeah, phon is not really describing Buddhism. Though there could be some useful heuristics in phon’s post, I suppose. But her post, at best is like comparing an afternoon of stickball is to what it takes to become a professional baseball player. And how deep can one’s knowledge of the human condition be if you think telling someone to stop being bothered by stuff is going to work?
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
As with the will of God, Nirvana has got to be ineffable, doesn’t it? If it were actually effable then it could be described in words. And if Nirvana could be described in words the words themselves can be examinined in order to investigate the extent to which their “truth-value” is demonstrable.
But that part is exactly what the Enlightened want us to avoid at all cost. The part that is open to actual proof. You can think whatever you like about Nirvana in your head. It’s always safe there unless someone [like me] is able to persuade you that maybe, just maybe, something as extraordinary as this needs more than just to be “believed in”.
Trust me. The true believers will always have a rationalization or two at hand to make that objection go away.
Still, just out of curiosity, here and now, let’s hear yours.
It’s always the same thing here. There is what you believe is true [about Buddhism or about anything else] and there is what you are able to demonstrate to others is in fact true.
Is Nirvana up there/out there somewhere? A place and/or a state of mind that very, very, very few will ever actually make it to?
If so, why should anyone believe this…beyond a leap of faith?
Or if one was interested one could try meditating or joining a center to make it easier and see if the small first steps are appealing. If there are early benefits or not. If one likes what changes take place, if any, then one can set aside the final goal and just continue with something one, so far, appreciates.
Pretty much like how we make friends, develop skills, learn about things…
One one can sit and do nothing demanding proof, outside of the universe, somehow…
as if that is not a choice with consequences.
Are the consequences of posting the same things for years better than the consequences (in your own opinion) of a couple of weeks of meditating?
Well, you’ll never know.
Because it’s all or nothing Right Fucking Now.
Are you a teenager? Perhaps that whole belly of the working class etc story is just you trying to seem older than you are, something you made up.
(and I don’t even like Buddhism)
Of course you have no interest in Buddhism. But notice how you universalize the ‘situation’ we are in. As if the options are swallowing all the claims or apparant claims of a process’ adherents whole
or
never trying it.
Those are your terms. Your binary approach.
It is not the universal situation, so stop framing the situation as if ‘we all’ are in this binary, transcendent, pout, like you are. You ain’t moving until God or his perfect messenger shows up. That’s a choice.
Yours.
It’s not The Situation.
Some people actually consider learning experiential, at least in part.
Okay, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of reigious/spiritual/enlightened pathfinders out there who will insist that you try their own first. And then we come to the hundreds and hundreds of secular equivalents. You’d barely have time to eat and sleep going down each path.
No, if they believe that through their own rendition of enlightenment one can find the righteous path on this side of the grave, leading to one or another manifestation of existence on the other side of it, let them first offer me an incentive to try their own path first.
Only you know full well the manner in which they might be able to convince me of that. I can be among them, learning about them, but sooner or later they have to demonstrate to me [in a particular context] why their moral order is preferable to all others. And how, in embodying this order, one’s existence does not stop at the grave.
Right, like this makes all those iterated points of mine above just go away. Hell, you may as well invite Phyllo to join the Communist Party for a few weeks. Or how about Kropotkin investing some time in interacting with those in Trumpworld.
In any event the real problem here [as always] is me. Something that you yourself have iterated here countless times.
Then the huffing and puffing. The “retort”. More accusations he is able to expose about me.
Like asserting this accusation in and of itself makes it true.
Note to others:
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
There are dozens of musical instruments. Pick one that superficially appeals to you and either take lessons or try to learn on your own.
Invest a few weeks or months to see what it feels like.
You might find out that you hate playing that particular instrument (or you might love it). That’s life.
If you love it then you might stay with that instrument or try learning another one.
The incentive is that you might improve your life.
First off, I spent 7 years living in Communist Czechoslovakia. My parents and grandparents spent significantly more time there.
So the question is what would I get out of joining the Communist Party of Canada?
If I saw some benefit to me, then I would try it for a while.
I am not a Buddhist per se but I consider myself a reasonable expert in Buddhism having gone through the grind to cover Buddhism as much as possible.
Buddhism-proper primary strategy is to train the brain and mind to manage and modulate life’s inherent, inevitable & unavoidable ‘problems’ in life and other temporary problems.
To achieve this, Buddhism-proper provide the iterative Life-Problem-Solving-Technique i.e. the diagnostic and preventive 4NT-8FP Model.
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516029&hilit=4NT#p2516029
The major purpose of Buddhism proper is to address and manage the inherent, inevitable & unavoidable mother of all problem of life, i.e. the subconscious [nb: NOT conscious] fear and avoidance [lost cause] of certain death. [note the focus of the Buddha Story] The same technique is applied to deal with temporary and transitory problems of life.
Yes, there are SOME monks and Buddhists who go to the extremes but this was never recommended by the Buddha who advocated the Middle-Path.
Gib, whether you(or others) consider you an expert in Bhuddhiam or not, you got this part bang on.
What is propogated now a days(especially in the west) in the name of Bhuddhism, is not hardcore Bhuddhism. It is more kind of Phychological/mental practices which are derived with the help of traditional Bhuddhist meditational pracices but nothing to do with spirituality. But, people easily fall for it because it is convient or easily doable for them. Such people can discuss Bhuddhism while having Chicken wings with a glass of wine, thus this version of Bhuddhism is perfect.
with love,
sanjay
yeah it’s like, you got a problem? be more like me, solved! Duh.
lol
point taken, dude
for real though, everyone could use a chest full of air
my life is not going great, if that helps
monks eat and sleep and drink water tho
yeah of course not. my first posts in this thread were somewhat serious, and then I went into dudeism and it was all sorta tongue in cheek since then
still, even if it doesn’t come easy, it’s something to aspire, no?
yes, for example.
It was helpful reading your response to him because it shows something about his state.
He considers his state neutral, but it’s not. He has decided to pull out of life, not to follow desires or interests, especially when it comes to improving his situation as he sees it.
Most of us have some kind of momentum. We are drawn to things, repulsed by others, all to varying degrees.
He is painting it as if the neutral position is to have stopped all participation and exploration and to demand that the right path - rather than his own interests, for example - present itself and manage to prove it is the right path (for everyone!!!) and then, and only then, would he take the first step in exploring it.
To him this is some kind of zero point. A rational, neutral skepticism.
When in fact it is a bizzare refusal to participate in life. Of course we have heard that he has health issues and of course this does place limitations on what he can participate in. But there are all sorts of ways he could participate in Buddhism, for example, if he was interested. If he’s not, he’s not. If he is a little bit, but extremely skeptical he could try. If he thinks that it is very dangerous, potentially, despite his small interest, well then he can abstain.
But he presents it all as if the rational approach is to demand proof of the final stages of a process. Imagine trying to make friends like that.
The incentive is that you might improve your life.
First off, I spent 7 years living in Communist Czechoslovakia. My parents and grandparents spent significantly more time there.
So the question is what would I get out of joining the Communist Party of Canada?
If I saw some benefit to me, then I would try it for a while.
[/quote]
Yes, it was an idiotic argument on his part. You have no interest in communism. If he has no interest in Buddhism, well, then there’s no reason to try it out for a while. And there is no reason to demand proof that the final stages are as promised. The odd thing is there is an incredible amount of scientific evidence that even relatively short term use of Buddhist meditative practices have benefits. How are they benefits? They are benefits as evaluated by reduced stress responses, more ability to focus, and so on, and individual accounts of improvements in their lives.
Instead of focusing on that, he focuses on the end stage claims of Nirvana.
Why? Because this allows him
- to not do anything?
- to try to get people to argue with him or demonstrate things, which he will make a pointless process, something that is appealing to him for whatever reason.
It is a very anti-life stance in practice.
I am not saying he is advocating for death. But the process functions as a justification for non-participation, inaction, stasis, waiting. It is an accusation pointed at anyone who participates in life, that they are being irrational, objectivist, essentially immoral. His approach is to question them - though with regularity his hatred of other people for not being in his state seeps out - rather than to simply accuse and state.
But there is a hatred of life in this. Not simply a hatred of the problematic aspects of life, something I have great sympathy for and that is a reaction I can have. But a hatred of anyone and anything that participates, explores.
So to engage with him is to have one’s participation in life called into question as if this bears the onus.
His radical suppression of exploration, interest and desire is seen as not needing justification.
it depends, for me, on what form that aspiring comes in. If it ends up being a judgmental voice in the mind, perhaps barely even noticed, that criticizes reacting ‘negatively’ then I would say no. Another approach would be to find out the roots of these reactions and to try to integrate the self, without judging the fact that one is a complicated emotional creature with an active limbic system. To accept that, and see what happens if one radically depathologizes emotional reactions. This also does not come easy. For me, however, it seems more integrating, rather than suppressing. A more complete human comes out of the process. Of course it would be lovely not to be bothered. On the other hand, one could just take valiums, rather than creating a heuristic and waiting around for years until we can use it with regularity. One a chemical suppression. The other a meme suppression.
I have the bad habit of getting into serious conversations and then being childish and trivial.
kinda my whole schtick here is to keep it light, yes?
it’s how I get my daily dose of condescension
thanks btw
holy judgmental, batman
chicken wings are delicious
to be honest I don’t think ill of them Gucci Buddhists anymore. I mean they may as well be practicing good deeds and leaning toward some kind of spirituality… because that is better than not
those feelings should be cultivated, and I don’t think you accomplish that by talking them down
I also have nothing against them But please, for the sake of Buddha, do not name all that Buddhism or spirituality. those are entirely different things. That is the my only objection.
with love,
sanjay
Here I can only assume you are trying to be a smartass. Like sampling musical instruments is the same thing as choosing among different religious paths—upon which you will predicate your moral narrative on this side of the grave, and the fate of “I” on the other side.
Of course you could try mingling with fascists and anarchists and nihilists and Scientologists and Muslims and Jews and devil worshippers and Wiccans and New Age groups. They might improve your life too. You know, once you really get to know and to understand them.
Anyway, again, with you, it is getting increasingly more difficult for me to tolerate what I construe to be obtuse thinking. Really, bring back the old Phyllo, come up with something new or I may well consider moving on.
Either that or [sigh] be reduced to exchanging retorts with you.
Huh?!
As I have noted previously, “here and now” I am basically an old man [most Vietnam vets are these days], who, due to health factors “beyond my control”, am more or less confined to my apartment day in and day out. There are not really many viable options now available to me to go down new paths.
How about you?
[b]Given that…
…list just the [u]top five[/u] new paths that [u]you[/u] have explored over the past few years.[/b]
Have you in fact explored Buddhism in some depth with those who practice it?
Note to others:
Anyone here taken the time to interact with Buddhists of late? Have they been able to demonstrate to you that their own Enlightened path more or less obviates the points I raise about identity, value judgments and political economy on this side of the grave? Have they been able to convince you that the “afterlife” is really out there or up there? Note some of the evidence they were able to provide you with.
The rest of course is just more of the same psychobabble analysis in which he makes all these assumptions and accusation about me here.
Still, unlike with Phyllo, when KT is not obsessed with exposing me here, he still able to express some rather sophisticated philosophy. Just not in regard to the manner in which he views his own rendition of pragmatism as [philosophically] an antidote to the fractured and fragmented self down in the “hole” it is in with regard to human interactions in the is/ought world.
Given particular contexts.
It’s a decision like any other and your objections to trying different religious systems fail also with musical instruments.
There is no reason to try every instrument.
There is no reason to look for an optimum instrument.
There is no reason to insist on a guarantee that you will like an instrument before trying it.
Yes that is true.
I come in contact with people from all sorts of cultures, religions and politics. I don’t know what kind of vanilla society you live in.
I don’t really get why you think what I’m suggesting is so strange.
I’m not isolated or afraid to make contact with other or to try something new. 
I intentionally try to express ideas in simple terms.
By the way, the root of ‘sophisticated’ is ‘sophist’ and being called a sophist is not a compliment.