Buddhism and its views

[Mbyte]

I don't read buddhism books or attempt to practice buddhism. I think I have a natural understanding of Buddhism from my philosophical thinking over the years. I have a question and I would like if any of you could help. It's about Buddhist views about the world. I was just wondering what you or your school of thought would be (if any) on the matter.

My friend is reading buddhist books and there are things mentioned in the books that are... oddly put..? My friend and I would be talking about buddhism he would explain that buddhism is almost depressing to read about. It talks about how life is a misery and all life is pain and the goal is to reach enlightenment to get out of the cycle of rebirth. Then he would go on to explain how they describe how rare enlightenment is. It's like a rain drop in the sea, it's that rare. Thats a rough example. I can't remember what he exactly said. He would go on and talk about 7 hells and how one is burning dessert with vivid descriptions of what it would be like in there. I would imagine such topics would be in the book of the living and the dead, i'm not sure though.

I'm slightly confused during such discussions. All I would say is that it sounds bad when it's explianed but if you practice it's much diffrent. They have to use words like suffering to put things into perspective. When they mean suffering... they don't actually mean suffering, it's only to explain and to make it easier to understand.

I don't know much about "Buddhism". I don't study or knowingly practice it. I can't really say anything to my friend. I don't know if he's reading corrupt views or if they are in true to the teaching. Does each school of buddhists have slightly diffrent views. It was a view my freind also explained. He doesn't know whether to take the hells for real planes of existance or something else entirely due to diffrent schools of thought.

Maybe if you would be generous to share your views it would be much appreciated. He is concerned with all the pain and suffering talk. Another thing he read was a buddhist stopped doing such and such a task beccause it was killing organisms. Yet we kill thousands in our body each day and others unknown to us. Does it not matter about the actually killing but the knowing. Does it matter at all?

Also, one more thing. What is the views on the Dali Lama? I know he's tibetian buddist. Is he actually buddist? Is he practicing a corrupt version or is there any such thing as a corrupt version. Just wondering what you think or know.

[Andrew R]

Hi Mbyte,

This view of Buddhism being depressing and that life is miserable is a common mistake. You're right when you said the phrase "life is suffering" is misunderstood. The way I see it, the Buddha meant there's no doubt we all suffer in life, no one can deny that, but there is a way to overcome that and lead a happy, fulfilling life. You must first recognize what causes suffering in order to realize you can let go of it.

It might change from school to school, but I know in Mahayana Buddhism they view realms of hell as being real. What your friend probably didn't read is that there are many more realms of heaven than hell. The realm we are born into depends on our karma, but you don't stay in any one realm for eternity, eventually you're reborn somewhere else.

Your friend should not get caught up in all the pain and suffering talk. The true essence of Buddhism lies in what is often repeated on the forum: Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind. A purely academic approach will leave a person with little understanding of Buddhism, you have to live the teachings to discover the joys it can bring. Eg. if something you read says to be mindful of what you're doing and enjoy it, it doesn't end there, you have to put that into practice. When you eat, enjoy the meal, don't be thinking of TV you want to watch.

I hope that helps,
Andrew

[Mark Blohm]

Even though the Buddha-lands are as innumerable
As the sands of the Ganges,
And other regions and worlds
Are also without number,
My light shall shine everywhere,
Pervading all those lands.
Such being the result of my efforts,
My glorious power shall be immeasurable.

When I have become a Buddha,
My land shall be most exquisite,
And its people wonderful and unexcelled;
The seat of Enlightenment shall be supreme.
My land, being like Nirvana itself,
Shall be beyond comparison.
I take pity on living beings
And resolve to save them all.

Those who come from the ten quarters
Shall find joy and serenity of heart;
When they reach my land,
They shall dwell in peace and happiness.
I beg you, the Buddha, to become my witness
And to vouch for the truth of my aspiration.
Having now made my vows to you,
I will strive to fulfilll them.

- from the vows of Amitabha Buddha in The Larger Pure Land Sutra

[Mbyte]

Very intresting, thank you both.

[Mbyte]

If anyone would like to add to what has been said then please feel free to.

I had another talk with my friend yesterday. He also expressed another worry. I have thought about it myself but have never obsessed over it. Not implying he obsesses over it, I just havn't myself. You meet a beautiful women and fall in love with her but in the next life that woman could be a guy, and you in the next life could be a guy. It's a bit wierd thinking about it like that. He was explaining to me about that an essence that passes on to the next life. What I gathered was that the next life is irrelevent becasue it's only an essence and not everything you are now. I said why would you worry about the next life since it's so irrelevent and you are also here now, there is no after life as such. It's only an essence so the woman who could be man in the next life almost doesn't matter since it's an essence that passes on. He then explained that you should think about the next life because of karma. It is unlikely that you would be enemies with the person you love in a previous life karmically. He also mentioned love from the buddhist books. You are with a women, look fade all those things you liked about her change and you find your not inlove with her. It becomes suffering because you were ignorant. He implied there is no love it's your own ignorance. He had a run in with a woman wear he works, she got him farely rattled. He said he could surpress his feelings for her and forget about her. I don't think he'd be able to though. That brought a question to my mind. Does chi or the aura of a person be free of blockages to achieve enlightment or go towards enlightment? Can it be achieve without considering blockages? Buddhism doesn't exactly see the body the way Chi Kung does.

He added to the suffring existance idea. It's almost not worth living through lives of suffering and there is no escape. You are stuck in this karmic system. He campared a lot things to enlightment and nirvana. It's not nivrana.. it's nothing compared to nirvana. My suffering is because of ignornace. I said that is it not a bit arragont to be comparing all these things to nirvana. Through out the entire converstation he was very aware of wishful thinking and not over stepping the line. I explained there's no attempt to reach it or achieve and then to compare everything to something so rare and profound. He then added am I belittling experiences. Exactly said I.

[Mark Blohm]

This is why humble seekers practice from Masters to guide them to their destination. If you are deluded in ignorance, then why take yourself as an authority on the meaning of life and the quest for God-realization? The dualistic mind is a bad master.

"Human life is beset with sorrow until we know how to tune in with the Divine Will, whose 'right course' is often baffling to the egoistic intelligence. God alone gives unerring counsel; who but He bears the burden of the cosmos?"
-Swami Sri Yukteswar, Guru of Paramahansa Yogananda

[Mbyte]

That is very insightful. One question comes to mind. The buddha never had a teacher and he reached enlightment? It's something my friend talked little about. Why should he need a teacher since the buddha never had any. It was merely an academic statement.

[Mark Blohm]

The Buddha came to our world for a spectacular purpose, an act that you and I cannot fathom in its totality in our current state of development. I would not think that if the Buddha did not need something, then I do not as well.

"Maitreya, you should know
that sentient beings
cannot attain great liberation
because of their craving and desire,
which cause them to fall into
the cycle of birth and death.
If they can sever like and dislike,
along with greed, anger, and delusion,
regardless of their difference in nature,
they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.
The two obstructions will also be permanently severed.
After correct awakening is attained
by meeting a good teacher,
one accords with the bodhisattva vow
and abides in the great nirvana.
All bodhisattvas in the ten directions,
relying on the great compassionate vow,
manifest the appearance of entering birth and death.
Practitioners now and
sentient beings in the Dharma Ending Age,
should diligently sever all attached views.
Then they will return to great Complete Enlightenment."

-Shakyamuni Buddha, The Perfect Enlightenment Sutra

[barry]

I don't read buddhism books or attempt to practice buddhism. I think I have a natural understanding of Buddhism from my philosophical thinking over the years. I have a question and I would like if any of you could help. It's about Buddhist views about the world. I was just wondering what you or your school of thought would be (if any) on the matter.

One thing to remember when discussing Buddhist thought is that its philosophy can't be divorced from its practice, unlike most philosophy in the Western tradition. It's about developing better ways of life as much as it is developing a certain kind of philosophical evaluation process - if someone is loving life less because of their beliefs, too much focus is probably being placed on the intellectual faculties and not the practical teachings of the system.

My friend is reading buddhist books and there are things mentioned in the books that are... oddly put..? My friend and I would be talking about buddhism he would explain that buddhism is almost depressing to read about. It talks about how life is a misery and all life is pain and the goal is to reach enlightenment to get out of the cycle of rebirth.

As you suspected there is more subtelty in the terms than at first glance.

In Buddhist thought the 'tanha' is the ever present craving for more life at the bottom of all life. Even when a goal is achieved (be it pleasure, intellectual, work etc), the craving turns your current goal into means towards a new goal and is never satisfied. We enter into every new goal, ones that we choose, others simply biological etc, thinking that fullfilling our goal will bring contentment/satisfaction, but this never happens. As soon as you have achieved it you desire something new simply by living. You goto school to pass exams to get into uni to pass exams to get a good job to get a good pension to get a good retirement to die a good death. Each goal seems of absolute importance until its realised, then a new goal begins. The tanha is the fundamental desire to get at something that currently isn't the case (sleep, healthyness, good job, sex etc) that doesn't cease even when the thing you wanted becomes the case. There is a Latin proverb that says "Post coitum, animal triste" - the instant our basic desires are gratified, the desire for them begins again in some other form.

This is what causes suffering, or sadness, in most Buddhist schools, and Buddhism can be seen (obviously only partly) as a practical way to deal with this basic craving that lies at the root of most of our unhappiness.

Philosophers in the Western tradition have argued similar things - Arthur Schopenhauer's Will is the basic principle of life that exists before thought etc, the basic human desires. Because human desire is illogical and directionless it confuses our conscious thought which desires logic and direction, and is the source of suffering and pain as a consequence. For Schopenhauer the only way to escape this suffering was in contemplation of art. Frederich Nietzsche also wrestled with the problem. He proposed self-overcoming (the ubermensch) as a way of always setting new goals that would mean man would continue to evolve and grow as their basic thirst for life continually changed their goals.

Christianity (Original Sin etc), ancient Hebraic thought - indeed, most religions- deal with similar themes.

I mention all this not for a dry philosophical reason, but rather to show that they are a general concern whose significance is often misunderstood as you suspected.

Then he would go on to explain how they describe how rare enlightenment is. It's like a rain drop in the sea, it's that rare. Thats a rough example. I can't remember what he exactly said. He would go on and talk about 7 hells and how one is burning dessert with vivid descriptions of what it would be like in there. I would imagine such topics would be in the book of the living and the dead, i'm not sure though.

I don't think there are any views of hell in Buddhism in which it is permanent, though that's not to say they are not serious. I'm not a Buddhist though, so actual Buddhists may have their own views. What sort of a person is he developing into through his Buddhism? My advice would be to continue being a good friend to him rather than debate nuances of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy - that way you'll never be in the wrong. People can argue about what wrong beliefs are, but they tend to argue less about what being a good friend is, and the latter usually stays while views change

Hope that's of some use! Take care!
Barry

[HB Yeang]

sunyata

Hi Mbyte,

My experience is that doing standing meditation in Cosmos Chi Kung, merging to the universe in a limitless oneness condition(satori) has an effect in our efforts to understand the Buddhist worldview. Sifu is on the spot when he says that only those who are ready can pursue this path.... (and chi kung is one of many ways to support such readiness in spiritual endeavor)

There are so many schools of thought, provided to suit the different needs and temperaments of various people. It would be good to understand in depth the different schools of thought; the hinaya, mahayana and vajrayana.
All three have a common denominator in the need to pursue realization of "sunyata" through a practice of "non-self" in all dharmas.

Do a research on "sunyata" to look for your Essence of Mind ( Buddha Nature ) You could start with translations of the Heart Sutra. You must read Abe Masao's essay "sunyata is suchness" found in page 210 of a book "The Buddha's eye". Abe of Zen tradition explains that our buddha nature surface out simply by reverting to our "as is ness" (suchness) , by stopping our karmic habits of being self conscious( ego centric) to our external world. We are so very self conscious that we proceed to differentiate and discriminate every phenomenae that arises , to the extentent of resultent strong attachment to all phenomena ( rejection is considered a negative attachment.) His point is that our mind can manifest all things and delude us and unless we are able to uncover from all these "clouds" and directly experience "sunyata" , an actual emptiness of mind without delusions (concepts, ideation within the mind, all things are nothing but phenomena in mind), we will continue to generate negative karmic force that will bind us in transmigration. Greatfully, Abe has given me a clear point of departure for my own Buddhist practice.

No need to be confused and think that Buddhist are talking about pain and suffering as a way of life. (actually it the other way round, of changing our mind set to reach the other shore..) I find your ideation of "no-escape" from your karmic system as limiting concept ( like fate or fatalism/ By Nature, All concepts have their limitations and boundaries) Definitely, everybody have the potential in this lifetime to over-ride existing karmic forces in our worldly realm by pursuing the potentialities of uncovring our Essence of Mind. Nothing is fated and things are changable!!

After doing a research on sunyata, the heart sutra, sunyata is suchness, then contemplate on Hui Neng's (6th patriarch of the Chan school) last stanza:

Imperturbable and serene the ideal man practices no virtue
Self-possessed and dispassionate, he commits no sin,
Calm and silent, he gives up seeing and hearing
Even and upright his mind abides nowhere.

(for above stanza, pls do not use your interlectual mind or rather linguistic mind to intepret. A good start would be to read a translated copy of "the sutra of Hui Neng")

May all beings be happy!

[Michael S]

Another question

Hello everyone,

I have a query as well. This is of little significance, but I find it interesting. I once spoke with a friend who believed that we live in hell. He cited starvation, sweat shops, genocide and a few other things to make a case that we are in hell. I flippantly replied that Christian Cosmology was kind of simplistic, compared to Buddhist and Hindu philosophies having a vast world system. And I tossed in some Stephen Hawking quantum physics which say the same.

But could he have been right? If in the Buddhist cosmology there are several realms, then the better ones are heavens and the worse are hells. But to someone in a heaven realm, is our earth a hell? And to someone in a hell, is this a heaven?

Perhaps there is something fundamentally earthy about the reality we inhabit. Perhaps it is all relative. Does anyone better versed in this have anything to say?

[Andrew]

You may enjoy reading an older thread on Dualistic and Non-Dualistic perception

Finally, though, does it really matter if this is heaven or hell from another position's or being's perspective. As we are in control of our own minds and our minds create our own reality, this place we live in is what we make it. I prefer to create my world as heaven -- with some room for improvement

[AlexBaranosky]

The Hell is not Out There.

The Heaven or Hell is within you.

[joko]

The Hell is not Out There.

The Heaven or Hell is within you.

We created the human, and we know what he whispers to himself. We are closer to him than his jugular vein.
(The Reading, 50:16)