Secular Elation

I completely agree.

Well, as you know, I'm not an expert on Buddhism. I am well aware that there must be several sects of Buddhism. But the one I more commonly see is the one described in that MSN excerpt. And at the very least, that is the form of Buddhism I find most repelling. However, even knowing that there are other, different schools of Buddhism, I don't think the whole thing is for me.

This just sounds bunk to me. A big part of the reason I apparently have an innate distaste for Buddhist through.

What are these "unwholesome states" and how are they unwholesome? Why must we ascend above them? There are many ways humans are unique from animals, not simply because of some Buddhist bunk about "rising above unwholesome states."

Of course I'm not holding it against anyone who lives a Buddhist or Zen life. I know it brings fulfillment to the many people who practice it. But it just isn't for me.

King Rat

The words being used make it sound like mystical bullshit, this is one of the reasons I left Buddhism behind.

It's just more mystical sounding twaddle. The idea is to stop allowing your baser emotions to control you. Most of the problems in one's life are caused by bad decisions that put you where you don't want to be. A lot of times those bad decisions aren't decisions at all, they are inaction. Or they are decisions that are made with clouded judgement.

Really (for me) it was just another way to see through bullshit, my own bullshit. A by-product of seeing through the bullshit however was seeing through buddhism's bullshit too.

premjan

I think philosophy goes through phases and fads. Buddhism was the product of an era when certain people (e.g. the Buddha) had seen the best of what the material world had to offer (to their full satisfaction) and wanted to turn away from that to something more spiritual. If you haven't had your fill of the physical world, I don't think you would ever satisfactorily turn towards the spiritual world.

Plus another interesting tidbit: In India, the religious schools invented by people like Buddha are termed "Raja Yoga" or "the way of Kings". I think unless you're rich like Croesus, or at least as rich as a Hollywood star, you won't have quite such a strong urge to throw everything away.

Plus, having no thoughts (in direct opposition to Descartes) is not that difficult, it makes thinking sort of well-greased and easy and more continuous than normal. But IMO it will also turn you into a somewhat slack-jawed and scary individual. Better stay away.

Infidelettante

As usually happens on payday I found myself at B&N and bought An introduction to the Buddha and his teachings edited by Samuel Bercholz and Sherab Chodzin Kohn from Barnes and Nobles Books N.Y. I have begun to read up on Gnosticism and thought a parallel study of Buddhism would be interesting.

One thing that separates Neo-Paganism from these two is its understanding of this material realm as the true home of the Spirit/Soul. In a few words the Spirit/Soul without the body is impotent and the body without the Spirit/Soul is inanimate. To seek existence in a form other than the body is to deny the very reality of existence. The body is the first blessing. So this is where I start from when thinking of the Spirit/Soul-body question.

I had thought Buddhism demanded the rejection of the material realm if the Spirit/Soul was to escape the cycle of rebirth. After reading this thread I am now not so sure of that. Can anyone clarify this for me? I am convinced that for the Gnostics the body/material realm was a prison and the only hope lay in that realization and in movement away from the gross body into the light of true being. The only problem is that as of yet I have no idea how they would accomplish that move. Anyone here know anything about it?


JT

MarcelLionheart

I always think of the "no-mind" concept as being the ultimate in Pavlovian Conditioning. After having practiced a certain skill for so long, it becomes instinctive to react a certain way. Say, in karate, when a punch comes to your head, if you've practiced the reaction (say, an upper block) a million times, then, when a punch comes towards your face, you block instinctively without thinking. Oddly enough, the way to practice no-mind is not to not-think, but to persevere in trying to learn a reaction (block when there is a punch coming). I'm not sure if that's really what all the masters are talking about, because, quite frankly, I've never had any formal training in/on Zen or Buddhism, but this is what I've always thought of the concept as.

--Marcel

Answerer

Hmmm, I have come late in this discussion. Since most of you have done the explanation part, I think I will just rub in some extra stuffs.


Well. you are observant enough, you will discover that you, in fact, had ignored most of your thoughts at many instants of your life in order to concentrate on doing your stuffs, reading your books etc. Such a phenomeon is in no way, unnatural or unhuman. In Zen, such a concentrate technique is applied to rid (or in the other words, simply ignore) of the mind of negative thoughts and emotions and to increase one's control over his/her mental faculties til he/she reaches his/her full potential.

And only in mediation, is the non-grasping or clinging of negative thoughts or feeling being practised. In daily life, you are just returned to your normal routines thats all (except you must guarded against your negative behaviour and desires well). No, "supernatural" attainment or "abnormal behavour" is expected.

The monks, arahats, Buddhas and Buddhists are all Humans and as far as I could see, they are behaved and reasoned like ordinary humans. So, how is it against human nature? I don't think so. Do I sound strange to you?

You missed out the whole picture and thats why the first noble truth, "Life is suffering" sounds like crap.

You see, Buddhism isn't about one life or one instant. In fact, most Buddhists believed in rebirth and being human is just one of those countless of existences. Also, its not easy to become a human in Buddhism, its about one in a million chances for one to be a human (if I recalled properly) and one in a billion chances for one to be a deva while most of the time, most sentinel beings are believed to be 'reborn' in other undesirable or lower states. And in those lower states, there is practically no happines or joy to be found especially in the Hungry Ghost and Hell Realm.

So in short, most Buddhists believed that they are already fortunate enough to be human in this life and are not willing to be unprepared for their "afterlife". They see pleasure of their present lives as a Drop in the an Ocean of Suffering.

Anything that is find in abundant and extreme is unwholesome. And they are unwholesome because they tend to make one lose control over himself and thus unknowingly becoming a slave of his own desires, ignorance and emotions. And in the process causing suffering to himself and others around him.

Just take it as a safety measure. Its better to be safe than sorry or regret for your actions later.

Well, happy searching then......

Son of Odin

Allwrighty than...so instead of having a depressing look on life as it is, they make up a hell of a lot of nonsense to make the wole thing even more depressing ?
If that's Buddhism, than I'dd rather be a Christian, at least they get to do some fun sins.

lenrek

No. In fact, for a Buddhist live is full of hope. Yes, The Buddha did explain the reasons for our suffering. He did stop there, he also explain the way to end this suffering. Which in this case able to experience the same establishment as he has.

Life itself maybe depressing, but, there is a hope, a way out, a future that will end this suffering.

Anyone can enjoy their live as they want. Being a Buddhist does not forbid him to pursue any worldly pleasure. We just need to be mindful while experiencing these pleasure. As I mentioned before, the pleasure that attained by destroying this greed, this hatred and this foolishness or ignorant is higher than any pleasure. Imagine you can experience pleasure that is everlasting. A pleasure that is no side effect. A pleasure that is pure, and blameless.

Which pleasure that more worthy? The worldly pleasure that is not everlasting, that maybe corrupted by this greed, this hatred and this ignorant? Or, the everlasting pleasure that is pure and blameless?

Answerer

Depressing? Do I look depressed to you? Do all Buddhists look depressed or pessimistic to you? Obviously no.............

You don't necessary need worldly pleasure to make yourself happy. Or the lack of it to make you depressed. Its all in your mind.

Oh, go ahead then. Its your choice. But then you wouldn't find others here that welcoming.

lenrek

The unwholesome states of mind, is named this way, because these states are not beneficial. When a person act due to greed, hatred or ignorant, their result will eventually be in suffering.

To get technical, there are 14 unwholesome states. 4 is universal, meaning they are always present whenever our act is unwholesome. However, all unwholesome states are rooted or based on greed, hatred and ignorant. Ignorant itself is also consider as root for both greed and hatred. If you are really interested in the analysis of the mind, that is according to Buddhism, you are welcome to study Abhidhamma.

Buddhist in the orthodox tradition are explicitly told not to practice meditation that will lead to a mindless state or rebirth. We are told to practice meditation to destroy this greed, hatred and ignorant. At the same time keep all the wholesome mental states for our benefit as well as benefit of others.

For us, we found a way that will eventually lead us into blameless life. It is this future that we strive for. If you do not like this, no one will stop you to look for other ways to happiness for yourself. But, as faithful follower of this tradition, our teachers has explained, it is not possible other path can lead to everlasting happiness. Other path can and may lead you to a certain degree of happiness, but since it lack the correct method in eradicating greed, hatred and ignorant. This imply, their act (bodily, speech and mind) will continue to be influence by these unwholesome states. Thus, their pursue will always face a certain limit.

There are maybe other attributes that make us differ from animal kingdom. But it is this abilities that all human have, that we can train, cultivate, develop and establish in our mind.

Actually, quick questions, what make you think the definition given by this MSN Encarta is the correct or valid definition of Zen Buddhism? What make you think the "no-mind" concept of Zen Buddhism really imply mindless? Do you realize, this is translated from Chinese words, how certain you are that is translation is the correct translation?

To me, you should have ask this question to a learnt Zen Buddhist and ask for explanation. You instead jump into conclusion to reject Buddhism. It seems, you are already make up your mind to reject this religion, and you just dying for an excuss in doing so.

After all the explanations that has been given, at which point we agree your (mis)understanding? You are not interested in really understand what Buddhism is, you just want to (mis)understand the way you want it to be.