Eudaimonist

I mean indifference to worldly values. It doesn't help that Buddhism seeks to extinguish desire, even if it is only thought of eliminating "attachment" or "clinging". Why pursue values at all, according to Buddhism?
Does Buddhism merely tolerate such pursuits, or does it see some potential importance to them?

AdamWho

Thank you pushabutton and others for your responses. I want to assure you that I am not adverse Buddhism.
The question about Buddhist societies being passive was to start a discussion about how religion operates on a society as well as the individual.
I believe that once a [any] religion dominates a society it will have adverse (and sometimes positive effects). If we use measures of "success" such as scientific, political and philosophical innovation, then it would seem that Buddhism limits the societies it operates in. Buddhism on the other hand seems to have kept the east relatively peaceful for a long time.

The argument that Samurai were Buddhist might to be correct, I think they were Shinto...but the point is: Where are the Samurai now? Where were they in WW2? The answer is that the Japanese caught on to western ideas of warfare which leaves the Samurai behind.

pushabutton

I can only say that buddhism works for me.
And yes the Samuri did practice Zen, which was a blend of Buddhist practice and taoist meditation. Once it was introduced in japan, the shogun warloards,and samuri both incorporated it into their training, sometimes even going to spend time in monistaries to learn meditation. Zen-buddhism eventually became institutionalized as the "warrior religion". (Winston l. King -Zen and the way of the sword.) The spirit of the samuri as lived on. It is activly studied today in the Japanese business world by exectives, who believe that the warrior mentality will help them get ahead. And I beleve that Asia was well ahead of Europe in terms of Mathmatics, Science and Technology, and astronomy until the end of the dark ages. It wasn't until they started to have regular contact with the west that they started to slip (during the Rennisance). Remember they invented gunpowder and paper before the middle ages. As for being passive, I beleve there have been a lot wars in asia.

AdamWho

pushabutton - thanks for the reference, it seems to go to the heart of my question. It seems that my "wild generalizations" have been addressed - at least about the Samurai. I have no doubt the Buddhism works great for the individual but what can be said about the societies it works in.

Eudaimonist quote:

Does Buddhism merely tolerate such pursuits, or does it see some potential importance to them?

This is an interesting point. So often in Chinese history they seem to have really great ideas but they don’t capitalize on them. Gunpowder for fireworks – not warfare, Ships for local trade – not for exploring (see 1300s), automated mechanisms for toys – not as tools, mathematics for numerology – not discovery, music as a private diversion – no symphonies, a great start at philosophy – but then stagnation, example after example can be found where there was a good idea that just never bloomed – or maybe they were only tolerated not supported.

Most of the examples of great discoveries in China never made it past the God / Emperors court anyway, the innovations were held close and cast away if the next Emperor was disinterested. The average Chinese lived as they did for 1000s of years (just as many still do) and never were exposed.
What role did Buddhism play in this?

victorialis

I'd like to hear an answer to Eudaimonist's question too.

AdamWho -- could it be that Buddhism developed and succeeded in cultures where stability was held to be of greater social value than growth?

The passivity that seems to be implicit in Buddhism bothers me, too. After the many thoughtful responses to your OP I am still wondering.

boneyard bill

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Buddhism that is due, in part, to misleading translations of some key words. IMHO the first noble truth should be understood as: "Everything that exists is agitation." The term usually translated as "suffering" is dukkha. It refers specifically to a wheel that is flattened at one end and therefore makes the cart wobble. It implies imbalance, out-of-kilter. It is sometimes translated as "commotion." In the context of a person seeking conversion, it has a psychological sense of suffering such as alienation or anomie. But it applies to the physical world as well. That is why I like the term "agitation."

Note that EVERYTHING that exists is dukkha. In other words, this isn's simply a statement about the condition of the world. It is a definition of existence. If dukkha ceases, then the condition that follows is not one that Buddhism characterizes as existence. This is very important when you get to the term nirvana (extinction). Nirvana is the absence of dukkha and therefore is a non-existent state. But it doesn't necessarily mean non-existent in our sense of the term.

The second noble truth should be, "The cause of agitation is obsession." The actual term used is tanha, which mean "thirst." It is usually translated as desire or sometimes as craving. But I think that even craving is a bit too mild. But this obsession isn't just any obsession. It is an obsession to be a "self."

Along with dukkha, existence is characterized by anicca (impermance), and anatta, lacking in self. Everything that exists is a constantly changing process. Nothing, neither humans nor the tiniest atom, possesses an unchanging, irreducible essence that could be called a "self."

This is all quite consistent, of course, with our modern scientific thinking. But wait. Buddhism also claims that everything that exists wants to be an unchanging "self." But this is impossible so it exists in a state of dukkha or agitation. So dukkha is caused by the obession to be an unchanging, permanent essence. And this is impossible.

The cure for dukkha, or agitation, is nirvana, or extinction of self. This is the third noble truth. Of course there is no self to exitinguish so it is only the giving up of the obsession or desire to be a permanent or unchanging self that has to be extinguished.

To put it in more contemporary terms, we have a self-concept or ego and this self-concept, like any concept, is an abstraction. What we have to do is to cease to identify with this self-concept and simply be the constantly changing and interactive process that we truly are. When that happens the self is extinguished and we attain nirvana. But with nirvana we not only cease our agitation, we gain enlightenment. When we understand the true nature of self, we understand the true nature of the world. And part of this understanding includes our immortal nature. Now this seems contradictory. If there is no self, what is there to become immortal? You have to experience this to understand it. The citta becomes immortal. "Citta" is usually translated as "mind," but I doubt that that is very accurate. The term is probably not translatable. At any rate, this is why Buddhism is called the "middle way." It opposed the "eternalists" who claimed an immortal soul and the "annihilationist" who claimed that death was the end of everything.

Finally, of course, the fourth noble truth says that the way to attain nirvana is to follow the eightfold path.

Of course there is much more to Buddhism than this and different schools have elaborated on this points in different ways. But these are the foundational principles and I hope I've clarified some of the points being discussed here.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: boneyard bill ]</p>

Eudaimonist

That makes much more sense! Thanks.

victorialis

Thanks for that, bill. It clarifies things considerably for me. "Agitation" rather than desire is a lot more exact. The negative connotations of agitation are obvious enough, but enthusiasm or enjoyment could also be experienced as agitation. The wobbly-wheel image illustrates this well. But it's also possible to enjoy something without getting all bent out of shape, or obsessed with it. So it's a matter of how unbalanced I let myself get.

You've said, "You have to experience this to understand it." It seems as though words get in the way here. I'm getting an intuitive idea of what you're talking about but I don't think I can explain it accurately. It's paradoxical. The enlightenment experience would seem to split the difference between the eternalists and the annihilationists in a way that our logic does not like to countenance.

Anyway your point about translation difficulties is a good one. Language should be a precision tool, but it isn't.

boneyard bill

Victorialis writes:

Exactly. And of course, that means one person can't be sure he's experiencing nirvana in quite the same way as another.

But I'd like to make another point. The Mahayana Buddhists took this one step further. Since nirvana is a state of "no self" and since, in our everyday world (samsara) there is really no self but only the illusion of self; the nirvana and samsara are the same. So heaven exists here on earth and all we have to do is realize it. This claim eliminates all of the negativity that Buddhism is sometimes criticized for. So earthly existence isn't such a bad thing. We just have to understand it properly.

victorialis

I guess it's easy to make the initial mistake of assuming that enlightenment is something that a self is going to have. The rest of the concepts bump up against this rather uncomfortably: how can you be enlightened if you're not there anymore?

That's only a semantic problem. If I'm understanding this properly, the object is to get past a fundamental misconception centered around the idea of a self. Once this is accomplished, nothing outside you has really changed: life is what it's always been; responsibilities and possibilities are still there; but you function better and suffer less because a basic (nearly invisible) illusion has been overcome. This illusion is so nearby that it's hard to recognize.

A goal-oriented westerner might be inclined to view this as a circular argument that blames the victim. We're raised on agitation as the vehicle of progress, so we internalize it as the ultimate value. If agitation is supposed to be good for its own sake, "selflessness" looks like the short road to getting your ass kicked constantly.

And that's exactly what it is, for an individual who has no inner life -- who is not mindful.

What I'm getting from this discussion is that mindfulness is about taking control of your own state of agitation. That would not preclude goal-oriented behavior at all.

Instead, it would make goal-oriented behavior more efficient.