This was provided in the context of a comment on my spiritual-philosophical outlook on life, which is Buddhist. So rather than reply there, as that thread was getting very long and complicated, I thought I would make a few remarks here in the Philosophy of Religion forum.

The Buddhist attitude is that life, our ordinary existence, is dukkha. This is a word in the Indian dialect that the Buddha spoke, and is generally translated as 'suffering' or 'sorrowful'. So - 'life is suffering'. This is actually referred to as The First Noble Truth of Buddhism. Many commentators have taken this to mean that 'Buddhism is pessimistic'. That would be so if it were the conclusion of the Buddhist teaching, but it is only the initial premise. It is followed by a presentation of the remaining Noble Truths, showing the cause of sorrow, the cessation of sorrow, and the way to the cessation of sorrow.

I will probably present a more detailed version of these fundamentals of the Buddhist path elsewhere. However I shall now proceed to respond to the initial quote.

I don't think there is, in Buddhism, the idea that man has 'contempt' for his condition and that this is the cause of sorrow. The cause of sorrow is actually due to ignorance, which is the opposite of, or the absence of, wisdom, known as Panna or Prajna. Generally speaking, ordinary people are in a sorrowful condition because they lack insight into the way that greed, hatred and delusion are constantly shaping their experience of life, moment to moment. So accordingly, normal people are referred to in the teaching as 'uninstructed worldings' or 'putujjhanas'. (This is not a derogatory term and should not be taken as an insult. We are all putujjhanas, the writer included)

So very briefly the 'path of purification' in Buddhism requires understanding the way the mind (or heart; the term citta means both) reflexively creates suffering. This is an arduous task, as the mind does this by means which are not obvious to casual observation; there are many hidden roots of conflict and suffering. Hence the requirement for meditation - or dhyana. This is the means by which the mind gets insight into its own subliminal actions and hidden conflicts and is liberated from them. But it is an arduous task, as any Buddhist will testify, and requires a willingness to really face yourself head-on, so to speak.

This brings us 'embracing life as it truly is'. This is indeed an attribute of the Buddha: 'one who sees things as they really are'. In Buddhist meditation this is one of the main instructions - to see things are they are, not how one wishes them to be (or wishes them not to be). But this too is not necessarily easy. 'Uninstructed worldings' do not see things this way, exactly because we look at everything through an unconscious 'clinging or grasping' based on the idea of me-and-mine.

It is also true in Buddhism that spirituality is not about blind faith. (And in fact, I can't recall ever having advocated or recommending such an approach in anything I have said on the forum.) It is certainly about being able to observe clearly, to see things as they are, but at the same time, this is given within the context and the framework of the Buddhist understanding of the cause of sorrow and its ending, as described above. So when you say 'acceptance of what can be clearly seen', the question is, what can be clearly seen? I think it can be cldearly seen that on the whole, human beings are not born pre-disposed towards selflessness and compassion. These are latent qualities which need to be, and can be, nurtured. This is why one practises Buddhism, or any other philosophy, I would have thought. Buddhism is often described as a kind of therapy, and in some respects this is a true analogy; but the same can be said for other types of traditional philosophy also. We only take up these teachings because of our own imperfections; and speaking for myself, I have plenty to work with.

So, to summarise, the Buddhist view of 'true spirituality' is that it requires an understanding of the Buddha's analysis of the cause of sorrow and the ending of sorrow. One must willingly take on the teaching and apply it, through the observation of the precepts and the practise of meditation. This provides the ability to see things 'as they truly are' which is one of the main goals of the practise. But generally speaking, none of this will come about naturally, and it is not an easy thing to attain. You can't snap your fingers and bingo, enlightenment. I really don't think it is like that.

Great post, Jeepers!

The comparison to therapy reminded me of a great book:
Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive Shop

The book is free, as are the majority of the texts offered here:
Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive Shop

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

Lama Yeshe was a great character, larger than life and with a great sense of humour. Also very non-conventional and not too traditionalist in his outlook. I was lucky enough to see him teach in Sydney before his early death from heart failure. He left a great impression on a lot of people.

You were lucky enough to hear him lecture? Ah, what a gift!

No doubt - he was one of the great ambassadors of Buddhism to the west. The book I linked to above has been an immense influence on my own life. Whoever takes the time to read those collected lectures will, no doubt, notice the great humor and insight of Lama Yeshe. In addition, whoever takes the time to read those lectures will learn a great deal about applied Buddhism, which will help them move beyond theory and common misconception of Buddhist theory. To be sure, I am a novice and then less, but reading these pragmatic teachings as a westerner is an invaluable practice.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

Aha! Beginner's mind. Excellent - you will go far!

Question from an Innocent:
Does Buddhism also refer to the concept of Maya?
How would a buddhist describe Maya?

__________________
Sorry if my english sometimes sounds german, i am still learning..

Yes Buddhism does deal with maya, however; it can vary from schools and even specific elements within themselves. In some ways with some sutras the Buddha uses maya to point out characteristics of existence but he isn't actually claiming them to be maya. This has causes quite a bit of confusion within the Buddhist circles.

For example, the Buddha points out that there is impermenance by spotlighting the lack of a permenant essence to an object. Since this permenant essence can not be found, then by all means the object is not permenant and therefore impermenant. But he is not saying the object is illusrory or non existing because it is impermenant, all he is saying is that it does not remain the same thing for ever. This very simple thing gets mistrune and abused with attaching illusion to objects.

Where maya really comes into play within Buddhism, is with beliefs. Since beliefs can not be substantually consistent in all forms or methods they can be said to be illusrory. What does that mean? Because my beliefs are real, they effect me in a realistic way, do they not? Yes your beliefs do impact your daily existence however the impact is not always the same and they can even be transcended. So the belief can still be but the impacts change, so they are not substantual enough to be said to contain characteristics. To put it another way, it would be like saying the color red can change colors, no it can't however the effect red has on you emotionally or psychologically can change. So beliefs are consisdered illusrory or maya.

Actually the Buddist equivalent to Maya is Samsara. It is similar, but different, to Maya. Samsara means 'going around in circles'. The circles that we go around are traditionally depicted as cycles of re-birth into various realms - human, animal, hell realms, or heaven realms. This is depicted in traditional iconography as being driven by the pig (greed), rooster (delusion), and snake (hatred). Nibbana is complete liberation from cyclic existence.

There is a secular interpretation which does not rely on belief in an afterlife. This is that we are going around in circles in our ordinary existence because we are driven by attachements, aversions, and delusions of various kinds. In this interpretation we are always undergoing painful deaths and rebirths in the here and now. This manifests as moodiness and unhappiness. Overcoming it manifests as joy and peacefulness.

The Buddhist view of nature is actually realist, with some important qualifications. The Buddha does not deny that things exist - to do so is nihilism - however nothing exists absolutely, or in its own right - to hold that view is eternalism. I would say modern people generally flunctuate between these positions, with materialism being on the nihilistic pole, and religious views being on the eternalist pole. But other interpretations are possible of course.

What Krumple says about the Buddhist view of material objects is quite true. In the Theravada view, every existing thing has the three marks ('laksana') of impermanence ('annica'), non-self ('anatta') and unsatisfactoriness ('dukkha'). In the Mahayana view, the idea of 'sunyata' (usually translated as emptiness) is more fundamental. Both these teachings point out that every existing thing arises according to conditions and then ceases when conditions change. Therefore there is no 'truly existent object' or anything that exists in its own right. However this is not to be understood as nihilism.

And also, while this has profound metaphysical implications, Buddhism does not have a constructive metaphysics in the same way that Western theology does and has generally discouraged metaphysical speculation. Actually getting a correct understanding of sunyata is a key to having 'right view' in the Mahayana. In some respects, it is all you need to understand. But to arrive at this, meditation practise is necesssary. It is not really possible to form a correct view in the abstract. It comes about as the result of insight into the factors of suffering through practise.

Which brings us to 'beliefs'. It is true that the role of belief is very different within Buddhism than in other religions - so much so that many say it is not a religion at all, which has some truth. The key point in Buddhism is 'right view', Samma Dhitti, which is the first step on the eightfold path. In order to go anywhere, you need to have some idea where you are, some idea where you are heading, and some idea how to get there. To do that, you need to understand properly. And this is the basis of right view. Despite the fact that Buddhism has a (largely deserved) reputation for being non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian, a very large part of the discipline is concerned with communicating the actual understanding and not forming various 'dogmatic views' - one of which is 'attachment to views' or even being especially attached to being Buddhist. And there are a multitude of ways to misunderstand the teaching. But, fortunately, there is an abundance of teaching material around, and many teaching centres nowadays, which makes it a lot easier to form the right view from the outset.

Many thanks for your interest.

Quick question: Would you recommend the above link to someone interested in learning about Buddhism on the whole (i.e., starting from the general to the specific)? Or is there another reference that might be a good start?

The reason I ask is this: I know virtually nothing about it, but what little I've seen here and there gives me the sense there may be something worth investigating for myself. I'd rather not start at the specific; rather gather an overall sense of it - then move towards the nuts and bolts.

Thanks (and really hoping this question is coherent).

__________________
"... the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent examinations of them." - Dostoevsky

Hi Khethil,

Like you, I usually look for a panoramic view of thinks before digging into the specifics. One book that I have found helpful with Buddhism as well as other Eastern traditions, is "World Religions" by Huston Smith.

As with every other concept in the world, I think you will find a great diversity of opinion on what Buddhism represents and how to practice it, and then it is up to you to decide whether to go deeper or to be satisfied with a broad brush view.

One of the problems that I have with any Eastern Tradition, is ideas are filtered and translated for a variety of reasons, and it does take time to form one's own world view. I spent many years working with a variety of sources as well as immersing myself in various experiential endeavors to better understand Daoism. I would say that my current philosophical views on the topic are quite far apart from the standard texts that are found in English. So it is a journey.

Good luck!

Rich

__________________
Links.com
http://MeaningofLifePhilosophy.com