Buddhism and Love

[Mycroft]

One would think such "parables" would be presented as such within Buddhist religious text; the entire concept of reincarnation seems crucial to the theological assumptions and structure of all branches of Buddhism.

Incidentally, why would "life" absent whatever meaning or utility our imaginations give to it be something one would wish to experience?

Thing is, the whole notion of reincarnation -- that there is a three-dimensional universe moving forward of unilateral time, and that this universe is more or less identical to our perception of it and exists sans perception -- is at odds with the teachings of most types of Buddhism, Zen in particular. I may be mistaken (as my knowledge of the subject is solid but hardly comprehensive), but to the best of my knowledge no major school of Zen teaches of reincarnation.

To answer your question in extremely simple terms, because life is not the meaning we assign it; it is whatever it is, and only as we learn to dismiss the urge to assign names and meanings to everything in the universe can we begin to experience reality as it is. Like removing the thousands of post-it notes to find out what they're actually sticking to.

(Yes, yes, this is why I'm not a Buddhist scholar.)

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Thing is, the whole notion of reincarnation -- that there is a three-dimensional universe moving forward of unilateral time, and that this universe is more or less identical to our perception of it and exists sans perception -- is at odds with the teachings of most types of Buddhism, Zen in particular. I may be mistaken (as my knowledge of the subject is solid but hardly comprehensive), but to the best of my knowledge no major school of Zen teaches of reincarnation.

I know Korean Soto Zen definitely acknowledges it. In fact, if you read Compass of Zen, the Introduction is all about reincarnation, meat-eating, and Capitalism. It's actually very interesting.

 

[Mycroft]

I know Korean Soto Zen definitely acknowledges it. In fact, if you read Compass of Zen, the Introduction is all about reincarnation, meat-eating, and Capitalism. It's actually very interesting.

Well there you go! I'll have to look into that when time allows.

 

[Venom]

Buddhism is nihilism, dressed up in optimistic clothing...

Old bump....

Nothing stays the same... The irony. Here I am years later totally disagreeing with myself. I think Buddhism has a sort of valley of nihilism one must cross through to get to the "ecstasy but without the drug" on the other side. I honestly think much of the problem is literal "attachment" to whatever Buddha himself said.

The spirit of Buddhism in ONE word is Gratitude. I find it much easier to focus on that one word and thus viscerally understand the 8 fold path. If one tries to memorize every stupid little word and advice about various things you will be over intellectualizing it and be open to the nihilism many mistake Buddhism to be.

I understand the issue: if you have no attachments, and have equal compassion and gratitude for everyone, how could you ever "love" and attach to one person in a relational way?:

<> Buddha was not God. No one should blindly attach to his view of eschatology or cosmology. With those taken care of, one is free to tackle love and nihilism a little differently: ending suffering doesn't have to focus on reincarnation, but ending suffering in order that we enjoy
<> when one fully detaches from their attachments and accepts the impermanence of both the good and the bad:
<> Existence can then be ecstasy, but without the drugs: mindfulness in all the wonderful sensual aesthetics of existence, and zero fear

Could a little more attachment develop from having a relationship? Maybe, but maybe extra mindfulness could make up for it .

 

[wildflower]

There are many aspects to Buddhism, and its gets taught or propagated in some pretty different ways/views. So I'm hesitant to say that "Buddhism says/teaches...", nor do I want to elaborate on a variety of different Buddhist schools and their take on things. With all that preface, one point of view is to say Buddhism takes a very "be in the present moment" attitude towards things, and "accept things as they are, with neither attachment nor aversion." That second one is more open to interpretation, and likely to trigger reactions in others ["Are you saying that Buddhism says we shouldn't try to change things, that we should avoid politics, that we should ignore social engagement???"].

I would say, since you asked for our opinions, having relationships isn't wrong and its definitely part of being human. Non-attachment would come in more along the lines of "accepting people for who they are" instead of trying to change them or wish they were different, and also "being in the current moment" and enjoying your experience right now, instead of living in the past or spending all of your time fantasizing about how the future might be.

interesting thread. i am curious as to what you do mean by "accepting people for who they are instead of trying to change them or wish they were different" when someone is say a murderer? or cheating on there spouse? or a child abuser? is there a sense of morality or ethics in buddhism that would cause one to intervene? i am guessing you will say a buddhist would get involved but not get attached. is that it? also, how does a buddhist know what is right or wrong and whether or not to get involved?

i know in catholicism (i'm a follower of jesus but not catholic) there is the idea of ordering one's desires. i find that to be helpful. meaning if one desires a romantic relationship they can choose dating leading to marriage as opposed to something like dating and sleeping with a bunch of people at once which would be considered disordered desire. the desire for relationship isn't considered wrong but how we go about fulfilling that desire can happen in good and healthy ways or in wrong and unhealthy ways.

 

[Riva]

If one has a goal in life (which is sincerely wanted to achieve) the process becomes clearer does it not? This way it is easier to relate Buddhism/or any other teaching to life. The goal in Buddhism is Nirvana, the process is Vipassana (aka noble eight fold path aka middle path).

Without having a proper goal in mind (Nirvana) trying to implement the teachings leading to Nirvana (Vipassana) becomes a burdensome chore, as it is in any goal in life.

Love is not a barrier to Buddhism. But if one looks very closely one would realize that love is no matter how deep, is based on Tanha/cravings. Very very very rarely it is not based on Tanha.

The way a parent loves it's children is a good example for this.

The issue in Buddhism is people believe Nirvana (the goal) is a burdensome thought and that Nirvana is based on isolation and sadness. On the contrary Siddhartha went looking for pure, everlasting happiness. And then he figured out how to be eternally blissful (Nirvana) and found the process to it (the noble eight fold path).

And Nirvana is supposed to feel like an eternal orgasm .

 

[Sniffles]

Hmmmnn....don't understand why this thread got revived.

Oh well.....

i know in catholicism (i'm a follower of jesus but not catholic) there is the idea of ordering one's desires. i find that to be helpful. meaning if one desires a romantic relationship they can choose dating leading to marriage as opposed to something like dating and sleeping with a bunch of people at once which would be considered disordered desire. the desire for relationship isn't considered wrong but how we go about fulfilling that desire can happen in good and healthy ways or in wrong and unhealthy ways.

Yes this is true. St. Dominic gave a good summary of this principle:

"A person who governs his passions is master of the world. We must either rule them, or be ruled by them. It is better to be the hammer than the anvil."

 

[Lark]

I think buddhism is much more sinister than a lot of people suspect, it tells people to live in the present and have no thought for the future, there's no God, no hell, no personal salvation or personal afterlife, all of which I think makes it highly compatible with contemporary secularism but I dont believe will deliver happiness here or here after.

 

[citizen cane]

I think buddhism is much more sinister than a lot of people suspect, it tells people to live in the present and have no thought for the future, there's no God, no hell, no personal salvation or personal afterlife, all of which I think makes it highly compatible with contemporary secularism but I dont believe will deliver happiness here or here after.

Someone clearly isn't learned.


Buddhism encourages people to approach things from the right angle, do things for the right reasons, and maintain a proper outlook. You can't possibly say the noble eightfold path doesn't encourage these things.

Of course, because of your faith, the fact that another way of life could encourage such things without a guarantee of salvation and eternal life won't compute in your head no matter what.

 

[wildflower]

shoot, i was hoping someone had answered my questions. i was not trying to take over the conversation to one about christianity by posting what i did but merely trying to understand the differences and similarities to buddhism. personally, i don't think it's helpful for people of one faith (or none) to come onto a thread about another and disparage that faith and/or start a debate about the veracity of said faith. i don't think that is respectful at all. agreement is not necessary but a bit of respect would do nicely around here from all quarters.

 

[Lark]

Someone clearly isn't learned.


Buddhism encourages people to approach things from the right angle, do things for the right reasons, and maintain a proper outlook. You can't possibly say the noble eightfold path doesn't encourage these things.

Of course, because of your faith, the fact that another way of life could encourage such things without a guarantee of salvation and eternal life won't compute in your head no matter what.

And what is the right path? I have read those books too, read all the primary sources, its not about my faith meeting with others and resulting in a does not compute response, its about my accounting for the popularity of buddhism, the secular detractors and attacks of theism and faith all love buddhism, why? Well it seems like a nice, recipe for do gooding (or at least good intent) mixed with ways to relax and no expectation of ultimate consequences to worry about, that's why its popular.

 

[Lark]

shoot, i was hoping someone had answered my questions. i was not trying to take over the conversation to one about christianity by posting what i did but merely trying to understand the differences and similarities to buddhism. personally, i don't think it's helpful for people of one faith (or none) to come onto a thread about another and disparage that faith and/or start a debate about the veracity of said faith. i don't think that is respectful at all. agreement is not necessary but a bit of respect would do nicely around here from all quarters.

I dont believe its disrespectful to acknowledge differences of opinion, I dont disrespect buddhism, I just dont believe it and would account for its popularity in the way I did.

This is the curious double standard, questioning or criticism of buddhism solicits this response but not so the other threads in which much more vociferous points, or even trolling, have characterised the discussion of christianity, theism or traditionalism of western origins.

 

[Stanton Moore]

read:
http://www.enotalone.com/personal-growth/6308.html

 

[wildflower]

I dont believe its disrespectful to acknowledge differences of opinion, I dont disrespect buddhism, I just dont believe it and would account for its popularity in the way I did.

This is the curious double standard, questioning or criticism of buddhism solicits this response but not so the other threads in which much more vociferous points, or even trolling, have characterised the discussion of christianity, theism or traditionalism of western origins.

i am only going to respond once more about this so as not to hijack any further but when you come onto a thread and call it "sinister" that is a pretty hostile term whether it be true or not. there is a time and a place for debate and i don't see how this thread where some guy had asked a sincere question regarding his own life and practice can possibly be it. as for a double standard--no. i mentioned people of other faiths and "no faith" and said "all quarters". i don't think it is appropriate on threads started by a person of any faith including christians. i decided to point this out on this thread, your post in particular, because as followers of jesus we are held to a higher standard. honestly, i am not sure you are aware how your posts come across.

 

[Lark]

i am only going to respond once more about this so as not to hijack any further but when you come onto a thread and call it "sinister" that is a pretty hostile term whether it be true or not. there is a time and a place for debate and i don't see how this thread where some guy had asked a sincere question regarding his own life and practice can possibly be it. as for a double standard--no. i mentioned people of other faiths and "no faith" and said "all quarters". i don't think it is appropriate on threads started by a person of any faith including christians. i decided to point this out on this thread, your post in particular, because as followers of jesus we are held to a higher standard. honestly, i am not sure you are aware how your posts come across.

There's a couple of points of difference and disagreement between us but I can tell its not going to be fruitful to try and embark on a discussion with you.

 

[A window to the soul]

I think buddhism is much more sinister than a lot of people suspect, it tells people to live in the present and have no thought for the future, there's no God, no hell, no personal salvation or personal afterlife, all of which I think makes it highly compatible with contemporary secularism but I dont believe will deliver happiness here or here after.

I didn't see anything wrong with what you said. You speak truth.

i am only going to respond once more about this so as not to hijack any further but when you come onto a thread and call it "sinister" that is a pretty hostile term whether it be true or not. there is a time and a place for debate and i don't see how this thread where some guy had asked a sincere question regarding his own life and practice can possibly be it. as for a double standard--no. i mentioned people of other faiths and "no faith" and said "all quarters". i don't think it is appropriate on threads started by a person of any faith including christians. i decided to point this out on this thread, your post in particular, because as followers of jesus we are held to a higher standard. honestly, i am not sure you are aware how your posts come across.

Nobody had my back when I said I was a Jesus lover yesterday. One guy said my belief was idiocy. But don't cry for me. I got it covered. People that are bold enough to start a thread about their God, can take the heat.

 

[INTP]

You cant be totally enlightened and be truly satiasfied unless you overcome hornyness and other stuff that would make you happy, you need to find it from within

 

[INTP]

I think buddhism is much more sinister than a lot of people suspect, it tells people to live in the present and have no thought for the future, there's no God, no hell, no personal salvation or personal afterlife, all of which I think makes it highly compatible with contemporary secularism but I dont believe will deliver happiness here or here after.

Stuff does happen after you die:

 

[Venom]

I once read the gotama's no-self is like a copernican revolution for the ego. If nothing is permanent, then there isn't a permanent observer known as "me". So instead of the world revolving around our permanent ego, we can come to see the "I" as part of everything that revolves around time. Over short time periods were so sure time revolves around our permanent ego, but over the long run its less intuitive. Its a sort of a priori belief though, the impermanence. Id relate it to how in the short time span th moon revolves around the earth, but in reality the moon still revooves around the sun.

Anywyas. I'd think that less ego would be DIFERRENT from secular thought. I think a lot of secular people like Buddhism because much of the sort of "morality" you could derive from it would be based on the highly logical "end pain for all living beings". It avoids the bizarro superstions become morality like some other religions....

 

[gmanyo]

One thing I've always had problems with in Buddhism is the eight-fold path. I've always seen Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion. The first three noble truths are very interesting philosophically: life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, ending desire can end suffering. It is an interesting existential concept. But then you hit the eight-fold path, which is just a bunch of rules. Seriously, what?

I think it goes to show another truth about humans, that is that they can't seem to adopt anything without clearly outlined rules to follow, which essentially just lead back to what all religions seem to be: follow the rules and you will get rewarded. It's also gotten even worse, since popular (Mahayana) Buddhism is absolutely nothing like original (Theravada) Buddhism. I wouldn't be surprised if there were philosophers other than Buddha with the same philosophical ideas that didn't gain as much popularity because they didn't have a set of rules to follow.