November 10, 2019 at 8:43 am #312573Tee Bryan PeneguyParticipantNovember 10, 2019 at 11:39 am #312581
Sunday mornings are good for YouTubes while I’m making breakfast or whatever. I especially likes ones this where two opposite viewpoints sit down for a respectful chat. Sam describes the Buddhist idea that life is suffering, but we can find happiness and peace in succinct way here, and without jargon. The last line really nails it. You use spiritual practices to find peace, knowing that the unpeaceful moment will come, knowing that even in the midst of the best meal you’ve ever had with your favorite person in the world, there will be something imperfect about it. The unreality is, that seeking the ultimate moment of happiness is not possible and the feeling of unhappiness due to knowing that or due to whatever imperfection is in that moment is just as unreal, just as fleeting and is not a reason to pursue or avoid anything. They are all just experiences to have.
“There are many ways into that. I guess the most common is to recognize that we all suffer and we’re all going to die. Even if you are the luckiest person you have ever met and you live longer than anyone, eventually you’re phone will start ringing with all the bad news of the people you love who died and are disappearing. That fundamental mystery that we all have to confront that this life is impermanent and that even when we have everything we want or nearly everything even when we’re not sick and no one around we love is sick, still there’s this constant undercurrent of dissatisfaction. Even when you are getting what you want, in the very act of gratifying a desire your contact with your direct experience is still less than perfectly satisfying.
In fact your pleasures just recede. You get the bite of the perfect food, that chocolate cake that you’ve been looking forward to, and even in the act of savoring it, in the next moment, it’s a little too much and you need a drink of water. You wouldn’t want that experience itself to persist forever. So there’s this search for happiness in a context that seems perfectly designed to frustrate that search.
So I’ve used spirituality as a way to ask this question; if it’s possible to be truly happy and truly peaceful and connect with a durable form of well being before anything happens, before you get what you desire, even in the midst of physical pain or disappointed or anything conventionally negative.”November 10, 2019 at 6:17 pm #312626
So I’ve used spirituality as a way to ask this question; if it’s possible to be truly happy and truly peaceful and connect with a durable form of well being before anything happens, before you get what you desire, even in the midst of physical pain or disappointed or anything conventionally negative.”
Which Buddhism would argue does exist and that we have to free ourselves from our ignorance. The heart sutra is one doctrine of Buddhism that literally gets at the hearts of everything they say, which says that not only do our emotions not matter but they are not real. So yes Buddhism does say that. It’s why they mention that suffering isn’t real.
The thing about Buddhism is that what has been learned before is quickly abandoned when you get deeper into the practice in that it no longer is true. It’s more like a step to ease people in but then must be discarded. The Buddhism you see being talked about in public isn’t the deepest stuff.
Personally I would love to throw out Buddhism as I don’t really believe it to be true and it hasn’t helped me. But then I see brain scans of monks, and their demeanor and it gives me doubt. The thing is that there is science to back what Buddhism says, if there wasn’t I wouldn’t buy into it. It’s why I don’t buy into Christianity.November 10, 2019 at 7:00 pm #312628
Can you show or direct us to the brain scans of monks that causes you to doubt that emotions are real? I am thinking that some monks may have become adept at not reacting emotionally in certain circumstances. Perhaps there are also people who have trained themselves not to blink, despite the natural reflexive impulse to do so. I would be interested if that were the case as well. But I am not about to say that blinking does not exist.November 10, 2019 at 10:23 pm #312633
It’s more like a step to ease people in but then must be discarded. The Buddhism you see being talked about in public isn’t the deepest stuff.
So, we haven’t been talking about the “real” Buddhism. You know about the “No True Scotsman…”, oh forget it. I think Lao Tzu said the Tao of the internet is not the real Tao.
You know that what you described is basically how cults recruit people? If someone tells you they know the “real” whatever, check your wallet.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Lausten.
November 10, 2019 at 10:27 pm #312635
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Lausten.
The brain scans are more to show how the practice causes significant changes to their biology. It would be difficult to prove that emotions aren’t real, but that is in the Heart Sutra.
And Lausten you are mistaken, this is not the “no true scotsman”. It’s far more complicated. It’s similar to Zen where the teachings are just a way to lead you to the point where the teachings no longer hold. In essence the “truth” of Buddhism isn’t something that can be written down and why you can’t read about it. At least that’s what they claim. But no, this is not the “no true scotsman” not even close.November 10, 2019 at 10:57 pm #312643
Especially since the question of consciousness some feel is better answered by Buddhism or philosophies like it:http://bendedbrains.com/you-are-the-universe-experiencing-itself/#comment-18520
Wherein they claim a universal or global consciousness by making an argument about how the structure of our brain is what enables consciousness.
I find it interesting that you consider your beliefs to be spiritual, aside from the undoubtedly profound emotional involvement you have in them. To me, when someone says ‘spiritual’, this connotes ideas of the immaterial, the supernatural, and the unreasonable (in the non-subtextual sense of being impossible to consider using the faculties of reason). But the idea of a global-consciousness-which-is-tied-in-with-simply-WHAT-exists appears (to me at least) to carry none of these features necessarily.
I actually have similar views about the nature of reality, but they came to me in pretty much the opposite fashion. I started with belief in God, which mature gradually into atheism, but eventually this seemed to mature even further into a belief in universal consciousness that is substantiated with scientific philosophy, based on the fairly normal empirical assumption that it is the structure of my brain which imbues what I call ‘me’ with consciousness. I don’t consider this belief spiritual to me, but I do feel that it is nearly ineffably beautiful and in a similar way to how you consider your beliefs, both powerfully comforting yet horribly strange.
It makes me really curious about what dying will feel like. Will it be similar to falling asleep? Certainly ‘I’ will cease to exist, along with any functional structure suggesting memory, reason, or emotion. But something that once experienced itself in these ways will begin to experience itself in a way that is much simpler, yet more akin to the basic laws of nature. In fact, presumably a lot of the matter of which I consist is doing just that as we speak, but the ‘I’ is to complex to functionally relate to these activities.
I find it very amusing that two very different paths can lead to the same place. Makes it seem all the more meaningful, doesn’t it?November 11, 2019 at 12:49 am #312654
Xain: ” It would be difficult to prove that emotions aren’t real, but that is in the Heart Sutra.”
TimB: “Oh well, in the Heart Sutra, eh? You should have said so. I mean they could be in the carburetor for all that.
Or emotions could even be respondent behaviors that we evolved with, back through the ages of our phylogenetic development back through our pre-existing ancestors, many species back. Yep that could be. And what da ya know? Them emotions were real back then, since then, and now then.November 11, 2019 at 12:53 am #312655
I doubt that inanimate objects experience themselves.November 11, 2019 at 9:32 am #312673
In essence the “truth” of Buddhism isn’t something that can be written down and why you can’t read about it.
I’ll give you this one Xian. In fact, the Lao Tzu quote I altered is actually,
The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name. Non-existence is called the antecedent of heaven and earth; Existence is the mother of all things.
But it’s still also true that a statement like this can be used to confuse and abuse. I’ve worked with actual spiritual teachers and I know actual people who have been psychologically abused by people claiming to be teachers. Some of them were sincere. This is especially true in men’s groups where you are encouraged to take risks and find your warrior spirit. This can degrade into the equivalent of a bad high school football coach. That’s why it’s dangerous to use the internet for information on something that is so personal. It can also be dangerous to seek a guru who then tells you to cut yourself off from family or tells you that your thoughts aren’t real and you can’t trust your emotions, so you must trust the guru.November 11, 2019 at 11:31 am #312688
FYI Xian, that quote does not appear to be from bendedbrains. I like it though, even though it contains the usual logical problems that you can’t seem to spot.
Edit: Ahh, found it in the comments. Apparently those are indexed anywhere. So, it’s an anonymous commenter on an anonymous blog. Neither of which site any of their “science”.
- This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Lausten.
November 12, 2019 at 1:10 am #312753
- This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Lausten.
But it’s still also true that a statement like this can be used to confuse and abuse. I’ve worked with actual spiritual teachers and I know actual people who have been psychologically abused by people claiming to be teachers. Some of them were sincere. This is especially true in men’s groups where you are encouraged to take risks and find your warrior spirit. This can degrade into the equivalent of a bad high school football coach. That’s why it’s dangerous to use the internet for information on something that is so personal. It can also be dangerous to seek a guru who then tells you to cut yourself off from family or tells you that your thoughts aren’t real and you can’t trust your emotions, so you must trust the guru.
I would agree with that, it’s why I got red flags from the guy at actualized.org. I couldn’t pin it down to be honest, but he seemed like a snake to me. He mentioned debate being self deception and that was an red flag, among MANY others.
But the thing about Buddhism is that they has teachings (like The Heart Sutra) which isn’t what these modern gurus do.
It’s like what the Broward people mentioned about clearing the “picture world” that we build through our senses in order to get a clear picture of reality (I.e. one without our judgments and opinions on things). In a sense it seems like getting rid of subjectivity. Like when I say someone means the WORLD to me or something like it, that would be the “picture world”. The only thing that stopped me from going to them was the $200 a month fee and the fact that they would answer my questions without payment, and kept trying to get me to sign up for it. But I was unable to craft a rebuttal to their argument and convinced myself they were wrong for an unrelated reason.
But the parallels with Buddhism are the same, which makes me think they ripped it off, that you must clear your mind of the false images you construct of reality in order to see clearly and live/be truth.November 12, 2019 at 7:17 am #312761
Okay,well, good luck with thatNovember 12, 2019 at 11:37 am #312795
The genius of this book is the way it brings us inside the mind of it’s main character, an Italian man named Vitangelo, who becomes obsessed with the notion that his version(s) and understanding of himself are not at all the same as the personas that others believe him to be–nor are they likely who he thinks them to be. In any gathering of two people A and B, for example, we will at minimum have four definitive personas present: the person A believes A to be, the person A believes B to be, the person B believes A to be, and the person B believes B to be. In truth, there are far more likely a great deal more personas present even than that, as this fascinating novel vividly describes.November 12, 2019 at 12:31 pm #312800Tee Bryan PeneguyParticipant
I wonder if this concept of psychology is a different way of explaining the same thing:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.