epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
That's fair comment, and you're right. Some liberal Christians don't accept these, but I think that the majority of liberal Christians do.
Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
That's fair comment, and you're right. Some liberal Christians don't accept these, but I think that the majority of liberal Christians do.
I will do my best.
Well, for the first of the 4 noble truths sometimes translated as 'life is suffering' I find it helpful to toss this unfortunate translation. Pretty much no source of information I have read on buddhism uses this translation except to explain why it misses the mark in conveying the concept.
Steve Hagen, author of "Buddhism Plain and Simple" says life is like a wheel out of kilter. Something basic and important doesn't seem quite right.
I have also seen this expressed as existential suffering, it is a suffering everyone who exists experiences. We long for something more, but don't know exactly what it is. We have our lives and they seem pretty good for most of us, most of the time, but there is always, particularly in our quiet moments, a basic dissatisfaction with our lives. At times we only sense this dissatisfaction vaguely, other times much more acutely. We are ignorant of much and this causes us stress and suffering. Who are we, why are we here, where are we going? These are questions germane to existence and religions and philosophies have wrestled with these questions since forever and none of them really have any answers that end our ignorance. We have desires we are attached to, desires we act upon to be happy, yet nothing satisfies forever. As soon as we obtain the object of our desire, another desire is there. We have aversions to things and these cause us to feel uneasy. We do not want to lose our friends and loved ones to illness or death. We do not wish to die, to cease to exist. We don't want the delicious meal to end, the ectasy of a particularly intimate moment to fade, but they do.
This is how I understand the buddhist's first noble truth.
I believe, upon understanding the first noble truth, it is appropriate to say "Well, no duh." It really is a self evident truth and as such it doesn't really say anything we didn't already know. But, it defines the problem before describing the cure.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
OK, that at least is understandable, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. It is, as you have admitted, pretty much completely banal. On the other hand, good structure includes telling people what they already know first.
Do go on.
Wouldn't taking yourself less seriously be a better option?
I mean, everyone knows life has its good bits and its bad. You've just got to roll with the punches and acknowledge that its more good then bad. That's why all the athiests haven't killed themselves yet, because life is a pleasent, precious thing.
Seeking to disassociate yourself from the world, in order to avoid suffering seems like a much less preferable option.
But that's not what Buddhism teaches.
Let me use an example.
Let's say you loooooove chocolate, but your doctor tells you that for medical reasons you can never eat as much as a single bite of chocolate for the rest of your life. You could either pine over it and feel grief, or you could just accept it as it is and move on. Buddhism teaches the latter.
Last edited:
Really? I thought Buddhism taught the transending all attachments, as a way to pre-empt the suffering caused by later loss.
i.e. Loose the desire for chocolate now, in case your doctor forbids it tomorrow.
That's not the same as disassociating yourself from the world.
But your sentence there describes Buddhism pretty well, yes.
Yes, lose the desire, but not the enjoyment.
Aren't they inextricably linked?
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Well, OK, but you've demonstrated that you have a better sense of humor than a lot of people who call themselves Buddhists anyway.
"Grant me the power to change what I can, the willingness to accept what I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference."
But this brings up something that kind of bugs me about Buddhism. Gautama Buddha, or Siddharta, or whatever his name was, wasn't about to go hungry, no matter what he did. No way. There was plenty of money in his family. So going around telling people who were struggling to get enough calories to feed themselves that their suffering was caused by their desires was cheap and easy. I can think of a lot of other adjectives, but I don't think "noble" would be on the list.
And many of the societies where Buddhism really took hold were very hierarchical, with a clear distinction between the haves and have-nots, and a great deal of real suffering, not all of which was necessary due to primitive technology.
Not at all, and sometimes quite the opposite.
I'll use an example from my own life.
One of the things that have caused me most suffering in life is broken heart. For some reason, I experienced it much worse than most other people I know, and could suffer badly for 2-3 years after ending a relationship that only lasted months. And I'm talking pretty deep depressions here, depressions that lost me an education, several jobs and many friends. Also, when I was in a relationship with a girl, I would worry over when it would end and how I would deal with it when it happened. This made it impossible for me to actually enjoy having a relationship with a girl, and probably made many of those relationships end much sooner than they could have.
So you see how attachments and desire can actually cause unhappiness where there should be happiness.
After I started studying the four noble truths, and learning the cause of suffering, things have changed. Now I no longer fear the end of a relationship, and I'm able to enjoy the moment. Not only have I had better relationships, I've also become much better at accepting it when it ends. I'm not claiming I feel nothing, but the deep depressions are gone.
As another example, late last year there was a survey of Norwegian lotto millionaires that showed that a huge majority of winners were less happy after winning than they were before. Why? Because they thought that with all that money, surely their life from now on would be rosy red. Then reality hit them.
These were the circumstances of his birth yes, he lived a very sheltered life for a time. He walked away from it all, put on a peasants robe, shaved his head and set out into the boondocks alone to come to terms with his existence and find the answers to life's out of kilterness. However, I don't regard any of this as really important in terms of what he ended up teaching. What he taught stands or falls on it's own.
Yes, perspective/some moderation in all things is good, but would you really enjoy being in a relationship that you didn't desire to be in?
I know I haven't really, certainly no more than being single.
Last edited:
Sorry, I meant to address this in my previous post, but forgot.
I have seen buddhism likened to tofu and I thought it was an apt analogy. Tofu, it was explained, goes with pretty much any dish, but it doesn't ever overwhelm any dish.
Like tofu, buddhism fits into pretty much any culture and the culture is changed as a result, but not overwhelmed by it. When you say that many societies where Buddhism took hold were very heirarchial this really doesn't say anything about Buddhism, it says something about the culture of the place at that time.
Today Buddhism has made inroads into western, democratic nations. In those nations it looks, outwardly, quite different than it did in Tibet many moons ago. The core teaching is the same and that is about it.
Buddhism is going to look like whatever culture it is in, just as tofu is going to taste, more or less, like whatever dish it is part of.
When Buddhism first came to the west it came with the cultural and religious trappings of the culture it came from. Now that it is here individual practictioners freely choose to adopt some of those eastern cultural and religious trappings or to discard them in favor of a more western flavored dish.
Tofu, no matter how it is seasoned or what other ingredients are in the dish with it, remains tofu. If you like the tofu, but not the dish then pull the tofu out, rinse it off and eat it however you like. It's all good.
Last edited:
Thank you
Those are words to live by, for sure. Another good saying is "Your wants are many, your needs are few. Learn the difference."
This is valid criticism. But do remember that Gautama lived as an ascetic for many years, and knew well what hunger was (although his hunger was absolutely voluntary). Also, Buddhism does not cure physical suffering at all, including hunger.
Yes, Gautama Buddha wasn't a poor man, and, as a nobleman, had good connections in society. The scriptures say he became a great philanthropist and used his influence to help those worse off than himself. Gautama had no intentions of forming a religion, and did not see himself as a religious leader (nor did his contemporaries).
Charity is a thing that is very much valued in Buddhist societies, especially towards monks (it's what they live on).
I'm not happy about my answer one this one, but it's what I've got
Absolutely, but that's not the fault of Gautama Buddha, is it?
Just as the first noble truth is unfortunately sometimes expressed as "Life is suffering", the idea of having no desires is another pervasive myth that just confuses people.
Buddhists, even the most enlightened ones still have preferences, they like tacos and dislike broccoli (as a silly example).
It isn't about having no desires, it is about losing our attachment to those desires. It is fine, if single, to desire a life partner. It is fine, if poor, to desire a decent paying job. It is our attachment to these desires that causes problems, not the desire itself.
Our attachment to our desires is what causes us to either want this present moment to end (because we don't have what we desire) or to want it to last forever (because we just obtained a desire). Both of these attachments rob us of being happy, right now, in this moment, whatever it is.
Nothing lasts. When we feel the bitter agony of a powerful desire thwarted, it is here for a time and it passes. When we experience the pure joy of obtaining a long sought after desire it also is here for a time and then passes.
It is becoming attached to this desire for the present moment to end or last forever that causes suffering for us. We want something that is not possible and we spend our present moment, the only place/time we can be happy in, wanting the moment to be that which it never can be.
We expend much energy avoiding what we do not desire and much energy trying to attain what we do desire. This is fine, except when this results in our being dissatisfied with the present moment.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
I think it can be important, if it means that Buddhism doesn't apply to the majority of lives. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that it does. No chocolate? Broken hearts? Adolescent angst, basically, far removed from the lives of the majority of people.
As I said, the four noble truths do not claim to heal physical suffering, but mental suffering.
Emotional suffering is far removed from the majority of people? I'm sorry, I don't believe that.
You also seem to imply (indirectly) that I may not know what real suffering is. Earlier you've also implied that I am like the kid of a rich liberal.
Neither is true. My parents weren't rich (although my father became quite affluent after I became an adult), and the way you use the term liberal has no meaning in my country. I've had long periods of depression, and long periods of unemployment. I've been to war and experienced terrible things.
Neither has Buddhism claimed to be of help to all and everyone. Buddhism says to test it for yourself. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't, discard it.
If the teaching of the first noble truth (the problem) doesn't resonate with you and if the promise of the 3rd noble truth, (there is a cure for it), doesn't arouse any interest in you then buddhism is of no use or value to you.
You aren't affected by the problem buddhism defines and therefore have no need for the cure it prescribes.
You are a very fortunate person. If, however, you should ever find the problem applies to you in the future it is always your option to investigate the cure then.