update on the buddhism thing (remember that?)
If you look over my postings (if anyone is looking, or if anyone cares for some unknown reason), you will see that many of my early postings had to do with my exploration into Buddhism and my questions regarding that. Then, you'd have seen that i switched after a while to talk about other topics equally as hippie-related, but not Buddhist. You may have wondered if i gave the whole thing up (again, if you're reading and if you care). you might even have chalked it down to me using buddhism as a passing fad that a stupid spoiled hippie brat doesn't have the discipline to stick with. You're probably right, but i'll get to that.
Basically, several things happened. First, i've gone through a period when i didn't force myself to meditate very much, because i am undisciplined and have a short attention span (exactly what meditation would help if i did it, of course). You see, because i'd rather my parents not find out i'm meditating (they freaked when i became a born-again christian in high school), so i have to meditate when they don't know, usually at night, since during the day i want to do other stuff anyway. but at night, i like to stay up -- either hanging with my friends or, if at home, watching Adult Swim on Cartoon Network or even typing on the Internet like i am now :-). When i get done with that, it's ususally later than i should stay up for sleep reasons (at least on weeknights), and so i go to bed without meditating so i get enough sleep to function. And yes, i've wondered if i should give up adult swim altogether (i typed the first part of this now before it comes on; the second time, as i am sitting down to finish this on a different night, it is Friday and Adult Swim isn't on). The basic point is that i don't really want to meditate.
Also, when i do try to meditate, i don't or can't concentrate at all, which i know is normal, but still.
i can blame this all on my undiscipline (which is undoubtably part of it), but it doesn't help that i have real reservations. While some Buddhist apologists claim that "real" Buddhism addresses these reservations, the problems still appear widespread. Some problems:
1. The problem with the whole Third Noble Truth, the end of craving and suffering, becoming an arhat or buddha. i admit, i still don't know the difference between nirvana and satori, but basically, i do not believe it is possible to get rid of all the craving, desire, aversion, and ignorance that leads to suffering. i am convinced that these are the causes, but do not think we can short-circuit them completely. Most troubling, the basic gist of this teaching is that when one becomes totally awakened in this way, one no longer does wrong deeds -- one is basically infallible. Now, the only buddhists i know of that do not believe in this nirvana are those in the Japanese school of Soto Zen -- and even in their case, i don't know if all Soto folks disbelieve in nirvana or just downplay its importance. Brad Warner, a Soto Zen guy , insists that this infallibility and total cessation of craving is a load of bullshit, as is so obvious. His Japanese teacher, Gudo Nishijima, teaches this too, though again, i don't know if all the Soto teachers do. Of course, there are several kind of agnostic western Buddhists who don't believe in this either, like that guy (Stephen? or Richard?) Bachelor and that British dude who wrote The New Buddhism. Being western hippies, though, they of course do not represent the authentic teachings of anybody ever.
2. Sometimes i feel really bad about this next point. i just don't think it is even a good idea to totally get rid of all desire or aversion, even if it were possible. i mean, obviously you can't just live like anton lavey or a standard authority figure and just do whatever you want -- like i said, i know craving and aversion are the sources of suffering.
i just think that in the right situations, they may be good or even necessary in small, controlled doses, and the point is learning to control them and try to see things as they really are -- selfless and interconnected -- so that we can do that. Now, i've read before that some ancient eastern sages -- i don't remember who -- have taught that it is sometimes necessary to go against the rules of the Eightfold Noble Path in order to act ethically in some situations. i'm not sure if this is the same thing as what i'm leaning toward. Some western Buddhists have jumped on this too -- James H. Austin, author of Zen and the Brain, says (to paraphrase majorly) that when the big ego is taken out of the picture, a smaller, unobtrusive ego remains. Again, i don't know how orthodox that is.
3. Kind of related to the above is the idea of intrinsic goodness in human nature, which is more crap. i hate that whole question, because although i tend to agree with political conservatives that human nature is nasty, i find myself leaning policy-wise and ideal-wise toward the leftist stuff that supposedly depends for its bedrock on the buddhistic idea of a good human nature.
Actually, to be more specific: i sort of doubt human nature can totally be known, and to the extent i think it can be, i don't believe that this human nature is totally sinful or nasty like in Christian original sin (although the original-sin doctrine has an obvious grain of truth, i agree with the Rouseauian chimp-lovers that the doctrine overall is fucked up --- Augustine of Hippo was basically an over-intellectual dweeb like me, and since when do people like us know anything?) I kind of lean toward the Jewish idea of a dual human nature, the yetzer ha-tov and the yetzer ha-ra, the good nature and bad nature respectively.
In short, i believe people are basically self-centered and individualistic, but that they also have instincts for group preservation and for attachment to other individuals. Such self-giving instincts can be especially strengthened when it is in the best interest of the individual to do what's best for others. i think thatin the long run (particularly when dealing with whatever happens after death; call it a hunch), it truly is in the best interests of the individual to care for others, since from a truly objective standpoint, we are all interconnected and lacking essential selfhood. i suspect that human self-preservation instincts may be turned in the direction of this larger interconnected-hippie-holistic-whole to some extent, but not entirely. But again, who cares what i think? i'm the fucking reincarnation of fucking Saint Augustine the Hippie of Hippo or something.
Oaybe it doesn't matter if some of these original authentic teachings of Buddhism are wrong, and we hippies can just choose those parts of the teachings we do believe. However, if we do that, then (a) why call it Buddhism? and (b) how will we know how much of the proverbial baby's bathwater to throw out?
Also, most feedback i've gotten from reading has tended to say that you gotta pick a spiritual path and stick to it, without all that New Age mixing-and-matching, which is basically undisciplined bourgeois shit with no deep understanding of any one tradition. Fine, but if we leave out whatever we want, how is that different?
Plus, if Buddhism is not "the true religion", then what does meditation actually accomplish? It doesn't bring us to nirvana, 'cause that doesn't exist. Brad Warner and the Soto Zen school say meditation should be done for its own sake, because meditation essentially is enlightenment. i've kind of been operating on this theory when i have been meditating. i guess i'll stick with that, even as i wonder if it does me any good. That probably means it's not a sin if i decide i don't want to meditate before i go to sleep tonight, and that somehow makes me more receptive to the notion.
Oh, my Marine friend in the guard with the Purple Heart is risking his life, so none of this bourgeois spiritual-search crap of mine actually matters. But hey, it's a fucking blog.
Basically, several things happened. First, i've gone through a period when i didn't force myself to meditate very much, because i am undisciplined and have a short attention span (exactly what meditation would help if i did it, of course). You see, because i'd rather my parents not find out i'm meditating (they freaked when i became a born-again christian in high school), so i have to meditate when they don't know, usually at night, since during the day i want to do other stuff anyway. but at night, i like to stay up -- either hanging with my friends or, if at home, watching Adult Swim on Cartoon Network or even typing on the Internet like i am now :-). When i get done with that, it's ususally later than i should stay up for sleep reasons (at least on weeknights), and so i go to bed without meditating so i get enough sleep to function. And yes, i've wondered if i should give up adult swim altogether (i typed the first part of this now before it comes on; the second time, as i am sitting down to finish this on a different night, it is Friday and Adult Swim isn't on). The basic point is that i don't really want to meditate.
Also, when i do try to meditate, i don't or can't concentrate at all, which i know is normal, but still.
i can blame this all on my undiscipline (which is undoubtably part of it), but it doesn't help that i have real reservations. While some Buddhist apologists claim that "real" Buddhism addresses these reservations, the problems still appear widespread. Some problems:
1. The problem with the whole Third Noble Truth, the end of craving and suffering, becoming an arhat or buddha. i admit, i still don't know the difference between nirvana and satori, but basically, i do not believe it is possible to get rid of all the craving, desire, aversion, and ignorance that leads to suffering. i am convinced that these are the causes, but do not think we can short-circuit them completely. Most troubling, the basic gist of this teaching is that when one becomes totally awakened in this way, one no longer does wrong deeds -- one is basically infallible. Now, the only buddhists i know of that do not believe in this nirvana are those in the Japanese school of Soto Zen -- and even in their case, i don't know if all Soto folks disbelieve in nirvana or just downplay its importance. Brad Warner, a Soto Zen guy , insists that this infallibility and total cessation of craving is a load of bullshit, as is so obvious. His Japanese teacher, Gudo Nishijima, teaches this too, though again, i don't know if all the Soto teachers do. Of course, there are several kind of agnostic western Buddhists who don't believe in this either, like that guy (Stephen? or Richard?) Bachelor and that British dude who wrote The New Buddhism. Being western hippies, though, they of course do not represent the authentic teachings of anybody ever.
2. Sometimes i feel really bad about this next point. i just don't think it is even a good idea to totally get rid of all desire or aversion, even if it were possible. i mean, obviously you can't just live like anton lavey or a standard authority figure and just do whatever you want -- like i said, i know craving and aversion are the sources of suffering.
i just think that in the right situations, they may be good or even necessary in small, controlled doses, and the point is learning to control them and try to see things as they really are -- selfless and interconnected -- so that we can do that. Now, i've read before that some ancient eastern sages -- i don't remember who -- have taught that it is sometimes necessary to go against the rules of the Eightfold Noble Path in order to act ethically in some situations. i'm not sure if this is the same thing as what i'm leaning toward. Some western Buddhists have jumped on this too -- James H. Austin, author of Zen and the Brain, says (to paraphrase majorly) that when the big ego is taken out of the picture, a smaller, unobtrusive ego remains. Again, i don't know how orthodox that is.
3. Kind of related to the above is the idea of intrinsic goodness in human nature, which is more crap. i hate that whole question, because although i tend to agree with political conservatives that human nature is nasty, i find myself leaning policy-wise and ideal-wise toward the leftist stuff that supposedly depends for its bedrock on the buddhistic idea of a good human nature.
Actually, to be more specific: i sort of doubt human nature can totally be known, and to the extent i think it can be, i don't believe that this human nature is totally sinful or nasty like in Christian original sin (although the original-sin doctrine has an obvious grain of truth, i agree with the Rouseauian chimp-lovers that the doctrine overall is fucked up --- Augustine of Hippo was basically an over-intellectual dweeb like me, and since when do people like us know anything?) I kind of lean toward the Jewish idea of a dual human nature, the yetzer ha-tov and the yetzer ha-ra, the good nature and bad nature respectively.
In short, i believe people are basically self-centered and individualistic, but that they also have instincts for group preservation and for attachment to other individuals. Such self-giving instincts can be especially strengthened when it is in the best interest of the individual to do what's best for others. i think thatin the long run (particularly when dealing with whatever happens after death; call it a hunch), it truly is in the best interests of the individual to care for others, since from a truly objective standpoint, we are all interconnected and lacking essential selfhood. i suspect that human self-preservation instincts may be turned in the direction of this larger interconnected-hippie-holistic-whole to some extent, but not entirely. But again, who cares what i think? i'm the fucking reincarnation of fucking Saint Augustine the Hippie of Hippo or something.
Oaybe it doesn't matter if some of these original authentic teachings of Buddhism are wrong, and we hippies can just choose those parts of the teachings we do believe. However, if we do that, then (a) why call it Buddhism? and (b) how will we know how much of the proverbial baby's bathwater to throw out?
Also, most feedback i've gotten from reading has tended to say that you gotta pick a spiritual path and stick to it, without all that New Age mixing-and-matching, which is basically undisciplined bourgeois shit with no deep understanding of any one tradition. Fine, but if we leave out whatever we want, how is that different?
Plus, if Buddhism is not "the true religion", then what does meditation actually accomplish? It doesn't bring us to nirvana, 'cause that doesn't exist. Brad Warner and the Soto Zen school say meditation should be done for its own sake, because meditation essentially is enlightenment. i've kind of been operating on this theory when i have been meditating. i guess i'll stick with that, even as i wonder if it does me any good. That probably means it's not a sin if i decide i don't want to meditate before i go to sleep tonight, and that somehow makes me more receptive to the notion.
Oh, my Marine friend in the guard with the Purple Heart is risking his life, so none of this bourgeois spiritual-search crap of mine actually matters. But hey, it's a fucking blog.
posted by jlhart7 at 7:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home