Are You Giving Yourself the Chance to Live?

[fantasticsound]

Ken, they do all those things in Lilly's school. And she participates in such discussion and rule making in kindergarten.

 

One byproduct of the school having so few students is they have an all school assembly every morning, in which the principal can discuss important topics with the entire student body. I know much of this is lost on the younger students, but they even have a student council (the school only goes to 6th grade) and each candidate had to state their case for election in front of the entire school at these assemblies.

 

There are other schools I've heard about that use many of the ideas you espouse in your last post, and in every instance I've heard nothing but great comments about the schools, their teachers and each student body.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

[QB] [buddhism. It actually is anti-artifice

It's anti-artifice unto it's own doctrine, but in itself is an artifice relative to being a human. It's an overlay to what you are, it's not something inherent. If someone is in a certain frame of mind, who is not Buddhist, to apply Buddhism to their life is an artifice.

 

in that it attempts to strip away the nonsense and get to the real stuff, and doesn't push down emotions.

It doesn't push down emotions because it does attempt to strip away "non-sense"; the problem is that ultimate "non-sense" in a Buddhist context is just about anything relative to being a human. Sure, if you take away desire for material things, desire for others, desire for personal achievement, essentially everything that can potentially cause an emotional conflict - yeah, you will be Enlightened - but you'll also be less than human. IMO.

 

What it means is that you don't become preoccupied with it.

That's easier said than done, speaking for myself.

 

A Buddhist might say that this obsession over the future might be what causes suffering.

It's not as easy as identifying one is obsessing over something. Again, if one has something Amazingly Great To Look Forward To in the future, obsessing doesn't really become a problem, does it? It's when one's personal situation presents future options in a negative fashion that it becomes a problem. In which case, if one tries to circumvent the negativity by suppressing the process itself, one is suppressing one's humanity.

 

 

No one is saying to ignore what you feel.

Speaking for myself, I can't.

 

and then you plan accordingly. But you don't OBSESS over it or become preoccupied.

Again, easier said than done. While at the same time, that's part of the problem; to be able to switch it off is a peculiar thing in itself.

 

 

surely you must know someone who had something painful happen to them, and many years later, that person is still straitjacketed over

Of course. I also suggest that person could be in a situational connundrum for which there isn't a solution.

 

 

what happened. They can't love another person again,

Again, perhaps some things can't be undone.

 

A Buddhist might say that this is from an extreme preoccupation with something from the past, and that this causes suffering.

As a human I would say it's suffering the weight of the value of the thing that is causing the preoccupation. Likewise, the experience of that value - if it is to be fulfilling - must carry with it the burden of the weight of that value.

 

Buddhism attempts to balance that equation by presenting the notion that the value of the thing causing suffering can be nulled. Of which, it has been shown, can happen; but, if one chooses to do that - if one is *able* to do that, then either the real value wasn't there to begin with, OR the person has transformed himself into a person whose capacity to retain that value has been lessened. In doing so, one's lesser capacity to experience that value reduces one's humanity. IMO. It works - but it's not a human process.

 

according to Buddhism, it's that attachment that causes suffering.

Of course. It's only logical. But, it's like a child with a new toy; a child learns to go beyond concern for the toy and mature - but it cannot do that without in the same process no longer being a child. As a human, in my opinion, how much value certain things have with you - love, for example - is almost the measure of your humanity. For such a thing to *have* value, it's absence must be as equally valid. If one argues against that equation, this as I see one's humanity is diminished.

 

It's why I choose not to take strong SSRI's: yeah, I'll not obsess over anything. BECAUSE, it alters the importance of the emotional value you place upon things. If you take enough of it, you can operate almost exclusively without emotion. You won't need love, you won't need humor, you won't need things to amuse you.

 

You also won't be *happy*, and you also won't be a human.

 

But you recognize the IMPERMANENCE of it all,

Of course. Existence is completely transitory and relative to your present state. From a tangible standpoint, nothing really matters at all.

 

*That* is the ultimate anti-human doctrine. Because of our capacity *to* contemplate such things, AND to live our lives based around how we interpret that contemplation, that is first and foremost in *being* human. That's what scares me; the move towards treating the intangible aspect of "living as a human" *as just intangibles*, strikes me as a very alienating suggestion. Yeah, it's perhaps a more logical way of living; but at what cost?

 

Attachment, for example, is something I have great difficulty doing. I think that it has

Attachment is being human. Why would you not want to develop attachment towards another human being? That shared capacity *for* attachment sets us apart from other material things. Trees can't have a mutual attachment with each other, patch cables can't - humans can. It is part of what makes us human; it also causes problems. Attempting to negate it is anti-human IMO. I want to feel attachment towards someone who feels an attachment to me; that is a situation that solely requires humans, and is something that transcends everything else in existence. You cannot touch it, see it or taste it, but it's *there*, at least as a possibility.

 

I wish to have that possibility remain. Convincing myself that it's value in the past and future is inconsequential devalues it's potential in the present.

 

 

that the more I acknowledge how I feel but recognize the impermanence of things, the less I do suffer.

I am the anti-Buddhist, then. The impermanence of things is distressing to me; I want to see and know there are things that are representational of human thought in tangible form, or even intangible, in the form of relationships. Everything humans create are impermanent, but it's the process that can transcend that impermanence.

Again, that which is human - exclusively - defines us as humans.

 

I just try and be as happy as possible

I want to be happy, but I want to be happy for real reasons. Not because I took a drug, or bought into a religious or philosophical argument. Happiness without artifice - meaning, no mind-altering drugs, philosophy/religion - *is* a real thing. I don't want to essentially pretend I'm happy, I want to be happy without a hidden catch.

 

That some people can achieve true happiness with those doctrines I do not doubt; but human perception is relative, and for me I do know what I want and know that I do not wish to attempt to modify what that is by skewing my perspective.

 

I truly hope I haven't butchered how Buddhism is, but I want you to know that it does

Buddhism is what it means to you, it is not for anyone to define.

 

strongly recommend that you read Thich Naht Hanh or the Dalai Lama. I think they are able to

I've read the Dalai Lama. He's a trip, very funny guy. He's also been raised in an extreamly abnormal manner and lives an extreamely abnormal life, and I do not place a superceding value in what he has to say over what any other human philosopher has to say that's been on the planet.

It is not Absolute Truth, in as such Absolute Truth cannot be questioned; Absolute Truth is a myth. He is yet another human to me, albeit an interesting one, unless proven otherwise.

[Jimbroni]

I want to be happy, but I want to be happy for real reasons. Not because I took a drug, or bought into a religious or philosophical argument. Happiness without artifice - meaning, no mind-altering drugs, philosophy/religion - *is* a real thing. I don't want to essentially pretend I'm happy, I want to be happy without a hidden catch.

But are you? Almost everyone I've known who describes a happy event uses a description similar to what you've just laid out, but never claims happiness. Got any examples of what YOU call happy?

 

 

IMO, Happiness is a worldly term that causes distress. You see phoney Mofo's running round hollywood, and bollywood, you name it selling happy. Causing people to pay all kinds of money to be happy. Fuck Happy. Be content.

 

I agree with you in that alot of the items you describe in your first post are ill favored, but I believe all of those things were created by a desire to be happy instead of at peace.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

 

As a human I would say it's suffering the weight of the value of the thing that is causing the preoccupation. Likewise, the experience of that value - if it is to be fulfilling - must carry with it the burden of the weight of that value. Buddhism attempts to balance that equation by presenting the notion that the value of the thing causing suffering can be nulled. Of which, it has been shown, can happen; but, if one chooses to do that - if one is *able* to do that, then either the real value wasn't there to begin with, OR the person has transformed himself into a person whose capacity to retain that value has been lessened.

Wow... couldn't have thought of a better way to express that idea. And it's a tough one to communicate. But I totally agree. But you knew that.

 

In doing so, one's lesser capacity to experience that value reduces one's humanity. IMO. It works - but it's not a human process.

Well, it is only to the extent that humans do have to prioritize among things we value, otherwise you can't fully experience anything with any depth. We aren't capable of attaching to everything in the world that there is. In that sense, Buddhist principles are helpful. Sometimes we can spend an inordinate amount of energy focusing on things that aren't really relevant to what we value most, and in that case sometimes you really do have to train your mind to focus on the things you value and NOT focus on all the other crap. Meditation, learning to recognize your highest values and how much you're capable/not capable of doing (as a human), and training your mind toward those things and away from other minutia, is something we all do need to know how to do.

 

That's why I said earlier that Buddhist principles are helpful but can be mis-applied or misused. Because just like you said... if we detach from the wrong things then we lose something really really big.

 

As a human, in my opinion, how much value certain things have with you - love, for example - is almost the measure of your humanity. For such a thing to *have* value, it's absence must be as equally valid. If one argues against that equation, this as I see one's humanity is diminished.

As you would say, 10 pts.

 

I wish to have that possibility remain. Convincing myself that it's value in the past and future is inconsequential devalues it's potential in the present.

Another 10 pts. At least.

 

Everything humans create are impermanent, but it's the process that can transcend that impermanence.[/qb]

"Nothing you do will be of any importance... but it is very important that you do it." -- Gandhi

[Jimbroni]

Buddhism attempts to balance that equation by presenting the notion that the value of the thing causing suffering can be nulled.

Thats a false statement, which breaks your logic. Oddly, most of the premices you're trying to profess are in line with buddhist tradition. I don't understand your desire to discredit. What gives? Did a monk kick you in the nuts or something?

[KenElevenShadows]

Chip:

I strongly disagree with your reasoning for your distaste for Buddhism, particularly your idea that adopting lessons for someone who has a different frame of mind is "artifice" - huhhhhh??? Or that you can't be taught to stop "obsessing" over something. Jillions of people who have gone to therapy, study Buddhism, or have a strong sense of discipline would say otherwise!

 

At any rate, you seem determined to go your course, and you seem to have a strong aversion to Buddhism, for whatever reason.

 

I've basically laid out in the best words I know to describe what I think Buddhism is about. And the only reason I wrote it is that you seem like you would really get a lot out of it.

 

But it may be best to agree to disagree.

[KenElevenShadows]

Neil, your daughter's school sounds like a breath of fresh air to me!

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Or that you can't be taught to stop "obsessing" over something. Jillions of people who have gone to therapy, study Buddhism, or have a strong sense of discipline would say otherwise!

I don't think he said it couldn't be done... in fact he did say it could be done and it works, only that he doesn't think it's necessarily a good idea. Which is kinda like what I was saying earlier.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Originally posted by Dan South:

[qb] I don't know what you mean by "today's time-compressed lifestyle." We are completely in control of how we spend our time.

I didn't say we aren't. That's part of the alienating-factor: people are choosing to be excessively busy... but mostly for vacuous reasons, either material possessions or social status.

The laziest, most sloth-like person in the world thinks that he or she is too busy. People would complain about being too busy breathing if the couldn't thing of anything else.

 

It's not as though we are forced to live busy lives by government decree. If you are too busy, either slow down or work more efficiently.

Man Dan, you've missed my point entirely! It's not about choice, it's about the philosophy that society now *expects* you to be that way, and if you choose to do things outside that norm, you're "weird".

 

Having said that though, I'm not certain "choice/choose" is the proper word, because what I'm infering is that it is now a process of indoctrination that is making people this way. What's made me say these things is having repeately as of late seen many people who, 10 years ago, would have chosen a radically different path in their life - but today choose what looks *appropriate* for them to do on paper, because of societal pressure.

Geez, it sounds as though we're all at the mercy of some all-powerful indoctrinating Big Brother. Yes, a lot of people watch seven hours of TV a day, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so. A lot of people eat fast food regularly; a lot of other people avoid it entirely. We all live in the same society (Americans, anyway). The difference is not in society but in the individual. Some individuals will always choose to run with the herd. Some will march to a different drummer.

 

Would more productive, healthy role models make a differences? In some cases, yes, but a certain segment of the population is going to live a wasteful, barely significant life no matter how much support they get from society. And some people will be driven to use their time productively even if everyone around them is a time-wasting slob.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Jimbroni:

. Got any examples of what YOU call happy?

Sure. Finding out that my mother's breast cancer last year was in remission, that was True Happiness. There's no catch to that, I didn't have to argue myself into thinking "I'm happy", I didn't have to take a drug to alter my perception of events: it was a truly good thing that made me happy.

 

Or how about an insipid, silly "human want" thing: I get the craving for a peach milkshake. I go to the Krystal's around the corner, knowing full well that most of the time the milkshake machine is broke. But this time it isn't, I'm craving for one, for the sheer hedonism of easily fulfilling that desire, and it turns out the machine *isn't* broken and I get to have what I want. I'm happy, in a primitive, banal sense. But it is *real* happy, not "well, the machine is broke, but Buddhism teaches me that if I didn't have cravings for something as impermanent as a peach milkshake, then I would be happy now, so "I'm happy"!" or, "it's ok the milkshake machine is broke, because God made the rest of the day just super wonderful! " or "I feel happy, I look happy, and dog gone it, people think I'm happy, so I'm happy!!"

 

It's bs.

 

It's utterly insane we're even discussing "How To Be Happy Without Actually Feeling Happy". It's nuts! Buying books to learn "Happiness"??? Studying a religion to discipline oneself against all the human desires that can *potentially* lead to unhappiness?

 

"Happy" is farking happy! It's not a viewpoint espoused in a book, it's not being numbed to the world with drugs, it's not being delusional with religion - it's being HAPPY. If you're a human it's built into you, you don't need to be told what it is by a book or drug.

 

IMO, Happiness is a worldly term that causes distress.

Happiness is a state of mind found in humans, and it is the absence of distress. On the other hand, trying to re-interpret what has been historically considered a "typically accepted" concept - happiness - is exactly my point. Blue is blue, round is round, happy is happy.

 

 

you name it selling happy. Causing people to pay all kinds of money to be happy. Fuck Happy.

No! You've bought into it! They're not selling happiness, they're selling stand-ins for "happiness", illusoins. There's a difference, but again note that the line between the illusion of happiness and actual happiness is now blurry. That would have been considered absurd 30 years ago. 30 years ago, if you had told anybody at all "one day, people will argue about what "happiness" is", it wouldn't have registed to them - it wouldn't have any bearing whatsoever.

 

Be content.

I strive for content. One cannot just "be" content, not without changing one's value system relative to what causes someone to not be content in the first place.

 

but I believe all of those things were created by a desire to be happy instead of at peace.

Being at peace can be happiness.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

particularly your idea that adopting lessons for someone who has a different frame of mind is "artifice" - huhhhhh???

You are not born with Buddhism. You do not aquire Buddhism without exposure to it. Given that without exposure to it you will not naturally aquire the results attributed to Buddhism, it is Buddhism itself that alters the way you *naturally* think in order to alter your perception of how you think. That is an artifice.

 

 

Or that you can't be taught to stop "obsessing" over something. Jillions of people who

No, not if you are chemically predisposed to do so.

 

 

have gone to therapy, study Buddhism, or have a strong sense of discipline would say otherwise!

Prove to me those jillions of people truly obsessed over things uncontrollably.

 

At any rate, you seem determined to go your course, and you seem to have a strong aversion to Buddhism, for whatever reason.

My reasons I stated.

 

Sorry, Buddhism is not any more a sacred cow (pun intended) in my book than Janeism, Deism, Christianity, Objectivism, or any other ism. I do not see actual Buddhists who appear to behave as humans.

[KenElevenShadows]

I mentioned some of the lessons of Buddhism because I thought you'd be interested in it, that's all. You'll have to "acquire" some new ideas without being exposed to them if you want to become happier, something I thought was a goal of yours.

 

1. "You do not acquire Buddhism without exposure to it." - Chip

 

That's an argument against Buddhism? Okaaayyy....

 

I didn't grow up with Buddhism. I became exposed to it. It's helpful. When I want to break cycles in my life, improve myself, whatever, I expose myself to new ideas. It's like this with any new idea, Chip.

 

2. "Prove to me those jillions of people truly obsessed over things uncontrollably."

 

No, I won't. Because you are determined that you are going to obsess over things no matter what, and that apparently everyone else will too. We're all apparently *doomed*, right? I'm just gonna let this one go.

 

3. "Sorry, Buddhism is not any more a sacred cow (pun intended) in my book."

 

Buddhism has nothing to do with sacred cows. I question why you argue so vehemently against something you clearly know nothing about.

 

4. "I do not see actual Buddhists who appear to behave as humans."

 

????

 

From your perceptions of Buddhism, it doesn't seem like you've met ANY Buddhists.

 

Or very many humans.

 

Congratulations, Chip. You win. This is the most bizarre "debate" I've been in for years.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Or that you can't be taught to stop "obsessing" over something. Jillions of people who have gone to therapy, study Buddhism, or have a strong sense of discipline would say otherwise!

I don't think he said it couldn't be done... in fact he did say it could be done and it works, only that he doesn't think it's necessarily a good idea.

Oh, no? That's not what I'm gettin' from him. Check out his latest response to this.

[KenElevenShadows]

Chip wrote: "I've read the Dalai Lama. He's a trip, very funny guy. He's also been raised in an extreamly abnormal manner and lives an extreamely abnormal life, and I do not place a superceding value in what he has to say over what any other human philosopher has to say that's been on the planet.

It is not Absolute Truth, in as such Absolute Truth cannot be questioned; Absolute Truth is a myth. He is yet another human to me, albeit an interesting one, unless proven otherwise."

 

Again, I'm going to clear up stuff here, and it's not to change your mind, Chip, but more for the benefit of people reading this who may not know who the Dalai Lama is.

 

He is a human. There. I hope we're clear on that!

 

He does not speak Absolute Truth nor does he claim to. I would be wary of anyone claiming Absolute Truth.

 

He has some lessons from a philosophy called Tibetan Buddhism, and many people find this helpful. Some do not. Some may get something more valuable by reading Plato or or Kant or Hegel or Socrates or David Letterman. That's totally cool. The Dalai Lama often says that many people in the West may benefit from other forms of philosophy or religion or ideas and not Buddhism. He says that if Westerners should come away with one single idea from Buddhism, it should be that we should have compassion for all others. That certainly doesn't seem to suck.

 

I have no problem with people criticizing or questioning philosophies. However, misunderstanding or misinformation is another thing entirely, and that's what I am trying to address here in the past several posts. For me, I like to learn from people with wisdom, no matter what walk of life they're from.

[Lee Flier]

Ken wrote: That's not what I'm gettin' from him. Check out his latest response to this.

 

Yeah he's saying if you're chemically predisposed to obsession, Buddhism won't help it. I'm not sure if I agree with that entirely, but then, I think the whole "chemical imbalance" issue is pretty tricky anyway and that's a whole other can of worms.

 

I was referring to this:

 

"if one chooses to do that - if one is *able* to do that, then either the real value wasn't there to begin with, OR the person has transformed himself into a person whose capacity to retain that value has been lessened."

 

So he's acknowledged that you CAN transform yourself, only that it comes at a price and he doesn't want to pay that price.

 

I feel myself that it's situational; there are things I feel are worth trying to change about myself even if it comes at a price, because the price isn't all that bad. That's what I think Buddhism addresses well. If you're obsessing about stuff that's of no real consequence to you, like people who wash their hands 20 times a day, or obsess over a one night affair they had years ago, then it's probably worth sacrificing a little of yourself to get over that. That is, it will increase your ability to focus on the things of real value and consequence to you and make your overall quality of life better in the process... so... yay for meditation and detachment.

 

But if the thing you're obsessing about is something of real value, then I agree with Chip, it usually diminishes you to change that.

 

Of course there are lots of situations in between that are tricky. If someone obsesses over money and possessions, for instance, is that really a part of their nature? Or just obsessing over an artifice? Or is it that the feelings are transmuted and money is not the real object of their obsession, it's a metaphor for something else (emotional security or acceptance maybe). Only that individual can know, I think, but (AND THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT) most people don't spend enough time and energy contemplating things like that to ever know. So how they deal with distress is reduced to "I don't feel good - I'm going to take a pill/meditate/read a book/exercise/whatever until I do." And there may be times when that's exactly the right thing to do, but not always.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Jimbroni:

Thats a false statement, which breaks your logic.

Explain attaining enlightenment without altering consideration for the past and future. It can't be done.

 

Oddly, most of the premices you're trying to profess are in line with buddhist tradition. I don't understand your desire to discredit.

I don't have a desire to discredit. I do not believe Buddhism is the answer to everything, and I also think that applying tenets of Buddhism out of context doesn't solve anything. My belief that embracing Buddhism wholly is anti-human nature is just that - my belief. I'm not trying to proactively be anti-Buddhism, people can do what they choose to do, of course.

[KenElevenShadows]

Lee, thanks for the further explanation.

 

But I have a question (and no, I'm not being facetious or trying to cause trouble):

 

Is obsessing over something of value healthy? Because that's what I thought we were discussing here. Are we engaging in semantics?

 

Because to me, "obsessing" connotes an unhealthy imbalance, elevating something or someone far beyond its intrinsic value, as valuable as that may indeed be, often to the detriment of other valuable people or things.

 

Concerned, yes. Being emotional over something or someone of value, absolutely. Valuing something or someone of value? You bet. Loving and adoring something or someone of value? Yeah! None of this contradicts Buddhism, or much of any "ism".

 

But if the act of obsessing over something is something that someone WANTS to do, I'd say knock yourself out!

 

~~~~

 

And trust me, I have experienced my share of people with chemical imbalances (including my lead singer ). And there's plenty of stuff out there to help, and I'm not talking necessarily about popping pills.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

1. "You do not acquire Buddhism without exposure to it." - Chip

 

That's an argument against Buddhism? Okaaayyy....

You do not understand. You are trying to polarize what I am saying into a statement against Buddhism. I am saying why I do not want to apply Buddhism to my life and why it runs counter to my perspective.

 

I might like the color red, but perhaps I don't want my house to be painted red. Saying that doesn't mean I don't like "red".

 

I didn't grow up with Buddhism. I became

I grew up with friends of my family that are Buddhists, and I know many people who espouse Buddhism. How they choose to integrate it into their life is their choice. How I choose to integrate it into my life is my choice. Regardless of that, it is something one superimposes upon one's thinking process.

 

whatever, I expose myself to new ideas. It's like this with any new idea, Chip.

What does Buddhism say about ego?

 

Because you are determined that you are going to obsess over things no matter what, and

I am not "determined". As I've said, I am physiologically predisposed to obsess, I was born this way. The problem is in having come to a perspective that is circular in a negative fashion. Yes, there are "Known Accepted Ways" of breaking mental patterns; they also all require altering the value systems that led *to* one's mental state. There's a difference in seeking a new vantage point to observe, rather than choosing to try to obscure what one already observes.

 

that apparently everyone else will too. We're all apparently *doomed*, right?

I don't know, you tell me, I haven't said anything about everyone being doomed. I of course realize you're trying to typecast what I'm writing, so as you say I'll leave it alone....

 

Buddhism has nothing to do with sacred cows. I question why you argue so vehemently against something you clearly know nothing about.

I question why someone professing Buddhism seems personal responsibility to defend that which doesn't need defending.

 

4. "I do not see actual Buddhists who appear to behave as humans."

Acetics - choosing to live in isolation, attempting to cast off *human* desire, while living an absurdly ascetic life is not behaving as a human in my book.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who practice various aspects of Buddhism who do not live like that; but likewise, they are not actualized as such. Buddhism is about moderation; it's the *moderation* that I find suspect regarding human temperment. One should want to be moderate without having to rely on an externalized belief system.

 

 

From your perceptions of Buddhism, it doesn't seem like you've met ANY Buddhists.

Since it seems you know as much about me as I do, I suppose this reply is redundant.

 

Or very many humans.

Actually that's part of the problem, I agree.

 

Congratulations, Chip. You win. This is the most bizarre "debate" I've been in for years.

I didn't know I was in a contest....

[jeff strong]

Interesting discussion, but I have to say that as an aspiring Buddhist (almost 25 years of practice), there's a lot of misunderstanding here about this philosophy from my perspective. Ken has some good points that are getting lost in the discussion.

 

I think that one of the strengths of Buddhism (and some other meditative practices) is that it allows you to focus your attention on what's important and not those things that often try to pull your attention away from it. It also helps you understand your thoughts and leads you to the root of your feelings (or what many people would term suffering). This doesnt mean that you become numb to your emotions or divorce yourself form them or the world around you as some have stated here, instead it means that you fully embrace your emotions and let them affect you at the deepest levels. This process creates compassion. Compassion for others, but more importantly, compassion for oneself. With compassion you learn that all feeling is important/worthwhile and you begin to feel safer in your emotions. This then allows you to be more present in the world.

 

Having compassion at this level offers a lot of freedom in following your heart's/soul's path without distraction or fear. I can say that I'm a much happier person with the skills I've developed through my practice. And I'm also more creative and able to follow my path in spite of the increasingly distressing world around me.

 

Just some thoughts

 

Jeff

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by MusicMedicine:

This doesnt mean that you become numb to your emotions

I was referencing drugs at that point.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Yeah he's saying if you're chemically predisposed to obsession, Buddhism won't help it.

... just as if you're predisposed to obfuscated language you can't communicate things effectively. Thanks Lee...

 

(you people can just read Lee's responses and skip my rambling, it will sum it up much more succinctly )

 

So he's acknowledged that you CAN transform yourself, only that it comes at a price and he doesn't want to pay that price.

"yes"

 

Only that individual can know, I think, but (AND THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT) most people don't spend enough time and energy contemplating things like that to ever know.

That's ok, I'm doing it for them - and maybe about 200 other people at the same time.

 

I do." And there may be times when that's exactly the right thing to do, but not always.

I am bitterly aware of the impact this way of thinking has on my life. At the same time, I've reasoned myself into a dark little hole - like a mental virus. Part of the reasoning involves the viewpoint observed of other people, and because of that external aspect I am left with the option of misery or altering my values regarding that viewpoint.

 

I would rather choose to attempt to find a rationalization for seeing a positive solution to interacting with that externalized viewpoint. "Somehow".

[KenElevenShadows]

 

Look, Chip, I initially wrote ONE thing about Buddhism because it sounded like it would help you and you'd be interested in it. Do you always disparage someone's idea when that person tries to offer you what something that might help? And finally, if you're not interested in the idea (not even the whole philosophy, just the one idea), why didn't you just say so in the first place? It'd be far more effective than disparaging ideas that you don't understand, which you keep continuing to do.

 

As far as defending Buddhism, well, if you had read my previous post, you'd realize that I am not Buddhist. Some of its lessons help me, but so do lessons from Hinduism (hint: that's the one with the Sacred Cows, Chip), Taoism, Socrates, Plato, some people on this forum, other teachers, philosophies and ideas. What I am now addressing here is misinformation. To be blunt, your ideas on Buddhism are wildly inaccurate.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This for clarification:

Chip wrote: "Choosing to live in isolation, attempting to cast off *human* desire, while living an absurdly ascetic life is not behaving as a human in my book."

 

 

* Once again. Buddhism is NOT ABOUT CASTING OFF DESIRE. In fact, it's about embracing it, acknkowledging it, not hiding it. It's about emotions. It's about compassion. It's about happiness. It's about ending suffering. It's about love for humans and animals. It's about helping each other. And to repeat. Yes, it's about love.

 

* IT'S NOT ABOUT ASCETIC LIFE. In fact, most Buddhists (and ascetics) recognize that it's extreme, and that only a few do it. Otherwise, you'd have a country filled with millions of Buddhists all trying to get away from each other, and really, it's just the opposite.

 

And finally, just because you or I do not want to live an ascetic life does not mean that it is not "human". As you like to be the way you are, and I like to be the way I am, why can't an ascetic be the way s/he is while still being considered "human"? There are a lot more harmful things that one could do.

[Jimbroni]

Sure. Finding out that my mother's breast cancer last year was in remission, that was True Happiness. There's no catch to that, I didn't have to argue myself into thinking "I'm happy", I didn't have to take a drug to alter my perception of events: it was a truly good thing that made me happy.

OK I'll give you that. I too would be happy. But where does this idea that a buddhist needs drugs to be happy, come from? You're insinuating that a buddhist cannot be happy, which is a lie. I certainly don't believe that. I certainly don't believe that emotions are a trick. I'm saying allowing yourself to be controlled by you emotions, is good way lead yourself to a path of anguish. There seems to be alot anguish in your words, over external things you have no control over. Its better to feel compassion towards ill favored people, rather than discontent.

 

Or how about an insipid, silly "human want" thing: I get the craving for a peach milkshake. I go to the Krystal's around the corner, knowing full well that most of the time the milkshake machine is broke. But this time it isn't, I'm craving for one, for the sheer hedonism of easily fulfilling that desire, and it turns out the machine *isn't* broken and I get to have what I want. I'm happy, in a primitive, banal sense. But it is *real* happy, not "well, the machine is broke, but Buddhism teaches me that if I didn't have cravings for something as impermanent as a peach milkshake, then I would be happy now, so "I'm happy"!" or, "it's ok the milkshake machine is broke, because God made the rest of the day just super wonderful! " or "I feel happy, I look happy, and dog gone it, people think I'm happy, so I'm happy!!"

How is this different, than taking a drug to be happy?

 

 

Chip,

Your view of buddhism is based on falsehoods, probably obtained from a movie or something. I'm not a monk, yet I practice buddhism, admittingly I fall short in some areas. The monks life is totally different, to that of a householding buddhist. We all practice the middle way, you're describing ascetic buddhism, which is how the buddha practiced prior to learning the wisdom of the middle way. We're just not as extreme as you are making it out to be. I really don't even care about this argument anymore, I just don't appreciate you spreading incorrect information about my belief system.

 

 

Buddhist passage on happiness.

 

There are these four kinds of happiness to won by a householder who enjoys sense pleasures when occasion offers. What four? The happiness of ownership, the happiness of wealth, the happiness of freedom from debt, and the happiness of blamelessness.

 

And what is the happiness of ownership? Concerning this, a householder has wealth acquired by energetic striving, won by strength of arm and sweat of brow, justly and lawfully won. When he thinks of this he feels happiness and satisfaction.

 

And what is the happiness of wealth? Concerning this, a householder has wealth justly and lawfully won, and with he does many good deeds. When he thinks of this he feels hapiness and satisfaction.

 

And what is the happiness of freedom from debt? Concerning this, a householder owes no debt large or small to anyone, and when he thinks of this he feels happiness and satisfaction.

 

And what is the happiness of blamelessness? Concerning this, the noble disciple is blessed with blameless action of body, speech, and min, and when he thinks of this he feels happiness and satisfaction. - Ven S. Dhammika

[KenElevenShadows]

>> Chip wrote: "but Buddhism teaches me that if I didn't have cravings for something as impermanent as a peach milkshake, then I would be happy now, so "I'm happy"!" or, "it's ok the milkshake machine is broke, because God made the rest of the day just super wonderful! " or "I feel happy, I look happy, and dog gone it, people think I'm happy, so I'm happy!!" >>

 

No, it doesn't teach that. It teaches you to acknowledge that you wanted it, but unfortunately you can't have it, and to move on.

 

And that's not only a valuable lesson for milkshakes, but for me as well. I'm off to the gym!

[Kendrix]

I understand the ideas to do with lack of artifice and about wanting to be happy while maintaining your inherent, unaltered self.

 

This line of reasoning requires you to believe that an inherent self can ever exist. Further, If it does, then preserving it unaltered has some overwhelming intrinsic value.

Personally, I think both propositions are false.

 

To me there will never be any human alive that is free from artiface in the way that Chip has defined it. Even the culture of the caveman influenced behaviors- producing " artiface". So, chasing the total absence of artiface strikes me as an impossible task.

 

Seems to me we all define and evolve ourselves via our continuing interactions with the world.

Our consciousness is always changing. In this context how the hell can you ever define an inherent self that is constant, unalterable and free from artiface?

 

AND..IF you are focused on wanting to be happier then

Whats the point of dwelling on this lack of artiface when your consciouness (e.g. happiness) is a totally subjective experience?

 

In this realm perception is reality.

Its impossible for an emotion to be false- if you feel it.

 

Therefore, if you can take action (such as read a book) with the result that you end up being happy - this happiness is no less real- no less valuable.

 

If I understand what you've said you are concerned about the possibility of becomming become happy in a way that would somehow be a false happiness cause it was based on "artiface". In doing so you feel you will be destroying some of your inherent being.

 

Change is part of reality. One way view the need to cling to some inherent self is that it is an attempt to avoid all change. Once changed your old self is gone. Does that mean you should never change?

 

If you arent happy now and one day you want to be happy then your old unhappy self will have to disappear. Would you rather it be preserved?

You cant have it both ways.

Why beat your head against that wall?

 

A fragment of a line from the latest Elvis Costello album comes to mind.

" ...the prison that your living in - THE ONE WITH THE OPEN DOOR."

 

What a great line.

 

Having said all that it remains true that changing your consciouness does not/will not repair the problems with modern society.

If you require this to be happy then- fogeddabout it!!

[Geoff Grace]

I've begun reading the follow-up book to the one I posted about on page four. I mention this because of its possible relevance to the discussion. Once again, the image of the book is a clickable link to the opening pages. Feel free to read them if you like...or not, whatever works.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/musicproduction/.Pictures/Seth2.gif

 

As always, I wish happiness and health for all of you.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Kendrix:

This line of reasoning requires you to believe that an inherent self can ever exist. Further, If it does, then preserving it unaltered has some overwhelming intrinsic value.

Personally, I think both propositions are false.

Well I do think there is an inherent self, an "essential nature" as it were. I realize this is a personal thing but in my case it's something I feel very strongly. I identify very much with the Jungian idea that we all contain a "seed" of something which unfolds throughout our lives.

 

This essential nature, though, as I see it is neither unchanging nor inflexible. And there are lots of "unessentials" in us too. I think of it like a tree. A tree starts out as an acorn which, although it isn't an oak tree yet, it "knows" it will be. It slowly grows and takes on roots, then a trunk and branches. Every year it loses its leaves and grows new ones. Those are "unessentials" which can change. The branches can grow in different directions, they might be straight or gnarled, and can sustain being injured or even cut off at times without permanent harm to the tree. But you can't destroy the roots or the trunk... those are essentials. And you can't change the tree from an oak tree into a maple tree, or make the acorn grow into anything but an oak tree.

 

The trick with us though is to figure out which elements of our nature are essential and which aren't. That leaves a lot of room for growth and change, but that most elemental part of your nature can't be changed or destroyed at will, although it will grow and change some naturally over time. So I do think there is "overwhelming intrinsic value" as you put it, in preserving that part of yourself and we should do whatever is necessary to find and nurture it. Neither of which is usually easy.

 

Now there's no point getting too attached to the "leaves" in our natures because they're transitory. As we grow and change we cast them off. The "branches" might be a bit closer to home, and losing one might be more painful than the leaves, but it's still healthy for them to be pruned at times. Only the most fundamental part of us is relatively constant, and necessary to you being "you".

 

Where I think we get hung up (and this is where Buddhism is a big help) is that we can start thinking the "leaves" are really branches or the branches are really the trunk. We can start obsessing over every leaf as if it really matters all that much and as if we can control the fact that it's going to fall off and blow away. This is artifice... and possibly obsession. Preoccupation with things of no consequence, at the expense of the real deal... the roots, the trunk. But of course if you don't know you have roots or a trunk, or what kind of tree you are, the leaves appear to be awfully important. We all have "leaves," and maybe flowers and fruits, and they may be beautiful and interesting, while the roots might appear to be the dark ugly bits that are buried under a lot of dirt ... but if we don't do the work of finding our essential nature we're doomed to obsessing over things that are fleeting and won't make us happy anyway. Not to say we can't enjoy them, but we can't get too attached to them in the long run. I think that's what Buddhism teaches.

 

With nonessentials I think it's possible and beneficial (if not necessary) to train yourself to "get over" the stuff you can't have, is beyond your control etc. And you're not sacrificing any vital part of yourself to do that. It's just... you know, shit happens. That's life and all humans have to learn coping skills to deal with that stuff. If you can be helped to do that by reading a book or whatever, that's great. I think you can become genuinely happier by reading something or talking to someone that inspires you to let go of some of those nonessentials when necessary.

 

If however, things happen that disturb or thwart your essential nature... that's not something you can (or should) just train yourself to forget about or get over. I think that is what Chip is talking about. But if we don't make this distinction between different levels of being, then everything becomes reduced to the kind of stuff we're seeing in this discussion: "Get over it." "I can't get over it, that would be artifice." "You can't possibly be free of artifice." Etc. I can understand where both of these points of view are coming from because we need both. They just apply to different things.

 

Oh and Chip... I also think there are books, works of art, relationships and other things you will stumble across at various points in your life which will just "resonate" with the essential part of you. That is, it's not as if you "learned" some particularly philosophy from a book or another person which you then forcibly graft onto yourself, but it was something you realized that you had already unconsciously felt on some level but hadn't found a way to express it or make it tangible. In that case it's not artifice at all, it might just be something that leads to the next step in the "ever unfolding saga" of your essential self. Of course the reverse is also true that you could read a book that someone else found inspiring and get nothing from it at all... it just doesn't resonate.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

But I have a question (and no, I'm not being facetious or trying to cause trouble):

 

Is obsessing over something of value healthy?

Well that's not causing trouble at all, except in a good way. That's the crux of the "debate!"

 

I hope my post above clears up when I think it is "healthy" and when it isn't?

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Do you always disparage someone's idea when

I have an opinion regarding Buddhism, I had it before your post, and I'm sorry that you disapprove.

 

the one idea), why didn't you just say so in the first place? It'd be far more effective than disparaging ideas that you don't understand, which you keep continuing to do.

I have an admitedly heretical opinion about Buddhism. However, I won't allow myself to be drawn into your recasting of this topic - so have at it.

 

but so do lessons from Hinduism (hint: that's the one with the Sacred Cows, Chip),

Here's a hint: you've been trolled.

 

misinformation. To be blunt, your ideas on Buddhism are wildly inaccurate.

I'm sure the buddha will be grateful for your work.

 

* Once again. Buddhism is NOT ABOUT CASTING OFF DESIRE.

It is about a system of moderation. If you are being moderate, you are in fact resisting desire, otherwise you have nothing to moderate. I choose to use the phrase "casting off". I also choose not to bother with a semantical argument.

 

 

In fact, it's about embracing it, acknkowledging it, not hiding it.

Really? One achieves nirvana by embracing desire? Interesting, I for some reason thought the opposite. Huh.

 

It's about emotions. It's about compassion. It's about happiness. It's about

You're jumping about. You started by addressing my use of "desire", and are now stretching that into your own account.

 

* IT'S NOT ABOUT ASCETIC LIFE. In fact,

most Buddhists (and ascetics) recognize that it's

For some it is indeed about an ascetic life, and to say that ascetics are NOT about being ascetic is rather silly.

 

 

want to live an ascetic life does not mean that it is not "human".

That is not the reasons I gave for why I decribed an ascetic life as "not human".

 

As you like to be the way you are, and I

I neither like nor dislike the "way I am". I can like or dislike the result of being the way I am, but like/dislike doesn't enter into it.

 

However, I can say that I *like* the way that I am, which is why I am defending my desire to not alter my value system in order to have a more "comfortable" life.

 

why can't an ascetic be the way s/he is while still being considered "human"?

Because by default he is choosing a lifestyle that is based around rigid discipline in place of common human needs/drives. Humans are born with desires, AND the capacity for the 3 poisons; to pretend they're not there doesn't not negate the fact that as a human, these things are *naturally occuring*. It is *unnatural* to try to stave them off.

 

You wouldn't like to have a sidecar full of Neve modules? I know I sure would. I don't *need* it, but I *want* it. That's greed right there. Big no-no in Buddhism (or maybe not, depending on your take on it...).

 

I can choose to moderate that greed *myself* by being a reasonable person and not doing something rash like sell drugs or break into a house to buy such a thing. I don't require an externalized belief system for that. I *could* try to turn it into a more complex argument, and apply Buddhist precepts to that - but that's unnecessary. And again, that would be introducing an externalized system, which is an artificial contrivance.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Jimbroni:

But where does this idea that a buddhist needs drugs to be happy, come from?

What the fug??? I don't know, you tell me where that came from, because it certainly didn't come from me!

 

You're insinuating that a buddhist cannot be happy, which is a lie. I certainly don't

A) No, I am not and;

B) It wouldn't be a lie, it would simply be wrong

 

 

I have not said a Buddhist cannot be happy. I have criticized the process of making oneself happy in that manner. My quarrel is that to become happy in that framework requires letting go of things I consider important for being a human. That idea alone infers that I think a Buddhist *can* become happy, but that it requires a cost I do not wish to make.

 

emotions are a trick. I'm saying allowing yourself to be controlled by you emotions, is good way lead yourself to a path of anguish. There

I agree. And Buddhism *is* a way to circumvent that. What I am saying does not dispute that. My position is that being at the mercy of your emotions is a human-centric thing, and that to change that removes that human element.

 

seems to be alot anguish in your words, over external things you have no control over.

Yes.

 

Its better to feel compassion towards ill favored people, rather than discontent.

I do not feel discontent *towards* anyone. You do not need to feel anything *towards* someone in order to feel apart from that someone.

 

If someone feels that their hang glider should be purple, and I don't care about hang gliders - I don't feel ill towards them because of wanting to have a purple hang glider, it's that I don't care about hang gliders in the first place. If people choose to be disaffected by emotional interaction, I do not feel ill will towards them - I feel sad that life has made them that way.

 

How is this different, than taking a drug to be happy?

 

You're kidding, right? Chemically, in theory, it's not different. EXCEPT, there was a real event tied to the chemical event that made me feel "happy"! That's the crux of my position - I want *real*, not illusion. If you don't see the difference in wanting happiness as the result of actions and real events, versus creating the illusion of it... I don't know what to say to that.

 

view of buddhism is based on falsehoods,

If you say so.

 

probably obtained from a movie or something.

Yes, absolutely, you have me pegged! I should be studying the Dharma as Presented by the Most Knowledgable Temple of the Condescending I'm encountering here instead, you're right.

 

 

I'm not a monk,

..but you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, right?

 

 

all practice the middle way, you're describing ascetic buddhism, which is how the

No, I mentioned that in passing, and you guys are taking that as an opportunity to expound on your knowledge of Buddhism.

 

 

wisdom of the middle way. We're just not as extreme as you are making it out to be.

I'm not addressing your or anyone here.

 

anymore, I just don't appreciate you spreading incorrect information about my belief system.

As I see it you're spreading incorrent information about your own belief system while simultaneously behaving with anger in the form of needing to castigate me on the subject, greed in choosing to profess sole ownership of said belief system, and ignorance in presuming to know what I know about Buddhism based on the scant references I've made here. You are poisoning your own beliefs.