tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post3945349578020918211..comments2022-11-09T02:51:30.681-06:00Comments on Orbital Teapot Laser: The Four Noble Truths and the Three Marks of Existence.masquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11421644393539292803noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-44347900702373973762012-07-16T07:48:16.283-05:002012-07-16T07:48:16.283-05:00I can dig it. I know Siddhattha or Siddhartha is ...I can dig it. I know Siddhattha or Siddhartha is late, but since we don't know if he even was a historical figure (much as the existence of Jesus as a historical personage is uncertain) I'm shorthanding the traditional name by calling him Sid because I find it a useful tool in my own head to keep in mind the idea of a guy who had some valuable insights, not a mystical or supernatural entity like some of the traditions have elevated him into. I also have a bit of a dharma punk attitude to the issue, and Sid's a good punk name, B-D. I'm not a fan of guru type structures, so it's kind of a conscious de-formalization, so as to keep him on a human level.<br /><br />I'm not trying to pretend to have a scholarly level of discourse in these posts, I'm just trying to give a quick and dirty summation of my understanding of the basics. I know that the Buddha didn't reject the permanent self out of hand, but since he didn't endorse it either, I mentioned atman more as a contrast to anatta, not to fully explore the finer details. I may get to that later, but for now I'm trying to cover all the basics as simply as possible, with room for further deconstruction of concepts down the line. When I finish covering the other basic elements in this series, like the aggregates and the 8fold path itself, it'll likely be similarly basic, with room to go more in depth in the future. <br /><br />I'm very much a practice-focused "secular Buddhist", and getting a decent amount of mindfulness practice in on a regular basis is of much more immediate concern to me than full in depth understanding. <br /><br />As you might pick up on if you read other posts on here, especially the one before this, my philosophical convictions are a mishmash of many influences, not just Buddhism, but also Stoicism, Epicureanism, naturalism, etc, and what I value Buddhism most for is the meditative techniques contained within the traditions. I'm very sympathetic to the essay "Killing the Buddha" by Sam Harris that way. I guess I lean much more towards the MBSR end of the spectrum. That's not to say that I think that the dharma/dhamma is worthless, I think it has a lot of value, but to me it's one among many philosophical traditions that interest me, not the primary one.masquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11421644393539292803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-63811891946922121962012-07-16T07:23:49.521-05:002012-07-16T07:23:49.521-05:00Good introductory article here; I like it. Just a ...Good introductory article here; I like it. Just a few notes, one kind of random, one not so much so -- maybe I'm quibbling too much about an article that is introductory (one can't be exact about the Buddha's teaching when speaking in brief about it) but here goes anyway:<br /><br />Do you know that the name "Siddhartha" is a later invention? There is no evidence for this being Gotama's name in the early works we have. It seems to mean "One who has achieved his goals" which is also a hint that it was applied after, though I could imagine parents naming their kids like that in a hopeful way, like naming a daughter "Chastity".<br /><br />More important than that bit of trivia is the convergence of these two things:<br /><br />"In the Indian Vedic religion, there is a concept of an unchanging, permanent soul, called atman... Sid rejected this notion due to his recognition of impermanence and of applying it to the very concept of self itself..." <br /><br />and<br /><br />"Now, in the Vedic religion that was dominant in Sid’s time, this was a supernatural notion related to transmigration of souls and reincarnation, and to be fair, Sid didn’t really bother dismissing it as nonsense, he just figured it was unimportant, since the same process goes on within someone’s life, and he was nothing if not focused on trying to help people live better lives."<br /><br />I can support the second statement as mostly accurate (I don't think he completely dismissed it as unimportant), but the first statement -- that he *rejected* the unchanging, eternal self -- I'm going to suggest is missing the mark by small amount: he did with the eternal self the same thing he did with the Cosmic Questions (which were often answered in his day by rebirth and karma) -- he set it aside. You will never find him saying in the early sermons "There is no eternal, changeless self". He'll ask if you can find it; he'll question those who think they have found it to get them to notice that they haven't, really -- but he doesn't say it doesn't exist, just like he doesn't say that karma and rebirth aren't true. His entire philosophy and system works on paying attention to what we can see, and working with *that* rather than basing our choices on speculation about things we have no evidence for. The first challenge is getting us to notice that we often do this last thing: think we know what's going on when we have little evidence for it (and our evidence isn't as solid as we think it is if we don't examine it closely -- that's where your 5 aggregates come in, isn't it). <br /><br />He's not going to deny an eternal, changeless self because there sure could be one that we have no evidence in this life for -- he's a stickler for not making statements without being able to back them up with evidence any of us can see (with one consistent exception).<br /><br />Oh, heck, just one more thing. Dukkha: It seems to me that what he teaches is that what dukkha is, is subtle. By the time one really understands what dukkha is, how it happens, and how to bring it to an end, one is awakened. If it is difficult to translate it's because it is inherently difficult. The only way to end dukkha is to actually understand it in all its complexity, and if we have a word that seems to perfectly translate it, we've cheated ourselves out of the lesson.nowheathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709223200955784706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-8456031530174311362011-10-04T12:20:17.749-05:002011-10-04T12:20:17.749-05:00I don't think that ennui or angst are bad, I j...I don't think that ennui or angst are bad, I just don't think that they are manifestation of dukkha, not the totality. Same with depression. Here's a link to an article that helped me grok it:<br />http://thesecularbuddhist.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/what-is-dukkha/masquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11421644393539292803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-81479420791547417392011-10-04T10:35:25.392-05:002011-10-04T10:35:25.392-05:00No worries;
the link is more an indicator, a touch...No worries;<br />the link is more an indicator, a touchstone <br />of the more general concept:<br />The title of the link is sufficient to relay the concept.Y'shayahu Z.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16438926421443363205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-18931121287502408122011-10-04T09:53:21.906-05:002011-10-04T09:53:21.906-05:00I'm going to answer this when I get a chance, ...I'm going to answer this when I get a chance, but I'm at work and on my phone. As soon as I have the time to read the link, I'll get back to you.masquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11421644393539292803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5065659938411090113.post-27823954140851195012011-10-04T09:16:29.343-05:002011-10-04T09:16:29.343-05:00"I have used the word dissatisfaction because..."I have used the word dissatisfaction because it seems <br />to be a more accurate translation of the actual word, dukkha, <br />than the more commonly used "suffering." <br /><br /><br />Do you think it is viable to use terms 'ennui',<br /> or 'existential angst for the word dukkha ?<br />Or does that undermine and undervalue<br />the transcendence of actual physical suffering?<br /><br />I ask because I wonder to what degree the translation into <br />"suffering" has been based on cultural and economic stratification.<br />IIRC : Sid was Kshatriya- warrior caste. He was a noble.<br />So 'suffering' for Sid likely wasn't maiming, starvation and disease, no?<br /><br />More akin to:<br />http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/health-matters/200901/the-cultural-context-depressionY'shayahu Z.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16438926421443363205noreply@blogger.com