Buddhist cynicism

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Seems there's always an explanation as to why Buddhism is not this and not that, so I would like to hear how Buddhism is not cynical against life.

 

The goal of The Buddha and Enlightenment is largely to end the cycle of rebirth by "extinguishing the flame" of desires and ego, etc., so that people don't have to suffer life anymore.

 

But why have such a negative view of life that you want to escape it? Isn't that manically depressing to say "oh, life, it's just terrible, I'm going to commit myself to never having to do it again."

 

I appreciate the vast majority of Buddhist doctrine, like ridding oneself of the burden of desires and ego, and seeing the transitory nature of all things so that we can both not worry about things that don't matter and also appreciate the gifts of beautiful moments that we have.

 

But there is a lot in the sutras which suggest one needs to see how terrible life is. This is a horrible suggestion, in my opinion, and obviously one which has polarized Buddhist and Taoist doctrines in certain comparisons.

 

So, Buddhists, "what have you got to say for yourselves?"

 

 

 

[Simple_Jack]

Seems there's always an explanation as to why Buddhism is not this and not that, so I would like to hear how Buddhism is not cynical against life.

 

The goal of The Buddha and Enlightenment is largely to end the cycle of rebirth by "extinguishing the flame" of desires and ego, etc., so that people don't have to suffer life anymore.

 

But why have such a negative view of life that you want to escape it? Isn't that manically depressing to say "oh, life, it's just terrible, I'm going to commit myself to never having to do it again."

 

I appreciate the vast majority of Buddhist doctrine, like ridding oneself of the burden of desires and ego, and seeing the transitory nature of all things so that we can both not worry about things that don't matter and also appreciate the gifts of beautiful moments that we have.

 

But there is a lot in the sutras which suggest one needs to see how terrible life is. This is a horrible suggestion, in my opinion, and obviously one which has polarized Buddhist and Taoist doctrines in certain comparisons.

 

So, Buddhists, "what have you got to say for yourselves?"

 

This is a non-sequitur and the goal of all Dharmic religions are to put an end to the afflictions which drive cyclical existence. In Mahayana, instead of resigning oneself to the cessation of arhats and pratyekabuddhas, one puts and end to involuntary rebirth and continues to be reborn (or emanate nirmanakayas) in order to effectively benefit sentient beings; this coincides with realizing the inseparability of samsara and nirvana i.e. emptiness as described in the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[3bob]

Not bad complex Jack: "....one puts and end to involuntary rebirth and continues to be reborn (or emanate nirmanakayas) in order to effectively benefit sentient beings..."

 

"cynical" Buddhsists should take note imo for what its worth.

[Simple_Jack]

"cynical" Buddhsists should take note imo for what its worth.

 

Still, it's only on a spiritual forum such as this, that people seem to voluntarily want to promulgate the 3 poisons. Discourses on the drawbacks of samsara are meant to motivate an individual to pursue liberation by steadily relinquishing the afflictions which promotes deluded cognition.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

"cynical" Buddhsists should take note imo for what its worth.

 

 

Hinduism also stresses renunciation of samsara which is why it states the same goal of ending cyclical existence i.e. samsara.

[soaring crane]

this is probably a good moment to ask something I wonder about. How did the belief in rebirth/reincarnation come to be? Was it through visions appearing in trance?

[Simple_Jack]

this is probably a good moment to ask something I wonder about. How did the belief in rebirth/reincarnation come to be? Was it through visions appearing in trance?

 

Yogic experiences from shramanas.

[soaring crane]

Yogic experiences from shramanas.

 

Well, no, that's who (and only one of many possible answers to that question), not how.

[Ish]

this is probably a good moment to ask something I wonder about. How did the belief in rebirth/reincarnation come to be? Was it through visions appearing in trance?

 

http://youtu.be/dOk0tZHwCs4?t=34m43s

 

 

This master Yogi talks a bit about his experience, relates to what you asked.

[soaring crane]

http://youtu.be/dOk0tZHwCs4?t=34m43s

 

 

This master Yogi talks a bit about his experience, relates to what you asked.

 

Thank you, I'll check it later (my wife is watching a documentary on Tibet right now, have to be quiet)

 

Easy. They used their wisdom.

 

Wanna know how to know if reincarnation is true? Use your pristine wisdom. You're able to see and comprehend every single thing. That's how deep your wisdom is.

 

Well that's not an answer at all. They just thought it up?

 

I think it most likely originated ( which is what I'm wondering about, for a reason) in trance visions and interpretations.

[Simple_Jack]

Well, no, that's who (and only one of many possible answers to that question), not how.

 

Actually, yes, that provides the answer as to how this concept was conceived in Indian thought. The shramanas gave rise to the various forms of yoga/meditation and metaphysical models of existence along with concepts such as karma, moksha, etc. Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, etc., were born from the shramana movement of India.

[soaring crane]

Actually, yes, that provides the answer as to how this concept was conceived in Indian thought. The shramanas gave rise to the various forms of yoga/meditation and metaphysical models of existence along with concepts such as karma, moksha, etc. Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, etc., were born from the shramana movement of India.

 

but, I'm asking how did they conclude that reincarnation is a fact? They must have seen something. I suspect it goes back to pre-history, and through many cultures, due to people having similar visions when in trance, and later interpreting their visions as earlier incarnations of themselves. Does that seem at least plausible?

[Simple_Jack]

but, I'm asking how did they conclude that reincarnation is a fact? They must have seen something. I suspect it goes back to pre-history, and through many cultures, due to people having similar visions when in trance, and later interpreting their visions as earlier incarnations of themselves. Does that seem at least plausible?

 

Yeah, but we have to understand that these types of things are a result of siddhis, they are not readily knowable through ordinary sensate experience. Attainments of siddhis are a product of yoga (e.g. samadhi).

[soaring crane]

 

This conversation becomes very complicated.

 

42

[johndoe2012]

Maybe one should look into why one finds this or that religion cynical etc.

 

Is basically your own point of view you are mentioning here so you can find the answer to your question within.

 

Through discussion is through thought so maybe not the answer you are looking for.

[soaring crane]

http://youtu.be/dOk0tZHwCs4?t=34m43s

 

 

This master Yogi talks a bit about his experience, relates to what you asked.

 

downloading the whole move now, thank you for the tip

[C T]

Focus, please.

 

The (real) practice of Buddhism makes full engagement with life a possibility.

 

Buddhism is about ending afflictive delusions permanently. Not escaping suffering or wallowing in morbidity. Actually, we can observe the fruits of the gradual cessation of afflictions when the practices are becoming effective... as the afflictions recede, the Paramitas self-arise, without any need to actually cultivate with any sort of fervour. The energy becomes lighter and lighter.

 

I dont think any authentic teacher in all the Buddhist schools would foster in his or her students a need to escape from anything. If there was an emergency exit somewhere hidden among the various Buddhist traditions, surely the Noble Eightfold Path would not remain as the pillar of support for all those who are sincerely practicing the teachings given by Buddha Shakyamuni.

 

And the main theme that revolves around the Noble Path is the eradication of fear. Fear is what binds a person, gripping, almost suffocating to the point of unconsciousness (denial, compensatory thoughts, justifications... these 3 factors bind a person to ignorance, or wilful neglect, which is like being awake yet unconscious). The Buddha did say, "The secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment when all help is rejected will you be truly free."

 

Subduing fear means to be able to stay strong and present in the face of all aspects of life's challenges. What good is it to overcome fear only to then run away from it again? Surely that does not make much sense. As fear subsides, one becomes more and more present, more open, more expansive. If these qualities does not manifest in conjunction with Right Practice, then something must have gone awry in one's understanding. Typically, holding such ideas as what is in the OP is a good example of this.

 

A lot of good Buddhists i know are very proactive and engages enthusiastically with society and community. Of course, there are instances of practitioners cutting off all ties with family and society, but these are individuals who want to dedicate themselves to a life of monkhood, asceticism and are hermit-bound. But then, such occurrences are not the sole remnant of the Buddhist tradition as they are common across all spiritual paths.

Edited December 30, 2013 by C T

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...The goal of The Buddha and Enlightenment is largely to end the cycle of rebirth by "extinguishing the flame" of desires and ego, etc., so that people don't have to suffer life anymore.

 

But why have such a negative view of life that you want to escape it? Isn't that manically depressing to say "oh, life, it's just terrible, I'm going to commit myself to never having to do it again."

 

...But there is a lot in the sutras which suggest one needs to see how terrible life is...

I can understand why many people come to this conclusion. It seems to me that a big reason for this misunderstanding is imprecise translation of the first Noble Truth as 'life is suffering'.

 

A more descriptive translation would be something like 'involuntary cyclic existence as a deluded sentient being is unsatisfactory', which is a bit of a mouthful but isn't so nihilistic.

 

Aside from the obvious suffering from being compelled against your will to live in states that may not be particularly nice - just look at the world - samsara involves being deluded about the nature of things and therefore constantly looking for something to be a source of happiness.

 

Considering that deeply, we see the positivity of Buddhism - you don't need something to make you happy, you can be content with what you already have.

 

The sutras do call things like the skhandas, birth, childhood, adulthood, old age and death poisons, festering boils and so on quite a lot, and that seems on the surface to be advocating seeing life as unbearable. But let's look deeper.

 

These comments are more highly concentrated in the Theravada texts, which aim at the attainment of nirvana - not being reborn, and due to a satisfaction with the inconceivable state of an arhat, not a hate for life.

 

Very hyperbolic comments are used just as a crowbar to peel people off of samsara. They are a finger pointing to the moon. They are supposed to be contemplated actively - i.e. 'nirvana must be really good if this is so crap in comparison'.

 

An arhat wouldn't actually think of the body as pus or consciousness as a deadly poison, they would simply prefer nirvana. Then, of course, Mahayana comes along and reveals that nirvana and samsara are both empty rather than a dichotomy, and prompts the bodhisattva to choose rebirths to help sentient beings without abiding in samsara or nirvana.

[RongzomFan]

So, Buddhists, "what have you got to say for yourselves?"

 

 

I gave up on westerners understanding Dharma, whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jain.

 

I'm sure there are some westerners out there who do, but I haven't met one in person ever.

[RongzomFan]

Seems there's always an explanation as to why Buddhism is not this and not that, so I would like to hear how Buddhism is not cynical against life.

 

The goal of The Buddha and Enlightenment is largely to end the cycle of rebirth by "extinguishing the flame" of desires and ego, etc., so that people don't have to suffer life anymore.

 

But why have such a negative view of life that you want to escape it? Isn't that manically depressing to say "oh, life, it's just terrible, I'm going to commit myself to never having to do it again."

 

I appreciate the vast majority of Buddhist doctrine, like ridding oneself of the burden of desires and ego, and seeing the transitory nature of all things so that we can both not worry about things that don't matter and also appreciate the gifts of beautiful moments that we have.

 

But there is a lot in the sutras which suggest one needs to see how terrible life is. This is a horrible suggestion, in my opinion, and obviously one which has polarized Buddhist and Taoist doctrines in certain comparisons.

 

So, Buddhists, "what have you got to say for yourselves?"

 

 

Dharma is about ending ignorance.

 

You are free to remain ignorant.

Edited December 30, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[...]

 

Subduing fear means to be able to stay strong and present in the face of all aspects of life's challenges. What good is it to overcome fear only to then run away from it again? Surely that does not make much sense. As fear subsides, one becomes more and more present, more open, more expansive. If these qualities does not manifest in conjunction with Right Practice, then something must have gone awry in one's understanding. Typically, holding such ideas as what is in the OP is a good example of this.

 

[...]

 

That's essentially why I ask - because it seems contrary to the intent and purpose to say "be in the moment, don't go through life without actually being there" and then saying "this life is all a waste, full of things which do no good - the best thing to do is be rid of all of it for good," which really is what it says a number of times in various sutras. It's not just my interpretation of it or a bad translation. It's part of the rhetoric, basically. Though we can go around it and say "that's just not important," it does have a fairly strong presence in some important sutras. I guess what I would like to see, is more of the positive rather than negative motivation, not unlike your suggestion - that freedom is the bounty. Thanks for your post!

 

 

I can understand why many people come to this conclusion. It seems to me that a big reason for this misunderstanding is imprecise translation of the first Noble Truth as 'life is suffering'.

 

A more descriptive translation would be something like 'involuntary cyclic existence as a deluded sentient being is unsatisfactory', which is a bit of a mouthful but isn't so nihilistic.

 

Aside from the obvious suffering from being compelled against your will to live in states that may not be particularly nice - just look at the world - samsara involves being deluded about the nature of things and therefore constantly looking for something to be a source of happiness.

 

Considering that deeply, we see the positivity of Buddhism - you don't need something to make you happy, you can be content with what you already have.

 

The sutras do call things like the skhandas, birth, childhood, adulthood, old age and death poisons, festering boils and so on quite a lot, and that seems on the surface to be advocating seeing life as unbearable. But let's look deeper.

 

These comments are more highly concentrated in the Theravada texts, which aim at the attainment of nirvana - not being reborn, and due to a satisfaction with the inconceivable state of an arhat, not a hate for life.

 

Very hyperbolic comments are used just as a crowbar to peel people off of samsara. They are a finger pointing to the moon. They are supposed to be contemplated actively - i.e. 'nirvana must be really good if this is so crap in comparison'.

 

An arhat wouldn't actually think of the body as pus or consciousness as a deadly poison, they would simply prefer nirvana. Then, of course, Mahayana comes along and reveals that nirvana and samsara are both empty rather than a dichotomy, and prompts the bodhisattva to choose rebirths to help sentient beings without abiding in samsara or nirvana.

 

True, it is meant to be contemplated actively in this way, and this is why the sutras are mostly inspiring to read even though they do shun life in so many ways. They show that we can be free of the common sufferings which maybe we have put back out of our mind by attaining pleasantness in life. Like when I'm drinking my morning coffee - I'm really enjoying the coffee, not suffering this and that emotional affliction.

 

As a few have mentioned now - Samsara and Nirvana are intertwined in the same way that emptiness and form are intertwined. There is a scripture in the Taoist cannon which extrapolates on The Heart Sutra, called Miraculous Scripture of The Highest Mystery Ascending, Disaster Dissolving, and Life Protecting, which explains:

 

"Emptiness is just emptiness, but emptiness is not absolute emptiness; form is just form, but form is not absolute form; so emptiness is form, and so form is emptiness."

 

So what I'm trying to say is that, when free of suffering, Nirvana is known and experienced through Samasara - so there should be more about how Nirvana is visible when the lense of affliction is no longer. Yes, freedom from suffering requires a path away from the current, the powerful waters of influence that drive our animalistic competition, BUT, Nirvana is also in the world, shining like the sun through the great window of illusion and delusion which separates us from the Ultimate Reality - the beautiful Buddha Nature which is everywhere yet nowhere, no matter where you are, at all times. It's within you, it's outside of you. The dharma teaches how to still the waters so that the sun can shine through them and illuminate all, making the waters pleasant and bountiful. It's as though we need to stop loving the water so we we'll stop mucking it up, but ultimately the water is where it's really at.

[yabyum24]

I gave up on westerners understanding Dharma, whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jain.

 

I'm sure there are some westerners out there who do, but I haven't met one in person ever.

What about Malcolm????!!!!!

[Simple_Jack]

Dharma is about ending ignorance.

 

You are free to remain ignorant.

 

End of thread.

[Jetsun]

Many of the Buddhist sutras were meant for the individual receiving them and not for general consumption. A lot of the teachings are meant for monks in seclusion. Many of the teachings are designed in the context of you having a dedicated personal relationship with a guru. So it isn't surprising that there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, the balance is very subtle and many fall over one side into a nihilistic slant for a time.

[Simple_Jack]

Many of the Buddhist sutras were meant for the individual receiving them and not for general consumption. A lot of the teachings are meant for monks in seclusion. Many of the teachings are designed in the context of you having a dedicated personal relationship with a guru.

 

It's not required that one has a guru if you're relying on the tripitaka and commentarial traditions. Practice lineages such as Ch'an and Vajrayana are a different matter altogether.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Simple_Jack