Research suggests that tibetan buddhist monastics are much more scared of death than average

[Cheshire Cat]

I've recently found this article 

 

https://www.lionsroar.com/research-suggests-tibetan-buddhist-monastics-are-much-more-scared-of-death-than-average/

 

What do you think? 

 

[Apech]

It's a bit b/s as Buddhist monks deliberately meditate on impermanence and death ... and also the precious human birth - so it is on their mind so to speak than others.  In other words the study doesn't really address cultural attitudes.

 

 

[doc benway]

LIke Apech implies, I'm not sure this is an accurate conclusion.

The primary standout result of Tibetan Buddhist monastics relates to fear of self-annihilation.

These monastics are deeply trained and committed to make this precious human life useful in working towards liberation.

It's no surprise that they take this life very seriously and the sturdy results reflect that.

While they train to see the self as an illusion, they respect the two truths and live their live accordingly.

Is that truly being "scared of death"? 

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced by this study that a Tibetan Buddhist monk is necessarily more "scared of death" than say an American businessman or Thervada practitioner.

I suspect this is more a measure of how seriously these monks take the opportunities provided by this life to seek liberation.

From the article - 

"When we look at aspects of the fear of death other than self‐annihilation, we find that Buddhist monastics do not fear death more overall."

[rideforever]

Quote

In the Christian tradition, the soul is independent of the body and exists in a disembodied state in the afterlife. In the Hindu tradition, the soul persists from one physical body to another throughout reincarnation. In the Buddhist tradition, there is no self that exists independently of the body or the mind.

 

Christian tradition : "Narrow is the gate to life and few find it, wide is the gate to destruction and many find it". 

Hindu tradition : ... is complex, but Astavakra for instance says that the state sought after is rarely found, J Krishnamurti said that "no-one had understood"

Buddhist tradition : In the Lotus Sutra it says that each Arahat or Tathagatta is such only after long and arduous path.

 

Clear the authors of this bullshit from the "Cognitive Institute" have zero interest in such matters.

 

The study is surprised that Tibetan monks were frightened of death.  Quoting a monk :

 

Quote

"When I realized they were the bones of my mother, I was so overcome with grief that I could hardly stand it. I could not think, I could not speak, and an overwhelming sense of longing and sadness swept over me."

 

How should you feel when your parents die ?
The monk was simply human and recognized the reality of mortality and was afraid. 
It is a good sign it means he is normal and not living through ideologies.

 

Quote

"Another explanation for our findings might be that the monastic Tibetans did not really believe the no‐self view."

 

This is correct ... they would not be monks if they thought there was no-self.

Clearly there is a point and therefore there is someone to get the point.

Otherwise just jump off a bridge.

No-self simply means that the ordinary human person is empty, but through long spiritual journeying a Real Self will appear.

 

Quote

Not only were Tibetan monastics more likely to keep the medicine, the majority of them received the highest possible score, that they would not give their medicine away even if the stranger were to live another 5 years or more. Compared with 34.3% of Indians, 25.7% of American Christians, and 31.2% nonreligious Americans, 72.1% of Tibetan monastics indicated this response

 

Tibetan monastics refuse to give somebody else their life.

Why should they ? 

Again it is a good sign.

 

Buddha's last contemplation before he reached self-realization was that he understood that by being born he had the right to self-realization. 

He touched the earth that made him, and accepted self-realization, and entered the state of shining  like the Sun.

 

[BluLotus]

On 10/12/2019 at 2:21 AM, Cheshire Cat said:

I've recently found this article 

 

https://www.lionsroar.com/research-suggests-tibetan-buddhist-monastics-are-much-more-scared-of-death-than-average/

 

What do you think? 

 

 

I am not surprised that the Tibetan monks would think more about death and dying, since Buddhism focuses a lot on death and impermanence, etc.

 

(Why did they compare Tibetan Buddhist monks to lay people? I think a study between different monastic groups from various spiritual traditions would also be helpful.)

Edited October 20, 2019 by BluLotus

[BluLotus]

Is this article saying that there is NO self at all in Tibetan Buddhism? My understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhist teachings talk about how there is no "permanent self" (but this does NOT mean the self doesn't exist at all). It just means that the "self" is not a fixed, permanent, ego personality that goes on forever. In Buddhism, "John" might come back as an elephant, so "John" the human would no longer exist. His "life force" (mindstream) would still exist, but in a fluid, ever-changing form. Even during his human lifetime, "John" will undergo many internal (and external) changes. Five-year-old "John" is not exactly the same as seventy-five-year-old "John". This makes him "empty" of any real, fixed "John-ness" but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all. Buddhism isn't total nihilism, (at least not the version I studied).

Edited October 20, 2019 by BluLotus

[doc benway]

13 hours ago, BluLotus said:

Is this article saying that there is NO self at all in Tibetan Buddhism? My understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhist teachings talk about how there is no "permanent self" (but this does NOT mean the self doesn't exist at all). It just means that the "self" is not a fixed, permanent, ego personality that goes on forever. In Buddhism, "John" might come back as an elephant, so "John" the human would no longer exist. His "life force" (mindstream) would still exist, but in a fluid, ever-changing form. Even during his human lifetime, "John" will undergo many internal (and external) changes. Five-year-old "John" is not exactly the same as seventy-five-year-old "John". This makes him "empty" of any real, fixed "John-ness" but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all. Buddhism isn't total nihilism, (at least not the version I studied).

 

“It just means that the "self" is not a fixed, permanent, ego personality that goes on forever.”

It goes a bit further than that, I think. What is the self that makes up me? How is that defined? What is it that makes John John? When we look for that we simply can’t find anything specific or inherent, only compounded phenomena and relationships. Our relative experience of self is quite real and yet, at an absolute level, we can’t find any self. If we engage in meditative practice long enough, we begin to identify with a much more pervasive and un-defined sense of self which cannot be captured by mind. If you haven’t done so already, I’d suggest you read through CT’s wonderful thread here.  Best thread on the site for me:

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/37270-seeing-recognising-maintaining-ones-enlightening-potential/

[liminal_luke]

Most people, with the possible exception of Tibetan Buddhist monks, simply aren´t very aware of the extent of their fear of death.  It´s impossible to simply ask people about their fear of death and get anything like a cogent answer.  For instance, I prefer to deal with my fear of death through denial.  Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, I plan to become a quick study in the field of Daoist alchemy and live forever.  Should researchers ask me if I am afraid of death, I´ll appear much more evolved than all of those scaredy-cat Buddhist monks -- but it´s all a front. If anything, I think the study suggests that the monks are unusually aware of their feelings and not scared of sharing them openly.  Could it be that Tibetan Buddhist monks think that fear of death is nothing to be afraid of?

 

It´s a little like asking people if they can empty their mind of thoughts.  Newbies sometimes think they can; practiced meditators know it´s not so easy.  I can see the headline now: Business Executives Beat Out Monks in Quiet Mind Contest.  It takes a bit of meditative skill even to be aware of the presence of thought. Unlike the average Tibetan Buddhist monk, I can go off on a thinking jag and not even realize I´m having win-the-lottery fantasies until the meditation bell rings thirty minutes later.

 

But even if the study´s conclusion is correct and Tibetan Buddhist monks are especially afraid of death, that finding is a bit beside the point as far as their practice goes.  More scholarly Bums can feel free to correct me, but I don´t think the point of Buddhist practice is to eradicate feelings.  My understanding is that Buddhists can be as happy, sad, angry and fearful as the rest of us.  The trick is to relate to these ongoing human emotions in a spacious way, recognizing their impermanent nature, and generally getting on with things.  

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by liminal_luke

[BluLotus]

@Steve,

 

Of course I agree there is a lot more to the "emptiness" of "John" than just what I said in my post. I was just making a brief summary, based on what teachers have said. My point was that the article seemed to be equating emptiness with nihilism, and the whole 'study' appeared to be based on that assumption. They seemed to be surprised when the monks turned out to be non-nihilists and just human. What did they expect?

Edited October 21, 2019 by BluLotus

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, BluLotus said:

@Steve,

 

Of course I agree there is a lot more to the "emptiness" of "John" than just what I said in my post. I was just making a brief summary, based on what teachers have said. My point was that the article seemed to be equating emptiness with nihilism, and the whole 'study' appeared to be based on that assumption. They seemed to be surprised when the monks turned out to be non-nihilists and just human. What did they expect?

 

I remember my teacher talking about method and wisdom several years back.

One point he made is that all the schools of (Tibetan) Buddhism agree on what method is.

The problem arises when they try to discuss wisdom, that is when all sorts of debate and disagreement arises.

And those disagreements can be pretty intense.

From the Dzogchen view, this disagreement makes sense because emptiness cannot be defined or conceptualized in any way. 

So I guess I'm not too surprised when people lean towards nihilism in their "understanding" and "definition" of emptiness because one cannot "understand" or "define" emptiness. This is a very common error in Buddhism, IME, particularly among academics.

[BluLotus]

@Steve,

 

I get the feeling that the people conducting the study didn't know much about Buddhism in general to begin with. I could be wrong, but that was my impression.

 

[liminal_luke]

2 hours ago, BluLotus said:

@Steve,

 

I get the feeling that the people conducting the study didn't know much about Buddhism in general to begin with. I could be wrong, but that was my impression.

 

 

This is my impression too.  In particular, the idea that one ought to be willing to shorten one`s life in order to lengthen someone else`s doesn`t jive with my understanding of Buddhist kindness.  Here`s a quote I like by Buddhist meditation teacher Sharon Salzberg...

 

You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere. You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection. 

 

 

[silent thunder]

Seems like a click-bait subject.

 

How would one be able to project onto Monastic Buddhists as a whole, from asking a handful of them about their feelings on death?

 

Of the monks queried, are they actually in touch with their true feelings on the matter?

Did all of them answer accurately and truthfully?

 

We never know what another feels or thinks... we only know what we interpret about them, through what we observe and what they say...

 

Tend your own house.  Turn within.  Source is not far away.

 

In the end... 'are you afraid?' seems a more practical question, but that's just me, in this moment.... (or is is?)