|
Please do not answer these questions unless you actually know what you are talking about. If you have an opinion thats fine, but please word it as an opinion.
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
2.) I've read several sites about meditation. I've tried to do it myself. But im not even sure what it is Im trying to do. What is the actual goal of meditation? Is it about trying to temporarily focus on everything other than the "self", in an attempt to eventually reprogram the brain ridding one of the "self" ? Or do I have it all wrong here? Im talking long-term goal, btw.
|
I had Buddha's Scriptures once in Korean. I'm not buddhist but I'll open up with some thoughts and recollections. I personally felt Buddhism was too vague at many moments and so, I just let it be.
1 - Monks and nuns abstain from sex. Not everyone who is a buddhist is a monk or a nun. Afterall, the same applies to Christianity for sex and human eistance. Also, the concept of sex and desire was also a problem I had with Buddhism personally. To seperate self, a buddhist is pretty much in my eyes, an empty human vessel. One has to depart from all things and it's too aloof from the world for me.
Plus, there was a small passage in the scriptures I remember and has stuck with me... which was something along the lines of - If you search too hard for Nirvana, that in intself is a self-motivated and ego-driven action, which is not Nirvana. I honestly dwelled on that for... god knows how long... before I let it go and said the whole idea of buddhism boils down to simply not feeling bad from lack of fulfillment in lust.
2 - I think meditation is a mind excersize. Throughout the scriptures, I noticed when it mentions meditation, there is a certain really keen observation of surroundings. There was a mention of a log in still water in the scriptures. This log represented a form of self awareness and recognizes itself as a source of ripples but once it settles into peace, the lake itself also calms.
I dunno man, I am a stoner, I am a degenerate, but once ago, I used to have a working and thinking mind. Anyways, this is simply a start from a past I forgot due to the countless drugs and memory problems I have now.
Have fun reaching enlightenment ^_^ I gave up, maybe some other day.
|
2) meditation put simply is just clearing the mind of thoughts to try and aim for "inner peace". If you actively watch your own brain for a day you'll realize just how much needless crapyour minds fills itself with.
|
See? That makes sense with the log comparison... it was something along those lines, I sware.
|
Australia3818 Posts
If everyone was a priest there'd be a lot of molestation = true.
|
Canada9720 Posts
My roommate attended a Buddhist school, and lived with a group of monks for a month this summer. He's very interested about the subject, and fairly knowledgable. Since the verbosity of his enthusiasm on Buddhism, and basically any religious or pyschological topic has a tendency to alienate his audience person-to-person, he most likely has a lot of pent-up 'Buddha-talk' that he'd like to get off his chest.
I'll direct him here when I get home.
|
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I am a buddhist and I've also thought the same thing before. I would think, that not everyone will be able to abstain from sex, so humans will never become extinct from Buddhism. I also think, that Buddhism will say that if everyone was to become proper buddhists and reach enlightenment, then there would be no need for life on earth so the question would be mute. But that's my guess. It's not from proper factual data, and I may probably be inaccurate or incorrect.
Meditation is to clear ones mind of thoughts... I think it's to obtain control of one's mind and in turn, body. I would call it a different type of learning, like how kids are taught to fill one's mind with knowledge to become more intelligent, meditiation is like teaching yourself to gain control of your mind and body to reach enlightenment.
One important thing about buddhism is to never teach improperly the teachings of Buddha, so I would like to point out that my views here are just that. I do not know if they are accurate or not, so do not take it as that. The best thing is to go find a monk or nun and ask them.
|
SuperJongMan I liked your post. I am not sure but I think that I currently agree with you on #1. no comment on 2
|
On February 21 2007 07:48 alias wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I also think, that Buddhism will say that if everyone was to become proper buddhists and reach enlightenment, then there would be no need for life on earth so the question would be mute.
I have also thought about this, but wouldn't that mean that humanity could reach this same point simply by commiting mass suicide?
|
Belgium8305 Posts
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I'm not very knowledgeable on Buddhism (so consider this an opinion), but it seems to me that should this problem ever arise, one could simply argue that sex for the very purpose of procreation and sustainment of the species (i.e. without any erotic or lustful aspect) is perfectly acceptable. An enlightened person should be able to see and experience sex for what it is, an act of procreation.
|
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
Buddhism does not equates to monkhood or nunhood. What the Chinese would say is that you need to have the 机缘 (opportunity and kismet) to meet with buddha and what was designated for you in life. Not everyone will have the 机会/缘份 (oppotunity/fatedness) to enter monkhood, which is why there is not a need to address population declination because it is not an idea for the masses. Some may argue there are countries such as in thailand it is customary for young men to enter monkhood but it's only for a season to devote their thoughts and cleanse their minds for the cares of the world. After which they will still live a normal life, hopefully a better person and more enlightened to live a good life.
Reincarnation is also very much within the belief system until you gained perfect enlightenment, in which case you will cease to exist and be one with the nature. This kinda tell that there is not much advocated on human population control either. Attaining the status of a deity is also possible if the purification and 修为(Refining of the heart) is extremely rare and precious. But then if you are really keen on the details read up about moksha, nirvana, samsara and bhakti. I have some mathematical problems with that one though so was never really a strong fan of these but then its just me.
I'm simply mentioning about the branch of buddhism I encountered. There are fine details in Dharmic religions that differ in some ways that you may want to read up personally. 
|
A lot has to do with how religious you want to get with Buddhism.
The thing is, the riddance of sex and extinction of the human species through it, isn't a problem in buddhist eyes. There is higher existance in being closer to "perfection" "god" etc. Physicial existance is not the epitome of existance and reincarnation beliefs.
The more superstitious and relgion-like aspects derive a lot from Hinduism and I think there is some political history behind it, but I don't care much for the stuff. I liked the original guys ideas and that's about it. This stuff I don't get into because I don't like believing in hocus pocus magic. However, it is because of this that nuns and monks will abstain from sex. Afterall, back in the day, the nuns and monks were revered and given charity by the people simply because they were monks. What I mean is, they were seen by the populace as a "grander" person. They were closer to Nirvana and maybe in a next lifetime, that monk would be that person.
However, I think after eating some food, un-highing myself, and giving it a little thought, I can put better input about meditation. It's so hard to put some buddhist concepts into modern day context or practicality.
Meditation shouldn't have a focus in my opinion. I think I can also explain the log idea better now.
Let's say nirvana is peace and trainquility in the lake, and we are the log. To be able to have a peaceful and tranquil lake, we must stay still. Afterall, if we move, we ripple out and bother things. The "one" concept is so overplayed but I think it applies here. The lake's natural state is to be still, and the log can choose to cause ripples or not, but the normal calm lake is the natural state. Anyways, that's the goal. To achieve a Nirvana through meditation, control, and living Buddhisty
So anyways, I'll just tell you what I did to meditate and why I did it the way I did it.
There's an emphasis on emptiness in Buddhism. That means it's nothing. We have no idea what nothing is honestly. It's like.. lack of existance but being conscious of the fact we exist.... I guess. This was a huge part of the thing that. I guess everyone decided would be best to leave up to the practioner or Buddha was trippin too much balls he lost himself. Nirvana wasn't just letting go of the self etc etc, but I think it was honestly attaining pure emptiness. This is not meant in a negative connotation. Western Societies have a much more negative view of "nothing" and "empty". It's a lack of substance, it's not seen as a bad thing, but more like a clear slate. It's purity. There is simply nothing. No-thing to clutter up purity. That's why you forego everything. It's that whole nothing and everything concept.
I think you have the concept of self different from how I saw fit. The way I saw it self was more or less memories and impressions. You are what you remember and learn from what you remember etc. If I am a slate, I already have set up formuals and reactions, I have pre-cognitioned responses, thoughts, a lot of mumbo jumbo messes really...
So I would simply... observe, usually with eyes closed. Listen to my heartbeat, feel my breathing, don't think... just be there. Try to be nothing... how you go about doing that is not my business since... there are a million ways to achieve it and Buddha himself was honestly a pretty vague fellow himself. Anyways, Then I'd try to simply understand what it was. Trying to comprehend nothing is very hard -_-; There is so much to myself as a person, that trying to comprehend nothing was so damn much.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if the guy even saw his ideas becoming so codefied and rigid. It sounds so stonerish of me but well, what can I say? He fits my character.
However, if you've noticed, Buddhism has had an impact on me. Now I am more egotistic and self-oriented than ever. It's so the opposite of what was preached and yet.. I think it's the way I like it.
EDIT - Travis, Buddhists don't kill. That includes themselves in mass suiciding. ~_~ lol Chobo.
And the first part was to say stuff to Cow, I took awhile typing and Yoda cut ahead.
|
On February 21 2007 08:04 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I'm not very knowledgeable on Buddhism (so consider this an opinion), but it seems to me that should this problem ever arise, one could simply argue that sex for the very purpose of procreation and sustainment of the species (i.e. without any erotic or lustful aspect) is perfectly acceptable. An enlightened person should be able to see and experience sex for what it is, an act of procreation.
i thought about this
but I think humans would long go extinct before enough enlightened people were around and willing to continue the species
|
On February 21 2007 08:51 SuperJongMan wrote:
I think you have the concept of self different from how I saw fit. The way I saw it self was more or less memories and impressions. You are what you remember and learn from what you remember etc. If I am a slate, I already have set up formuals and reactions, I have pre-cognitioned responses, thoughts, a lot of mumbo jumbo messes really...
So I would simply... observe, usually with eyes closed. Listen to my heartbeat, feel my breathing, don't think... just be there. Try to be nothing... how you go about doing that is not my business since... there are a million ways to achieve it and Buddha himself was honestly a pretty vague fellow himself. Anyways, Then I'd try to simply understand what it was. Trying to comprehend nothing is very hard -_-; There is so much to myself as a person, that trying to comprehend nothing was so damn much.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if the guy even saw his ideas becoming so codefied and rigid. It sounds so stonerish of me but well, what can I say? He fits my character.
However, if you've noticed, Buddhism has had an impact on me. Now I am more egotistic and self-oriented than ever. It's so the opposite of what was preached and yet.. I think it's the way I like it.
I can tell that you're a sharp guy. I say this because I can very easily identify with most of what you post, I remember having these exact same thoughts multiple times, and I am a very sharp guy. I have thought about what you posted in the last 2 paragrphs so much lately. I also think its the way I like it.
but back on topic
could what buddha was trying to preach be equated to basically attempting to destroy all the memes, genes, and whatever else that control how you see the world and instead see it from a clear perspective, one without "rules" that confine how we think? I hope you understand what I mean there, because this has been what I always felt enlightenment truly is but I am not sure if it actually is what buddha is preaching.
And as for the 'self'.. I agree with you on what the self is based on, but the memories, impressions, etc cannot be the actual self.. only what the self is composed of.
Man I worded that terribly but I don't know how to be more concise. Basically I agree with buddha that the "self" is the cause of suffering, but its the attention I give to these thoughts, memories, etc that truly cause the suffering - not the memories and etc theirselves.
Maybe I have that totally wrong though.
I am sorry I worded most of this pretty poorly but I am not going to try to make it better right now.
|
I get what you say at least, and I'm going to nod and say yup, I agree.
Simply because geniuses think a like.
And yeah, the self thing, you're right.
As for enlightenment, I believe it is more or less the same concept as your "clear view" idea. Emptiness is purity, and purity is un-biased, un-touched, and if we view through purity, it is the same as viewing through emptiness. Empty as in.. pure. So I believe what you believe is Buddha's enlightenment to be correct also, maybe some minor minor detail differences but the basic idea is more or less there.
It doesn't matter how you arrive at the state, as long as you simply understand and acknowledge it. I guess it's why talking about this stuff can go in circles forever.
|
Why are you interested in Buddhism all the sudden Travis? This better not be homework
|
are u joking?
have u seen the threads i make lol
|
Obviously not I guess. Why you interested though?
|
I am interested in figuring out any possible purpose to my existence.
|
There isn't any. Its all luck. Thats my take on it anyways.
It all just boils down to being happy and/or living satisfied. If helping other people or whatever reaches this goal for you, do it. If not who cares.
I have no problems with religion I just think those people to be closed minded because they don't understand things so they create or believe a religion to give themselves peace or hope. Not to brag or sound like an arrogant prick, but I can do that without reading scriptures,singing, or praying. Why do I have to fear a God or an afterlife? Thats only going to make my (short) time here on this ball of space rock worse.
I think the real reason why people believe in religion way back in the day was because they had the same difficulties as we do today. Why are we here? Why is there stars? Why can't I steal this apple when I'm hungry? Why this, why that? To which they couldn't understand so they created a set of values that they heeded like law. It kept order and peace and gave poor or unhealthy people hope. Now that we have so much scientific proof and theories of things its all just the latter part. Giving people hope or peace of mind. I don't think of life in terms of what am I here for , or why are we here anymore. (I used to struggle with this every day) I found it only made me misanthropic and somewhat depressed. Now I just take every day how it is, get it done or don't. If by the end of the day you feel good, keep doing what you're doing. If not try something else.
PS - I've been a Catholic, Christian, Mormon, and Baptist ( I know I'm leaving out 1 or 2) and they all just taught me things that I knew internally in the first place. I know my rights from wrongs. I still plan on reading the Koran and some other Jewish and Asian texts just to be more knowledgeable on the subject. So far though they all basically preach the same things with different methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
