I don't post quotes very often, because I generally find people tend to use them in place of actual, good, intelligent arguments. As if having posted Quote X effectively wins the argument. Fact is, you can find a smart-sounding quote to support just about anything. They are the original sound bite. A good quote can add finality to an argument, but it doesn't comprise an argument. Most conflicts are much too complicted to be resolved in a quote. Sadly, many people seem not to know this and merrily go about with it anyway. Confirmation bias and all.
Having said that, here you go:
"I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." - Dalai Lama
Showing posts with label buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buddhism. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Religion Thursday
This week I'm addressing the Buddhist concept of dependent origination.
I gotta say, I'm really liking what I'm getting from Buddhism right now. The law of dependent origination "analyses life and the working sof human beings and society as they actually are," according to the book. The author likely takes to task deity, deterministic and accidental teachings as violating this law.
Originally, Asian philosophies would sometime advance such practices such as acting like animals or purifying in river waters. But the Buddha apparently considered these doctrines as defying reason, since the actions could not be shown to actually lead to enlightenment.
The author really emphasis that all actions lead to certain results and all results arise from certain actions. In other words, WWII was caused by human choices and actions, and could have been avoided. Poverty is caused at least somewhat by human choices (perhaps not entirely individual, but society wide).
Interesting.
I gotta say, I'm really liking what I'm getting from Buddhism right now. The law of dependent origination "analyses life and the working sof human beings and society as they actually are," according to the book. The author likely takes to task deity, deterministic and accidental teachings as violating this law.
Originally, Asian philosophies would sometime advance such practices such as acting like animals or purifying in river waters. But the Buddha apparently considered these doctrines as defying reason, since the actions could not be shown to actually lead to enlightenment.
The author really emphasis that all actions lead to certain results and all results arise from certain actions. In other words, WWII was caused by human choices and actions, and could have been avoided. Poverty is caused at least somewhat by human choices (perhaps not entirely individual, but society wide).
Interesting.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Religion Thursday*
I'm starting what I hope will be an every week kind of posting thing. If not a series, at least a miniseries while I'm reading Basic Buddhist Concepts.
The first here is the First Seal of Law: Impermanence.
It's an interesting concept and one with which I'm willing to get on board, even though I struggle to obtain it. Nothing in permanent. Not wealth, not health, not status, not stones.
It kind of goes to the "either you are growing or you are dying" quote. And to this blog post about not wasting the time deposit that is your life.
It is a combination of these - the blog post especially - that prompted me to set up a schedule for editing my book and reading. It's only half an hour a day, but its something. 30 minutes per day four days a week. 1,800 seconds per day. 2 hours per week. 8 hours per month. It adds up. It's time when I won't be appreciating the false promise of permanance in my life and will instead be doing something about the impermanance.
And I'm also loving the first parts of these books about how Buddhism should never be in conflict with science. Not sure how that meshes with the "wrongful sex" Law, but we'll see.
My one criticism so far is that at one point the author objects to Buddhism being considered a philosophy rather than a religion due to the lack of deity. He points to faith in the Laws as evidence of its religious nature. But I think this feels a bit forced. And a bit too determined to make it a religion. My firm faith that rocks are rocks doesn't make that belief a religion.
The book is a bit vague on how, if nothing is permanent, the Laws are. Especially since it explains how impermanance requires that no god exist. For somone who swings between agnostic & Diest like myself, that really isn't a problem. But the problem with impermanance is nihilism, in my mind. If impermanance reigns, is it permanant?
* I wanted it to be matchy, like Two-for Tuesdays, or Wacky Wednesdays. I went with Thursday because in college Thursday was represented by an R, to distinguish it from Tuesday.
The first here is the First Seal of Law: Impermanence.
It's an interesting concept and one with which I'm willing to get on board, even though I struggle to obtain it. Nothing in permanent. Not wealth, not health, not status, not stones.
It kind of goes to the "either you are growing or you are dying" quote. And to this blog post about not wasting the time deposit that is your life.
It is a combination of these - the blog post especially - that prompted me to set up a schedule for editing my book and reading. It's only half an hour a day, but its something. 30 minutes per day four days a week. 1,800 seconds per day. 2 hours per week. 8 hours per month. It adds up. It's time when I won't be appreciating the false promise of permanance in my life and will instead be doing something about the impermanance.
And I'm also loving the first parts of these books about how Buddhism should never be in conflict with science. Not sure how that meshes with the "wrongful sex" Law, but we'll see.
My one criticism so far is that at one point the author objects to Buddhism being considered a philosophy rather than a religion due to the lack of deity. He points to faith in the Laws as evidence of its religious nature. But I think this feels a bit forced. And a bit too determined to make it a religion. My firm faith that rocks are rocks doesn't make that belief a religion.
The book is a bit vague on how, if nothing is permanent, the Laws are. Especially since it explains how impermanance requires that no god exist. For somone who swings between agnostic & Diest like myself, that really isn't a problem. But the problem with impermanance is nihilism, in my mind. If impermanance reigns, is it permanant?
* I wanted it to be matchy, like Two-for Tuesdays, or Wacky Wednesdays. I went with Thursday because in college Thursday was represented by an R, to distinguish it from Tuesday.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Two great posts
A hilarious one about meditation at a Buddhist resort; and one on agnosticism that seems to me to be spot on.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
How much is too much?
You know what, I wasn't a very good person or husband tonight. It's true and it happens.
Anyway, beside that - I love my truck.
And I've been expanding my borders and watching World Cup soccer. But why have the two games I've watched so far sound as though they were played in a bee's hive? Not near a hive, and not merely the cheering of fans, but like the game was actually occurring in a fucking hive. INSIDE THE HIVE.
And I watched Karate Kid tonight. And it got me thinking... how much is too much when it comes to "compassion" for Buddhists? Is there a final breaking point? Should there be? I'm all for accepting each other, and helping each other, and giving the other the benefit of the doubt, but at what point does it end? At what point do we recognize that the world is as the world is and act in accordance. Or is the idea to change the world altogether? It seems like maybe its that second one.
And a few lines in the movie got me thinking... at one point Dre (Will Smith's son) says something along the lines of "Everything in China is old." How much of our "Westernistish" is from the fact that almost everything around us is less than 100 years old, let alone 200 or 1000. Doesn't being around 1,000 and 10,000 year old buildings and structures and history have to affect you in a different way than beind around 100 year old stuff? And does that necassarily mean that 1,000-year old stuff is better? Because doesn't that mean that 10,000 year-old cave drawings are better than anything that came after? I for one think that the "newness" of our nation means that A) we are bound to have a different outlook than the "older" world and that B) that's not necassarily a bad thing?
Having said that, I wonder if maybe we all couldn't be a little better if we were a little more Busshist? (As I write this, the Republic of South Africa - the host continent, if not nation - scores the first goal of the 2010 World Cup against Mexico. South Africa is the lowest host country in history.
Anyway, beside that - I love my truck.
And I've been expanding my borders and watching World Cup soccer. But why have the two games I've watched so far sound as though they were played in a bee's hive? Not near a hive, and not merely the cheering of fans, but like the game was actually occurring in a fucking hive. INSIDE THE HIVE.
And I watched Karate Kid tonight. And it got me thinking... how much is too much when it comes to "compassion" for Buddhists? Is there a final breaking point? Should there be? I'm all for accepting each other, and helping each other, and giving the other the benefit of the doubt, but at what point does it end? At what point do we recognize that the world is as the world is and act in accordance. Or is the idea to change the world altogether? It seems like maybe its that second one.
And a few lines in the movie got me thinking... at one point Dre (Will Smith's son) says something along the lines of "Everything in China is old." How much of our "Westernistish" is from the fact that almost everything around us is less than 100 years old, let alone 200 or 1000. Doesn't being around 1,000 and 10,000 year old buildings and structures and history have to affect you in a different way than beind around 100 year old stuff? And does that necassarily mean that 1,000-year old stuff is better? Because doesn't that mean that 10,000 year-old cave drawings are better than anything that came after? I for one think that the "newness" of our nation means that A) we are bound to have a different outlook than the "older" world and that B) that's not necassarily a bad thing?
Having said that, I wonder if maybe we all couldn't be a little better if we were a little more Busshist? (As I write this, the Republic of South Africa - the host continent, if not nation - scores the first goal of the 2010 World Cup against Mexico. South Africa is the lowest host country in history.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dealings with the Dalai Lama
Not personal ones, unfortunetly. That would be pretty cool though.
But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.
Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.
Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...
-------
Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.
Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.
To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.
The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.
I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.
But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.
Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.
Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...
-------
Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.
Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.
To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.
The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.
I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)