The following is an email I sent to a Buddhist friend of mine. Care to discuss? ------------------- I waned to share something I have pondered, meditated on and tried to unravel for countless hours over the years. This meditation led me to the main things I disagree with the Buddha about, and eventually my rejection of every religion I have explored so far (and I have been exploring for over twenty years). Assume that the Buddha is correct and the highest state of being is a state of pure consciousness in a non-corporeal existence, and the plane of existence we occupy right now, ruled over by Mara, is illusory. If the above is true, I can only assume that this world exists for a reason. If that is the case, what is the point or purpose of this place? Why are we here? The way I look at it, to find the purpose, contrast the two and see what is different. What do we have here that we could not have there? Two things: 1 Sensual experience 2 Mortality/Danger/Excitement/Passion For the Buddha to deny/reject these things, he is denying the very core of our humanity. In my view, there are four traits (neuroses, perhaps?) that one must overcome and eventually eliminate to attain a healthy balance, confidence and self-esteem. Eliminating these four detriments has been the main focus of my spiritual journey for many years now. Fear Regret Shame Insecurity Every religion I have looked at over the years has not only preyed on, fostered and fed these four detriments (intentionally or otherwise) but they were all borne of them – mainly fear and insecurity. Yes, even Buddhism – though it is my favorite so far and I have gotten more from Siddhartha’s words than anyone else’s. Siddhartha began his path of searching for the Dhamma when, as a child, he saw an old person, a sick person and a dead person and realized that these fates were inescapable and suffering is inescapable in this life. He was searching for a place to hide from his fears and insecurities. He found the Absolute. It’s a similar story with every religion (with the possible exception of Judaism). People are searching for an escape from the world – a refuge from the slings and arrows of the world – even if that refuge will not come until after death. Every religion encourages these four detriments, rather than teaching people to overcome them. “Sacred? Of course you are. Life is a painful state full of suffering. You should be scared and insecure. Allow me to teach you how to evade these problems and escape the pain.” I do, whole-heartedly agree with the Buddha that attachment causes suffering. However, rejection and denial is not the answer. “I am not doing this – this is happening through me.” – Siddhartha (if my memory serves, though I may be paraphrasing) It seems I have more faith in people and the power of a properly trained mind than Siddhartha did. I think that someone, if properly mindful and properly balanced can enjoy sensual pleasures without becoming attached to them. One can revel in the joys of life without becoming attached to it. As arrogant as this may sound, I do not think I will be coming back. I don’t know if I believe in reincarnation (and it really doesn’t matter if it is true) but if there is such thing as reincarnation, I believe I have broken free from samsara. Not because I have denied the physical, sensual pleasure, passion and excitement – but because I CAN enjoy those things, and not become attached to them. I love life, but I have no desire to come back – and really, isn’t that how one breaks free from samsara? If you lose attachment and your desire to be reborn, you will not be. I will not be. This was only going to be a one-paragraph email – I apologize for going on and on. I only have one final thing to say… We have the ability to break free from samasara through our lack of desire to be here any longer. This implies we have a desire to be here right now. Why do we have a desire to be here? What keeps us trapped in samsara? Attachment to the joy of sensual pleasures keeps us here. This said, I believe that if there is an Absolute – if there is a higher plane or state of existence in which we are pure consciousness – if beings in that plane are perfectly wise and aware – if our consciousness/soul/self/energy/force/whathaveyou goes there when we escape samsara… then I believe we elected to be here. It was a conscious choice on our part to come here and experience life. Why would we do that? Because there are two things this existence affords us that are unattainable in a non-corporeal state: 1 Sensual experience 2 Mortality/Danger/Excitement/Passion I aim to enjoy them. The Buddha aimed to deny them.
I generally agree. I don't see fear as a detriment. Seems as useful a feeling as any other as long as I am not locked down. But I see no reason not to embrace this world, selectively. And embrace those parts of me that want to embrace it. And so, I am not a Buddhist either - I think perhaps you are misinterpreting parts of Buddhism, but I can leave that to the Buddhists to sort out with you. The main thing is I agree. I think there is an inevitable dualism in Buddhism around life that I cannot embrace - my verb for the day. A cutting off.
First of all, one raven, I squinted all the way through your post because your interpretation of Buddhism is just nothing like mine. So that you'll know where I'm coming from, I don't consider myself a Buddhist, mostly because I haven't formally taken Refuge. However, I have so far not found anything in the texts of the Pali Canon that I would disagree with. Where did you get that?! I would say that whole thing with "illusion of existence" is a later spin, possibly under Hindu influence. And connected to it is the notion of purpose. But I do not recall any text in the Pali Canon stating what you are stating above. Reference, please.
I read it in the first book on Buddhism I ever read many years ago called "The Teaching of Buddha" put in a hotel room drawer by some Buddhist Society. Like I said, I am going from memory, though - and my memory is a bit thin. If I have time tonight, I will try and address the rest of what you said. For the time being, here is an excerpt from Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (source, in case you are inclined to read the rest)
Culagopalika Sutta The Shorter Discourse on the Cowherd (excerpt) Translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki (source)
I think there is a crucial point where you and the Buddha disagree, and the resolving of which might settle all other disagreements. Namely, you seem to be operating with a different understanding of stress/suffering -dukkha- than the Buddha. The Sutta says: While sensual experience, mortality, danger, excitement, passion might be that which makes us human, I would say they are still stressful, dukkha. The Buddha did not deny these things. The way I understand his message is that if one is to make an end to suffering, then one must properly understand, abandon or overcome them. Note: this is so if one wants to make an end to suffering, whereby suffering is understood as the Buddha explained it. The way I understand the Buddha's teachings, he isn't saying that sensual desires, passions etc. are bad or wrong or that one ought to get rid of them per se. There is definitely some satisfaction in them, there is no doubt about that; but this satisfaction does not last or is not as intense as we would wish it would be. But if one wants to make a complete end to suffering, then one shouldn't still pursue sensual desires, passions etc. for the sake of finding pleasure, safety and relief. Because ultimately, there is no lasting happiness in pursuing them. And also, you say: You seem to be implying that there is another norm or law or standard that is indisputable and above the Buddha's teachings - namely, your understanding of "humanity". So in a way, you seem to have already made up your mind about what it means to be "human" (and possibly what "happiness" is); you are comparing other religions or philosophies to your understanding of "humanity" (and possibly "happiness"), whereby your understanding seems to take the upper hand. I would suggest that such an approach to religions and philosophies doesn't lead to an adequate understanding of those religions and philosophies.
The Buddha is cut off from everything else - not Siddheartha, but the universal Buddha. There is this state of non-attachment and the attaching, the sense of having or being a self, sensual urges, etc are seen as problematic. They are pulling one out of the 'the state'. This is not a simple dualism since once you are 'really' in that state then you can be present with these pulls and 'misunderstandings' and not separate them out. Nevertheless the learner is presented with a classification of things that are to be avoided, unfollowed up on or with or by. The meditator, or becoming Buddha, is not these 'things'. They are 'not Buddha' however much the learner is told everything is the Buddha also.
From where I am sitting I have OneRaven making statement about who we are and is central and how to be happy. And I have the Buddha doing this also. Neither of their suggestions fit for me, though I am closer the OneRaven than The Buddha. However much the Buddha may have qualified his approach with the idea that you should only pursue his path if you want to, it has always seemed like there was an undercurrent sense that this would mean you are not ready. You will need more lifetimes to disentagle you from the illusion. It seems a strategic or pedagogic choice on his part but not a metaphysical one. They are deluded, but no one should be forced to give up their delusions. What if really it is not a delusion for some of us to seek happiness immersed the pleasures of the world and that it will never, even after so many lifetimes, become the correct pursuit to begin cutting off these things?
I have a mish mosh westerner background. But it sounds like perhaps you have another background in Buddhism. What is the difference?
Yes ... I sense that in your reasoning, there seems to be a "must" hiding between the lines, a "must" possibly inherited from a Judeo-Christian view of the world and religion. A "must" that suggests that a religion's tenets "must be followed", a "must" that suggests that following a religion's tenets is not something optional, a "must" that suggests that there is something fishy about any religion or philosophy that expounds freedom as far as following its tenets goes. And also perhaps some wounded pride and disappointed expectation are there as well - as in "What, this religion or philosophy is suggesting I'm not good enough for it?!" Alas, I've heard many times in Buddhist circles that it is pride that propels people on the Path in the first place. Then so it is for you. I don't know, and I am not sure. I do so wish that true happiness could be found in pursuing sensual pleasures and following one's passions and such. But my experience tells me otherwise. I am a disenchanted hedonist, a bored epicurean. I am bored, sick to death of pursuing sensual pleasures. This doesn't mean that I have stopped pursuing them - because I do pursue them, avidly. But the disappointment, the unsatisfactoriness is there, and I can't deny it.
Although I am a thorough "Westerner", I would say my background in Buddhism is mostly in early Buddhism, early Theravada, and the Forest Tradition. All that about "Buddha nature", Bodhisattvas, speculations about what it is like to be enlightened is rather foreign to me. I suppose we have quite differing views and experiences of Buddhism.
IMHO, It is not the attachment but more like desire (Sanskrit: Kamana) that causes sorrow (Sanskrit: Dukkha). You can attach yourself to this world and learn what the world offers, but strong desire has a propensity to create sorrow. I think you can reduce those desires by reducing those seven sins from a western POV. Whether Hinduism merged his teaching or the thoughts were already there I can not say. But the essential teaching of Buddhism are part of Hinduism today.
Perhaps. But the way I see it, the crux is that unless one is attached to the joys of life, one will not pursue them, and they usually don't happen all by themselves. No attachment -> no pursuit -> no joys of life. For example, unless I go to the grocery store, buy the ingredients and cook a delicious meal, or unless I go to a restaurant to buy it, I won't be able to enjoy the meal - because there will be none. You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that it is possible to do or have something just like that, without having pursued it; or that it is possible to pursue something without being attached to it (or some aspect of it). I think neither is realistically possible or desirable; the former because it is a passive waiting for something to "fall from the sky" (and one might die before something "falls from the sky"); the latter because it is irrational.
I was actually talking about the process. What one is generally told to do, how to meditate, what to avoid.... I just did a quick online search for a Buddha Quote that raises such issues for me: from this website http://www.serve.com/cmtan/Dhammapada/ To me this is clearly dualism. It also in suggesting we cultivate detachment is separating out two options for relating to desires. A self-relation. also this: which seems like speculation on enlightenment. But perhaps the Dhammapada is not a part of the tradition you are familiar with. I am pretty ignorant of these things.
about life being illusionary...if life is illusionary than what is reality exactly? Also How exactly does one decide not to be reborn, just a thought or wish within oneself? Is that not love of life if you wish not to be reborn?
When reading the Buddha's teachings, one ought to be careful to check whom they were addressed at - whether they were addressed at his ordained, monastic disciples, or whether they were addressed at lay people. The teachings differ, depending on whom they were addressed at. And secondly, what is wrong with dualism? Without it, we couldn't function. If we wouldn't think in terms of "I am now going to do this (e.g. write this post), I am not going to do that (e.g. drive to town)", we couldn't make any decisions or act. The Buddha did speak about enlightenment - note, the Buddha, who was qualified to do so. Not everyone is, though. I have to say this is a rather glib way to put it. This is probably going to sound harsh, but if you know you are "pretty ignorant of these things", then how can you make assessments like "But I do think he was wrong about where we are all at and what we now or eventually will need."
