COMMENTS

Finally you decided to feature Matthieu! Good thinking! :-)

Posted by: starbuck on 20 Nov 2007 | 12:29 pm

i disagree with this guy, i tend to agree with the french intellectualist, they like their passions the ups and downs. one defines the other. At the same time i think love and hate can coexist towards the same object, anyone who has older siblings.
sure some degree of mind training could have some effect. Yet think about it all pervasive love is the same as no love. if you feel just as much love for the beggar in the gutter as for you're own lover. then the love you show you're partner really isn't that significant.

I get the feeling he is not promoting to feel more love for ones fellow beigns but more to smooth out the bumps, to get rid of the ups and downs. spirituall prozac, whilst prozac can help someone with serious manic depression, i used to know some people who were great fun when on an up and slightly suicidal when down. Now they're on prozac and now they're in a near perpetual state of serenity and contentment. in other words all drive has gone out of them.

the story about bhuddist who weren't startled when a bom blast goes of right next to them. i find downright scary, who really wants to become so content with their lives that you dont care when a couple of sticks of tnt go off right beside you??

Posted by: thijs on 20 Nov 2007 | 01:47 pm

@thijs: I think you should read a bit more about Buddhism before concluding it is about getting rid of your emotions and ups and downs. This is not what Buddhism is all about.

If you really want to learn, try these: "Buddhism Plain and Simple" or "Buddhism is not what you think". Both by Steve Hagen. They are not expensive and really give insight into the Buddhist (zen) philosophy in 'plain and simple' language :-)

Posted by: starbuck on 20 Nov 2007 | 04:07 pm

@thijs: I can recommend the books that starbuck suggests. I read them both and they are very easy to read and very interesting / useful.

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 20 Nov 2007 | 05:03 pm

@fresh and starbuck:
Actually i'm quite well informed in bhuddist philosophy, or at least consider myself to be so by virtue of having lived in a bhuddistic country for 4 years. and generally speaking it's one of the few religions which i admire, and consider relatively harmless. however this guy is discussing happiness, not bhuddism, my quarrel is with his conclusions not bhuddism itself. this matthieu guy is encouraging using meditation to push youreslf into a perpetuall state of contentment.

if you want to learn about a society where happiness, contentment, is a the primary goal to be attained you'd best read a "brave new world". i think happiness isn't a goal to strive for i think it is the reward you get for achieving a goal. If you're already content then there is nothing to fuell your discontent your ambition to perform better then you have before.

unless you have lost a race once, you can't understand the elation if you have won. without hate you can't know love, without sorrow, no happiness. our lives are made memorable through contrast. If contentment and everlasting serenity are all you desire. Well then the himalayas are a fine place to go and meditate. personally i choose the elation of having set my self to a task and completing it well, then using meditation as an emotional supplicant, even if i then have to experience sorrow and depression if i fail or am bored.

using meditation as an alternative to aldous huxley's soma to achieve happiness, is i believe just as fake and empty.

although i'll grant you that if it can be used to counter depression it would be preferable then using drugs.

Posted by: thijs on 20 Nov 2007 | 07:15 pm

Having lived in a Buddhist country doesn't mean you know Buddhism. There are only a couple of countries in the world who have Buddhists in the government (Bhutan being one of them), and countries like China and Japan are far from spreading the word of the Buddha, even though Buddhism is a strong religion there. The Dalai Lama himself said that growing up and living in a Buddhist country doesn't mean one understands the essence of Buddhism.

As I understood it, meditation is a way of training the mind. And you don't need to go the Himalayas to meditate, you can find meditation in everything you do, as long as you do it with attention and focus. It's all about being in the present moment 100%.

I am not exactly sure what your problem with Ricard is... in my opinion he is just a person who combines science and his knowledge of buddhism to help others overcome the suffering. He wrote a whole book on the subject of happiness. Maybe you should read it to understand his point ;-)

Posted by: starbuck on 20 Nov 2007 | 09:44 pm

my problem lies not with him, or buddhism. but with how he defines happiness, however i'll read the book you recomended maybe he can change my mind. Although i tend to take works which aproach scientific problems with religious anwers, with a large grain of salt.

Posted by: thijs on 20 Nov 2007 | 11:42 pm

it's called: Happiness, Cultivating Life's Most Important Skill.
(goodluck! ;-))

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 01:07 am

@thijs: After you have read the book let us know what you think by leaving a comment here...

@thijs + starbuck: Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism is a series of teachings to guide you to directly experiencing reality.

I'd like to add this because most religions that I know of are telling people about things that are right and things that are wrong. Buddhism doesn't do that. It gives you guidelines and let's you draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 21 Nov 2007 | 11:04 am

@fresh: although I personally agree with you on the religion issue, we can't deny that it has become a world-religion in the last 2500 years! So it is generally referred to as a 'religion', and sometime also a 'philosophy'.

I see you found your way to wikipedia, but you forgot to quote this little bit: "Buddhism is the fourth-largest religion in the world behind Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism."

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 01:10 pm

@starbuck: The question is: What is religion?

Using Wikipedia as THE source is a bit scary since anyone can edit it. Above the Bhuddism page on Wikipedia it says: "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality."

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 21 Nov 2007 | 01:57 pm

I totally agree, but you also were kinda quoting from it, weren't you? ;-)

But I think you must agree that Buddhism is generally concidered to be a religion. Even if we think (or 'see') it isn't because it involves no almighty creator (God).
I like the Dutch explanation that Buddhism isn't a 'Godsdients'. But how does that translates into English?

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 04:44 pm

@starbuck: Yes, I was kinda quoting Wikipedia... ;-)

But if something is generally considered to be something that doesn't mean that it is.

I'm afraid that 'Godsdienst' in English is 'religion'. :-)

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 21 Nov 2007 | 04:47 pm

Okay, so we agree!
WE think it isn't a religion, but billions of people do! They just don't see it as we see it? ;-)

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 04:50 pm

@starbuck: Exactly.

Now all we two have to do is tell those billions of people about it... ;-)

Posted by: Fresh Creation on 21 Nov 2007 | 04:56 pm

uhm... actually buddhism is a religion, it actually inherited most of the gods from hinduism. only buddhists believe in gods the same way i do in rocks, their there, real, but not something you'd need to worship.

after sitting underneath a tree for 7 years hoping to be enlightened by the gods, buddha gave up and decided that any answers that are to be found can only be found within yourself... the first step towards enlightenment i guess.

At least thats a slightly banal form of the story ;-). However this does make their teachings philosophical in nature rather then religious because no one ever claimed that it is the word of god(s).

Posted by: thijs on 21 Nov 2007 | 07:33 pm

@thijs: your first paragraph is uncomprehendible to me. What are you talking about? There may be Buddhist streams that worship (hindu) gods, but that has nothing to do with the original Buddha 'dharma'!

And the second paragraph is not accurate either. Buddha did reach enlightenment after sitting under a tree for some time.

In the third paragraph you lost me again. I think we all agree that Buddha was a human being and he did not talk of any devine intervention. So HIS teachings are more a way of life (or philosophy if you want) than a religion. But other human beings MADE a religion out of it after he died.

I really think you should read Steve Hagen. Then it all becomes clear to you ;-)

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 09:47 pm

@thijs: or read this: [url=http://www.amidabuddha.org/]http://www.amidabuddha.org/[/url]

Posted by: starbuck on 21 Nov 2007 | 09:54 pm

I meant these two little parts:
[url=http://www.amidabuddha.org/whowasbuddha.html]Who was Buddha?[/url]
[url=http://www.amidabuddha.org/buddhism.html]What is Buddhism?[/url]

Posted by: starbuck on 22 Nov 2007 | 10:30 am

Personally i find this site [url=http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM]http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM[/url] explains it better, at least more objectively.

after doing some research i discovered i was somewhat confused, getting my facts twisted. This was due to the fact that buddhism is very fragmented religion, there are a multitude of sects some adding more divine like powers to buddha's divine trick bag, hence the story that buddhism inherited a bunch of hinduistic gods, true maybe for some streams, but starbuck was quite right, generally speakings its a nonsense statement.

quoting from the site

"We think of Buddhism as a religion, which it unquestionably became, but Siddhartha was less concerned with theology or ritual or prayer as he was with providing a tool for individuals to use to escape suffering"

this validates my statement that his teachings were more philosophical in nature then religious.

Posted by: thijs on 22 Nov 2007 | 08:04 pm

LEAVE A COMMENT