Philosophy

Now that last sentence seems spot on to me.

Thanks guys.

I know I should meditate (it’s very good for me if I am becoming hypomanic) but I’m not good at routines. I like doing it as a group because it forces you to do it. Maybe I should see if there is a local meditation group going on.

Much appreciated. I hope you don’t mind that I tried to tidy up the lists to avoid the code stuff appearing. Interestingly enough I’ve just finished a Buddhism module with my Year 8 students and this pretty much describes the ground we covered. We also looked at the recent tribe episode with a Buddhist community from the Himalayas which the kids enjoyed and referred a lot to the four noble truths.
I must say that I thought you handled the question of theism/atheism in a very sensitive way – a lot of school textbooks are prone, perhaps understandably, to simplify this issue as if there is only one Buddhist voice regarding this issue. I’d be interested to read your thoughts about similarities and differences between the ethics of Aristotle and The Buddha – especially given that they are tantalisingly close to being contemporaries…

Thanks again.

I know entirely what you mean Biskie. The problem with meditation seems to be that the times when you could do with it most are the times when its feels hardest to just sit down and do it.

Incidentally, meditation entails working variously on samadhi and panna, two of the three trainings that constitute the eightfold path. Samadhi is the aspect of meditation that is calming, and provides the bedrock for panna, which is where enlightenment stems from. However, panna is not always pleasant in the way that Samadhi is.

Incorporating aspects of Buddhism into my life has at times felt like being Alice chasing the rabbit down the hole. Although overall I am appreciative of it, at times it feels crap. I gather that the experience is best described in Saint John of the Cross’s Dark Night of the Soul, though I have never read the poem myself.

The Theravada tradition in particular emphasises the importance of going on retreats, and I have been on two 10-day ones. I do agree that it is necessary to go on these in order to really work on panna.

gordy:

I also really enjoyed Bruce Parry’s programme. At the same time, having to get the basics of Buddhism accross in just one hour, while simultaneously making a programme about being part of the tribe means that a lot really good stuff about the particulars of Tibetan Buddhism must have got left on the cutting room floor. Shame.

Incidentally, Parry’s use of his own experience on the journey to explain the four noble truths worked extremely well as a metaphor, but it’s not really what the four noble truths are about. The noble truths work on a much more basic level than that – they work on the sensate level.

Perhaps a more accurate word than “suffering” for describing Dukkha is “unsatisfactoriness”. There are moments during meditation when you are observing the sensations and all is very pleasant. Then suddenly you realise that these sensations, though pleasant, are actually giving you no satisfaction. At that moment, you can let go of the sensation, and it is at moments like this that progress is made.

The reason why Parry’s experiences during his travels are a metaphor for this rather than the other way round is that one of the most important things that one comes to understant through dharma is that the “I” that I might associate with d0m is nothing more than a series of sensations that arise and pass away, arise and pass away. The clinging of the second noble truth is the ego attempting to hold onto these sensations in order to create a permanent “I” that simply doesn’t exist.

I also thought the Tribe episode was very good. I thought it illustrated some of the difficulties very well in a practical setting.

Re-meditation. My wife (a Therevada Buddhist) used to practise meditation every evening but it became too difficult for her as a concentrated session. She now uses the same tape (of a monk talking) when she is on the computer or doing the ironing etc. I asked her if she ever got bored with listening to the same monk saying the same things, ‘Never,’ was the gist of her reply.

Very useful for me (I have an impressive ignorance of Buddhism). I think I now get the categorisations. A few questions.

First, I often hear it said of Buddhism (by, let’s say, sympathetic critics) that it entails non-realism on ‘evil’: I am not well placed to consider this, but what do you make of such a claim (i.e., whether true; and, if (not) true, a problem?).

Second, at the bookshop, there was a guy – until relatively recently – who is, it seems to me, a relatively serious, if that’s the word, and incredibly jovial Buddhist (with a Jewish background – I mention this because it is not unimportant to him). (Rotund, avuncular and jollying, he would equally have made a brilliant friar, but anyhow). I remember asking him what he makes of the kind of appropriations or embodiments of Buddhism that can crop up in Western societies and are ripe for satire. By this I do not mean to impugn all (or many) Western Buddhists: even just thinking solely of this guy, that would be a grave misrepresentation. But, perhaps you can think of the kind of thing I have in mind. I asked him about this (at his leaving party of all places) and he, I think, felt a certain tension in accepting the superficiality of some takes while wanting to avoid ‘dogma’ or whatever you want to call it. What do you make of this? (Am I showing a certain ‘alienness’ from Buddhism for even raising such a question)?

Finally, I am struck by:

“Gautama insisted nobody should accept his teachings purely on faith, and instead people should see for themselves by following the dharma, the first step of which is to focus awareness on the breath.”

This raises in my mind a question of ‘accessibility conditions’. That is, there are some things which we cannot just discuss distantly, but must do so immersed in them, which does not – per se – tell against their reality. To put it another way: this is a praxis. (To use an analogy: suppose you are married, if you want to analyse your relation with your spouse, you can only do so up to a point in a cold and detached way). Actually, I lied, there’s no question (save for, what do you think?).

ChooChoo:

I’m not entirely certain that I’ve understood what you mean by “non-realism on ‘evil’ “. Buddhism does entail seeing the non-dual nature of things, and as such it would consider the good-evil dualism as illusory. At the same time, loving kindness, or compassion, is for Buddhists the way out of suffering, and karma – a much misunderstood concept – is very real.

Moving on, aparently there is quite a trend for Jews to embrace Buddhism (one who has is called a Jubu) and I suspect the reason for this is that Kabbalah, the mystical element of Judaism, is highly esoteric and inaccesible for the majority of Jews.

On the more general point about the adoption of eastern mysticism in the west, a Jungian perspective might be useful. Whenever you see a religion spreading into a new culture, elements of the culture’s shadow side will be projected onto it. Dharma is hard bloody work and I suspect that a lot of people in the west are not prepared for that. They just want to do some nice relaxing breathing exercises instead. Nothing wrong with that as such, but it is not the real thing though. Then you also get the commoditisation of spirituality with things like Bikram Yoga.

On your point about praxis, I completely agree.

ChooChoo:

‘Praxis’ is the mot juste.

I could sum up my understanding like this:

Gautama, ‘These are some things that I have learnt; I hope they might be of use to you; please try them and see for yourself; take what is of use but don’t ignore what is not – it might come in handy one day.’

He didn’t pretend that it was not hard – but he knew that not everybody is in the same state of readiness, so I doubt that he would have thought some of the more easy to mock posturing of some trendy westerners is the least risible. I think his view might have been that if it helps you become more compassionate and self-aware then fine – but don’t stop there!

I am not sure that Buddhism has any concept of evil. To me evil is a lazy concept – like blame.

Thanks guys. Sorry, was not clear on ‘evil’. I did not have in mind the sense of committing moral evil – as in Hitler did evil things or, even, Hitler was evil. I meant a rather vague shorthand for pain, suffering, loss etc, the kind of thing mentioned in the opening of the Iliad (one of the few bits of Greek I can remember):

menin aeide thea Peleiadeo Achileos
oulomenen, he muri’ Achaios alge’ etheke…

[actually, I had to look it up to double check – one of the few bits I can still translate though – the total of translatable bits probably numbers at around 8 lines).

Sing Goddess of the destructive wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus, which brought countless woes (muri’…alge’) upon the Greeks…

I don’t mean to signal the relation to Achilles here! Rather, these countless woes – an extreme example in the context of a great war, but possibly found throughout our lives in myriad ways – are they real? Do we really suffer privations etc? Are evils – in this sense – real? (The reason I ask is, to reiterate, I often hear this said of Buddhism, but am not so sure). I don’t ask to critique, but to gain a better understanding. Apologies, the question could have been repeated in a less poncy way…

I’m glad we agree on the praxis point – how could it be otherwise (praxis, not our agreement)?

And thank you for your answers to my other questions.

I should add, wrt the former colleague I mentioned. Were he ever to read this, I hope he doesn’t mind. I write out of genuine affection.

He was a striking, to my mind thoroughly impressive guy. Indomitably cheerful. A great punster. He was v good with customers – I don’t mean in a selling them stuff sense, but just talking and chitchatting with them. I remember being fascinated when he first told me he was a jubu. (I think I mentioned recommendations some time back: his was by a guy whose name is along the lines of Lama Surya Das – another jubu I believe). I still recall the lunchtime when, quite happily, he told a couple of us about how he had suffered from cancer (in a place – or two – which is congenial to survival though one might dread to envisage as a bloke). All cleared, he still had to go for check ups which, understandably, he didn’t relish. He never explicitly said so, but I speculate (not just willy nilly but from what I know of him) that this experience might have been a catalyst in deepening his Buddhist praxis. I remember speaking to him about being struck that he was a serious Buddhist and he disavowed the label ’serious’ (both seriously and jovially).

The reason I have asked about ‘evils’ (as suffering etc) is something interesting I found with him. It seemed to me that he spoke about reacting to suffering, conceptually, by treating it as, in some way, unreal. But something akin to Frankl’s experience in Auschwitz – not in terms of the objective ills but in terms of reacting to suffering – was, to my mind, going on. And this is profoundly realist on suffering – it really does exist, though it is not totally crippling even if it cripples us. (I realise this might sound terribly patronising – all i can stress is how good natured our, in retrospect, all too infrequent discussions were).

Nonetheless, I am so glad to have met him for the simple reason that he has eroded some of my cynicism about, well, not Buddhism but about certain appropriations of Buddhism. Or perhaps not even this. Perhaps interests and certain moorings in aspects of Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism have inclined me to a certain hypersensitivity to a lack of rigour or, to get etymological, a cultivated disinclination from binding oneself to something. To draw on Harry Frankfurt, etymologies often herald bullshit, but I think it’s worth reflecting on, for example, ‘fides’ in this regard. This perception of Buddhism, though, is most silly, given that there are numerous Cs, Js, and Zs who do this. Nonetheless, I guess I could respect Gautama by partly ignoring the patient suggestions Buddhists have offered to me, along the lines of not thinking in terms of ‘religio’ exactly, while retaining their gentle offerings loosely for possible future nurture…

ChooChoo:

The only Greek I remember from the Iliad (or The Wrath of Achilles, as Graves pedantically maintained) is the refrain:

‘Epi oinopa ponton,’ often translated as ‘The wine dark sea.’ It really means, ‘On the wine-faced sea.’ Wine-faced as in fermenting in the vat – boiling sea might be more accurate but not quite so poetic.

I used to know the Greek for, ‘Menelaus of the loud war cry,’ which translates literally as, ‘Menelaus who shouts a lot.’ But I have forgotten it long ago.

Where does this come from:

‘Sivulla, ti theleis,’

‘Apothanein, thelo.’

And what does it mean?

I can remember a bit more modern Greek from my sojourn in Crete.

Re-suffering and Buddhism. Gautama is reputedly taken the view that pain can be enjoyed if one concentrates hard enough. It provides a focus for meditation and empties the mind. One needs to understand the pain, make it a friend almost, and try to get to know all its sensations and nuances.

dOm might be able to confirm if I am right here.

I must reiterate my (ancient) Greek is so poor. I never really ever got going with it (and that’s with a classics degree). I guess it means:

‘Sibyl, what do you want?’

‘I want to die’.

Wasteland, right? But not sure where it’s from. I have some odd feeling – a 2% chance vibe – that it’s from Virgil (with some Latin inserted).

That said, it’s impossible to forget the wine dark sea.

ChooChoo:

Well done!

The Wasteland indeed but where it came from originally I am not sure. Even my annotated version is silent about the dedication. This is the full text:

‘Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent:

‘Sivulla etc…’

For Ezra Pound – Il miglior fabro

‘For at Cumae I saw with my own eyes the Sibyl hanging in a [ampulla?!], and when those boys said ‘Sivulla[?] ti theleis,’, she replied, ‘Apothanein, thelo’.

Come to think of it, I have no idea where it’s from. The Wasteland was a bit of a fluke on my part. I’ve never really ventured past the first part and my memory for such things is usually pretty poor. But, for me, Eliot’s not as hard going as Pound. I occasionally pick up Pound at the bookshop but never get v far. More of a dabbler when it comes to poetry. I remember enjoying A E Housman and Elizabeth Jennings (quite a contrast) at school. And since then, have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) Larkin, though he is a misery guts and I hate ‘This Be the Verse’ (with further cursing since it’s one of probably only three poems I more or less know by heart), though I always enjoy his poem about being invited to a party by one Warnock-Williams. Am slowly becoming a fan of Les Murray. And a friend of mine keeps raving about Keith Douglas, but still too forgetful/lazy. None of which helps us on the above.

ChooChoo:

This conversation properly belongs in the arts category but anyway. I like the Wasteland and can still quote odd bits from memory:

‘Frisch weht der Wind der Heimat zu
Mein Irisch Kind wo weilest du?’

‘Come with me under this red rock
And I will show you fear in a handful of dust.’

The latter, of course, provided the inspiration for Evelyn Waugh’s great novel.

Early Pound is not so difficult and much less pretentious that his later Cantos. Unfortunately, I lent my Pound anthology to a friend and it was never returned, so I cannot quote anything for you.

I too like Houseman.

Sorry for being complicit in the tangents.

By the way, there’s a little passage in the Tom Wolfe novel I mentioned. I think it’s a good example of the kind of thing I meant above. It relates to a character, Conrad, who has just been (wrongly) imprisoned for assault, remembering his hippy parents:

“His very soul! To Conrad, all twenty-three years of him, soul had never been anything more than a word. He had never heard his father or his mother even mention the soul. They had taken one stab at religion, just as they had taken a stab at Oriental diets. Once, for about a week and a half, they had pronounced themselves Buddhists. There had been a lot of talk about karma and kiriya and the dharma and the ten bonds and the five hindrances and the four something-or-others. Above all, there had been a lot of chanting…until, as with so many of their enthusiasms, they wearied of the discipline it required.”

I think this is the kind of thing I had in mind. But, of course, it’s not really to do with Buddhism. (The interesting question remains on evaluting the “wear[ying] of discipline”). I guess it’s the same kind of thing that you see in, to use a phrase a friend’s mum coined, ‘Jesus Creepers’ (people who go to church or parish soup kitchens to hit on girls): the problem here is not with Christianity or soup kitchens, but with the Jesus Creeping. Alternatively, I remember, at a college hall-mate’s behest, going to a fair trade society party, where we had fair trade tea and fair trade dried mango before someone – part of the society’s active membership – from the kindness of his heart – he was a serious communitarian – offered some coke (the drug) to everyone. I don’t think that it was fair trade, though I didn’t ask, and left soon afterwards.

Just posted this on the Vernon thread and thought I’d stick it in here as well as it is relevant:

Differnent mystical traditions have different strengths and weaknesses, and of course it invariably is the case that the one is the corollary of the other. It seems to me that compared to Therevada and Tibetan Buddhism, Zen is very easily misunderstood — because its deliberate opacity. In particular, the part that Zen really emphasises that can derail some people is the idea that “ordinary mind is Buddha”, as Mujukan puts it. This sentiment is also sometimes expressed with some variant of the words “everyone’s a Buddha, they have just not realised yet”.

It’s not that I think this is wrong. I don’t. Zen really emphasises awareness of the present moment, which is what the whole thing is supposed to be all about. But the flip side is that some people might sit down to meditate, spend forty minutes thinking about their personal problems or churning whatever crap around in their heads, then come out of it thinking they have made great insights when they haven’t. It strikes me that Zen badly practised can lead to a kind of laziness (”If I’m already a Buddha then I don’t need to do anything”) or even, at its worse, to nihilism.

By contrast, Therevada Buddhism is far more goal orientated in that it emphasises the idea that by following the dharma one eventually attains full enlightenment. This of course brings its own set of issues, but that’s a subject for another post.

ChooChoo:

I’ve realised that I never got round to confirming the points Boltonian makes re suffering, but yes, he is absolutely correct.

(As it’s been a little while now, a reminder of what Boltonian wrote: “Re-suffering and Buddhism. Gautama is reputedly taken the view that pain can be enjoyed if one concentrates hard enough. It provides a focus for meditation and empties the mind. One needs to understand the pain, make it a friend almost, and try to get to know all its sensations and nuances.”)

Just to add that Therevada probably emphasises this most by placing greatest importance on the value of going on retreats. When you go one of these the pain of just sitting all day, for days on end, is actually pretty intense. Numbness is also a problem, but it is the back pain that really is the worst. Certainly you’ll won’t experience anything like it by just sitting for an hour a day.

Eventually you realise that you have no choice but to work with it. And the funny thing is that it really does work.

i followed in behind dOm when he opened the door
just saying hi before i read the thread
nice to recognize names