TimB: … They do NOT seem to be suggesting that you separate forever from any narrative at all.
Xain: But they do, that is what they are getting at.
TimB: No they don’t. Read this line again: “When we unravel from our persistent self-narratives that shape our realities and avoid the temptation to relocate too quickly into new stories, all stories become available for enquiry.”
They advise waiting until all stories become available for inquiry. They don’t explicitly say, “Then go for it.” But the way I read it, that is what is implied.
Seems to me that you want to interpret what you read in the way that will make you most miserable, rather than accurately.
I’m not because I read the whole article and know what the web page is getting at. That whole nonduality bit which includes dropping the narrative, all of them. The having all stories available for inquiry is the first step of that aim. That is what you miss.
They mention illusion and unreality a lot of the time, similar to how Buddhism talks about the unreality of pain and suffering.
Eating the strawberry only takes a few seconds, and it might give the guy enough energy to climb the vine and fight the tiger. The tiger will probably rip and bite him to death anyway. He might try rapping the vine around the tiger’s neck a few times then holding the end of the vine and jumping off the cliff again, but then Ebony and Ivory the vine eating mice would probably do them both in.
The moral of this story is you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t, but at least you got a sweet strawberry out of the deal.
As I keep saying, Buddhism is different from the rest of the religions that you have studied so you can’t really say they are all the same.
@snowcity
I never claimed “all religions are the same.” I’m quite aware they aren’t.
I AM saying, though, that the BELIEVERS in every religion are equally convinced theirs is the one true religion, even if the religions themselves are different from one another.
It’s true that some believe science backs up Buddhism. The same is said for Islam and Christianity. Of these, the claims about Buddhism and science make more sense, but they still require interpretation, since today’s science vocabulary didn’t exist thousands of years ago.
But that’s beside the point. For you, the “proof” is in the science. That’s why “Buddhism is true.” For others, the “proof” may be a religion’s superior moral code, the friendliness of its believers, its effect on addiction or crime, its age or size, its strictness or liberalism, or any of 1,000 other reasons why Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or X is “true.”
It’s not that I believe it’s true, it’s just that I can’t prove it isn’t true, and the same goes for all the claims made by them.
Like the link where the guy said the story is misinterpreted and that is the true one or how he says that suffering isn’t real and that you are realizing you are immortal. For me the peace that these people seem to have from believing such things must make it true somehow.
That and me failing to sway them makes it seem like they are right
Are you aware that you simply say the same things again and again?
Not being mean. An honest question. It makes me wonder why people have invested time and effort to talk with you, because it doesn’t seem to have made even the smallest impact.
Because I keep falling for the same things over and over. It seems like all it takes from Buddhism to make me doubt myself is mystic sounding talk (like in the link) that seems to get at a deeper and hidden truth. Couple that with how sure they sound and I’m sunk. Plus the claim, or at least implication, that to argue otherwise would mean I am deluded and choosing to live in illusion and choosing to suffer.
Like when the guy I linked said that suffering isn’t real.
Well I guess the difference is that Buddhism has a reputation for being “different” or “truer” than other religions. It’s why I don’t buy into Christianity
And when they mention stuff like suffering isn’t real, me arguing against that makes it sound like I am choosing to suffer or being afflicted by something imaginary
Well I guess the difference is that Buddhism has a reputation for being “different” or “truer” than other religions. It’s why I don’t buy into Christianity
Well, the big difference between Buddhism and most other religions is that it's technically atheistic, because it lacks a god or gods. Some people don't even define it as a religion, but a philosophy or a lifestyle.
But as far as its reputation for being “truer” than other religions…that’s according to you, and your defining it according to the scientific “facts” about it that you’ve bought into. Actually, Buddhism generally doesn’t position itself as absolute truth. It’s pretty inclusivist, certainly compared to Christianity and Islam, which are super exclusivist.
Religious exclusivism
Religious exclusivism, or exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true. This is in contrast to religious pluralism, which believes that all religions provide valid responses to the existence of God. (Wiki)
Theories of Religious Diversity
Buddhist Inclusivisms
While there have been Buddhist teachers and movements who have been exclusivists, in general Buddhism has been inclusivist. Buddhism has long been very doctrinally diverse, and many schools of Buddhism argue that theirs is the truest teaching or the best practice, while other versions of the dharma are less true or less conducive to getting the cure, and have now been superseded. It has been typical also for Buddhist thinkers to hold that at best, the same is true of other religious traditions. …
Christian Exclusivisms
…However, what about Jews, pagans, unbaptized babies, or people who never have a chance to hear the Christian message? After catholic Christianity became the official religion of the empire (c. 381), it was usually assumed that the message had been preached throughout the world, leaving all adult non-Christians without excuse. Thus, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533) interpreted the slogan as implying that all non-Christians are damned, because they bear the guilt of “original sin” stemming from the sin of Adam, which has not been as it were washed away by baptism. …
And when they mention stuff like suffering isn’t real, me arguing against that makes it sound like I am choosing to suffer or being afflicted by something imaginary
When you say that you have to choose between being happy and accepting what's real, yep, you're choosing suffering. Buddhism does not exclude emotions from reality. That's something you made up.
Yeah, @lausten, it is sounding more & more like @snowcity seized on a few points in Buddhism, internalized his versions of them, and created his own Buddhism spinoff religion. Xainism? He’s an Xainist.
Sunday mornings are good for YouTubes while I’m making breakfast or whatever. I especially likes ones this where two opposite viewpoints sit down for a respectful chat. Sam describes the Buddhist idea that life is suffering, but we can find happiness and peace in succinct way here, and without jargon. The last line really nails it. You use spiritual practices to find peace, knowing that the unpeaceful moment will come, knowing that even in the midst of the best meal you’ve ever had with your favorite person in the world, there will be something imperfect about it. The unreality is, that seeking the ultimate moment of happiness is not possible and the feeling of unhappiness due to knowing that or due to whatever imperfection is in that moment is just as unreal, just as fleeting and is not a reason to pursue or avoid anything. They are all just experiences to have.
“There are many ways into that. I guess the most common is to recognize that we all suffer and we’re all going to die. Even if you are the luckiest person you have ever met and you live longer than anyone, eventually you’re phone will start ringing with all the bad news of the people you love who died and are disappearing. That fundamental mystery that we all have to confront that this life is impermanent and that even when we have everything we want or nearly everything even when we’re not sick and no one around we love is sick, still there’s this constant undercurrent of dissatisfaction. Even when you are getting what you want, in the very act of gratifying a desire your contact with your direct experience is still less than perfectly satisfying.
In fact your pleasures just recede. You get the bite of the perfect food, that chocolate cake that you’ve been looking forward to, and even in the act of savoring it, in the next moment, it’s a little too much and you need a drink of water. You wouldn’t want that experience itself to persist forever. So there’s this search for happiness in a context that seems perfectly designed to frustrate that search.
So I’ve used spirituality as a way to ask this question; if it’s possible to be truly happy and truly peaceful and connect with a durable form of well being before anything happens, before you get what you desire, even in the midst of physical pain or disappointed or anything conventionally negative.”
So I’ve used spirituality as a way to ask this question; if it’s possible to be truly happy and truly peaceful and connect with a durable form of well being before anything happens, before you get what you desire, even in the midst of physical pain or disappointed or anything conventionally negative.”
Which Buddhism would argue does exist and that we have to free ourselves from our ignorance. The heart sutra is one doctrine of Buddhism that literally gets at the hearts of everything they say, which says that not only do our emotions not matter but they are not real. So yes Buddhism does say that. It’s why they mention that suffering isn’t real.
The thing about Buddhism is that what has been learned before is quickly abandoned when you get deeper into the practice in that it no longer is true. It’s more like a step to ease people in but then must be discarded. The Buddhism you see being talked about in public isn’t the deepest stuff.
Personally I would love to throw out Buddhism as I don’t really believe it to be true and it hasn’t helped me. But then I see brain scans of monks, and their demeanor and it gives me doubt. The thing is that there is science to back what Buddhism says, if there wasn’t I wouldn’t buy into it. It’s why I don’t buy into Christianity.
Can you show or direct us to the brain scans of monks that causes you to doubt that emotions are real? I am thinking that some monks may have become adept at not reacting emotionally in certain circumstances. Perhaps there are also people who have trained themselves not to blink, despite the natural reflexive impulse to do so. I would be interested if that were the case as well. But I am not about to say that blinking does not exist.
It’s more like a step to ease people in but then must be discarded. The Buddhism you see being talked about in public isn’t the deepest stuff.
So, we haven't been talking about the "real" Buddhism. You know about the "No True Scotsman...", oh forget it. I think Lao Tzu said the Tao of the internet is not the real Tao.
You know that what you described is basically how cults recruit people? If someone tells you they know the “real” whatever, check your wallet.