321–330 of 600 posts
Probably because the Four Noble Truths are antithetical to Christianity, liberalism and capitalism, the core aspects of Western culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could be a nice end of the conversation as it was obviously meant to be but now I feel very curious about this: > I suspect what you mean by 'conscious' is different to what I might mean What do you mean? I would sincerely appreciate if you could dedicate some more time and try to explain.
Well, to me, the semantic definition of being conscious is simply to be awake, rather than asleep, insensible, anaesthetised, blacked out or whatever else. You seem to have a slightly different definition, I think, based on these remarks - "It is important to maintain conscious" "I've heard about Buddhists who train to always stay consciousness while living, talking and whatever," "I enjoy more value out of my life i…
I think they mean conscious as in "to be conscious of", for example: I exited my house while daydreaming/thinking about other things, so I was not "conscious of" the fact that I did not bring my keys with me aka I did not have awareness or was not operating in the moment/mindfully because my mind was elsewhere
I think they're attempting to describe the difference between being present/aware of every moment we experience, vs. a habitual 'autopilot state' that we can find ourselves in (the phenomena of driving somewhere and then not even remembering the drive there, for instance) where we're really not aware of what's going on in our lives, because the mundane things are so habitual that we don't even need to be fully aware of what we're doing to do it - but that alternatively, choosing and teaching ourselves to be aware at all times, even during our mundane, habitual routines, is potentially a better way to exist
I interpret the author’s difficulties and frustration as a byproduct of a particular misapprehension of Buddhist teachings in modern society. Many modern-day practitioners, both in the east and the west, are under the impression that simply by mechanically practicing mindfulness meditation they will eventually reach a state of enlightenment. Unfortunately, this is a misunderstanding that the Buddha himself addressed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've frequently seen "Buddhism" adopted by westerners from a secular or Judeo/Christian background and treated as though it's some sort of feel-good practice which lets them feel vaguely superior to other religions without any serious changes in beliefs or practices. I saw a well regarded movie recently where the main characterized Buddhism as "a philosophy rather than a religion" which made it clear that no Asians h…
"I saw a well regarded movie recently where the main characterized Buddhism as "a philosophy rather than a religion" which made it clear that no Asians had been involved in the making of that film." Asians are as capable as anyone else at secularizing Buddhism (or of doing anything else, really). Take the example of D T Suzuki[1] himself -- the man who is arguably more responsible than anyone else for bringing Buddhi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it can be summarized as "recklessness" (i.e. jumping the gun without proper understanding of/regard to foundational concepts)
> I think it can be summarized as "recklessness" (i.e. jumping the gun without proper understanding of/regard to foundational concepts) Well… I tried to approach it properly. You google or look up in wikipedia a bunch of info on Buddhism, then you find most popular authors writing on the topic. You end up with “Zen mind, beginner’s mind” and a few others. None of them tell you it may hurt you, none of them mention do…
It isn't supposed to be dangerous, but if you dive head first into hardcore "retreats" with unrealistic expectations, that might end up badly, yes.
For starters, if you have to seek recommendations on the Internet, you're probably already several steps detached from the original tradition. Buddhism has an insane amount of breadth: there are west asian flavors and east asian flavors, and there's literally thousands of years of history to go with them. Some forms of practice don't even focus on meditation (for example, as a child, I was largely exposed to ritualistic aspects of the japanese flavor). If you're interested in it as a westerner, it's likely because you've heard of mindfulness in the context of mental health benefits, but that's in large part a western concept bolted on top of the original tradition.
It would be helpful to try to understand where stuff is getting lost in translation. Learning more about the original Buddhist philosophy and its roots can help give more context on things like what enlightenment is supposed to be about (coming to understand what it is is actually kind of the point) and how meditation and mindfulness are supposed to fit in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author wasn't ignorant: "I’m extremely knowledgeable of both Buddhist and secular frameworks of meditation, have read countless books on the subject."
The author obviously isn't ignorant. The comment you failed to respond to directly is talking about "a particular misapprehension of Buddhist teachings in modern society." This is not about ignorance, and framing it as such is directly supporting the thesis of the original article.
Regarding this particular slice of turkey on the table, since you insist: "[T]his is a misunderstanding that the Buddha himself addressed in the teachings."
The teachings? The teachings a person would likely be exposed to and eventually come up understand, if they've read countless books on the non-secular/Buddhist practice of meditation?
Regardless, if failing to "correctly" understand a bit of squishy woo-woo in Buddhist religion is the difference between safe meditation practice and psychosis/nervous breakdown, then that's all the more alarming.
I interpret the author’s difficulties and frustration as a byproduct of a particular misapprehension of Buddhist teachings in modern society. Many modern-day practitioners, both in the east and the west, are under the impression that simply by mechanically practicing mindfulness meditation they will eventually reach a state of enlightenment. Unfortunately, this is a misunderstanding that the Buddha himself addressed…
I've frequently seen "Buddhism" adopted by westerners from a secular or Judeo/Christian background and treated as though it's some sort of feel-good practice which lets them feel vaguely superior to other religions without any serious changes in beliefs or practices. I saw a well regarded movie recently where the main characterized Buddhism as "a philosophy rather than a religion" which made it clear that no Asians h…
Most Buddhists have been lay followers content to pray at temples to ease their worries and bring good luck, seek the monastics for ceremonies like weddings and funerals, and donate to monasteries to keep their spiritual practices going. The whole of Mahayana Buddhism is far more concerned with the worship of spiritual intercessors called Bodhisattva's, those who have achieved enlightenment but have chosen to stay behind to help devotees. This form of Buddhism constitutes the bulk of religious practice in East and South East Asia. To ignore it in favor of only one strand of Buddhism is like seeing Christianity only through the eyes of Flagellants or Dominican monks or anchorites.