If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
As I sit here,
I feel the ache of sadness
In my belly,
And I know
There is no escape;
No blissful land
Or happy paradise
Anywhere else.
If this sad world
Is not also heaven,
Then heaven cannot exist
Anywhere else.
I am not sure
That this is heaven,
But I know
I have no choice,
Nowhere else to be
But here.
If reality is only a construction of the mind, is the difference between saying that things are fundamentally sad or fundamentally joyful merely an aesthetic, rather than an ontological, matter?
Outside of my own temperamental factors, I personally have gotten tired of the candy-sweet Buddhism that dominates popular American Buddhist discourse, as it strikes me as false and merely representative of the subjective reality of the upper middle class milieu it largely represents. It's easy to say that "hell is just a creation of the mind" when one has a relatively stable situation socially and financially. But becoming a social worker and working with people whose lives are much more precarious and traumatized on a regular basis, that sort of thinking becomes almost insulting.
It's not that I haven't seen the extent to which the mind creates hells and heavens, but to try to make a heaven out of a painfully deprived, oppressed existence is not only so demanding it almost requires sainthood, it also seems to me like submitting to social injustice. I've got one client who insists that he's happy and content even though he is obviously not and will sometimes even admit it and this strikes me to be true of many, if not most, people, including most people I encounter on Buddhist forums. It always strikes me that recognizing the true nature of human existence involves a recognition of the sadness of it on some level. Again, maybe that's my own temperament and experiences coming in, but it's how it seems to me nonetheless.
I guess the question is, when you finally grow up and see what this world is really like, can you say it's so wonderful if you're an honest person and aren't sheltered? I do believe that people are fundamentally more compassionate than cruel, because that's what I see in day-to-day experience. But I also believe that so many people in this world suffer so terribly, and become so damaged by what they go through, and often cannot get out of the painful circumstances of their lives, not because of personal moral failure, but because of various contingencies that are out of their control, that whatever peace is possible for them becomes a peace of resignation, not one of joy. And I think the bodhisattva who identifies with the suffering of the world must of necessity feel this too so there will always be that broken-hearted quality for them. That one must resign oneself to the world's sadness even as one struggles to alleviate the burdens of those who suffer. At least that's how it feels to me.
If reality is only a construction of the mind, is the difference between saying that things are fundamentally sad or fundamentally joyful merely an aesthetic, rather than an ontological, matter?
That's assuming that reality is only a construction of the mind. It is and it isn't. The world is actually, really there (I don't believe I'm a brain in a jar in a virtual reality simulation..) but yes I believe differentiation and assigning meaning is a human construction. But, one view is not superior to the other. There is wonder and joy in the emptiness of no-meaning, and I don't see a contradiction in that.
If you take a functional view of consciousness you could say that all that meaning and emotion is just as real as everything else, in a pattern of neurons and electrical signals. Who can deny its reality?
Originally posted by Stephanie
Outside of my own temperamental factors, I personally have gotten tired of the candy-sweet Buddhism that dominates popular American Buddhist discourse, as it strikes me as false and merely representative of the subjective reality of the upper middle class milieu it largely represents. It's easy to say that "hell is just a creation of the mind" when one has a relatively stable situation socially and financially. But becoming a social worker and working with people whose lives are much more precarious and traumatized on a regular basis, that sort of thinking becomes almost insulting.
There are many ways to truth, and while I agree the sort of practice you describe doesn't do much for me, I would be careful of disparaging the way that works for others. If it doesn't work for anyone and leads people down a dead-end, as I fear many of the current buffet-style New Age stuff is doing, then by all means call it on its bullshit. But if you read some of the text of the founders of Pure Land, for example, you realize that while devotional Buddhism is not my cup of sencha it is a direct, simple way of loosening the grip of ego on oneself, or giving people something to reach up for when they're hit rock bottom.
Hell is here on earth, heaven is here on earth. Is one of these false? Is one true?
If everyone realized this, would there be more of one or the other?
It's not that I haven't seen the extent to which the mind creates hells and heavens, but to try to make a heaven out of a painfully deprived, oppressed existence is not only so demanding it almost requires sainthood, it also seems to me like submitting to social injustice. I've got one client who insists that he's happy and content even though he is obviously not and will sometimes even admit it and this strikes me to be true of many, if not most, people, including most people I encounter on Buddhist forums. It always strikes me that recognizing the true nature of human existence involves a recognition of the sadness of it on some level. Again, maybe that's my own temperament and experiences coming in, but it's how it seems to me nonetheless.
Who is asking anyone to make a turd bouquet? Who is asking anyone to ignore the negative? Not here, anyway. I'm not sure who you're railing against.
Holding all things in equanimity, good and bad, is a liberating experience. Have you not felt it??
Sure, there are lots of poseurs, but who are you to say they haven't had a taste? A big reflection or a small reflection of the moon still contains the whole moon. You consistently skewer those that cling to happiness but don't you cling to sadness just as much?
Skye
Even on one blade of grass / the cool breeze / lingers - Issa
That's assuming that reality is only a construction of the mind. It is and it isn't. The world is actually, really there (I don't believe I'm a brain in a jar in a virtual reality simulation..) but yes I believe differentiation and assigning meaning is a human construction.
Yeah, that's what I meant. What I find difficult is the burden of having to create my own meaning, without recourse to some fundamental meaning or essence of the way things are. I want so much for there to be something or someone else to lean on, and yet I cannot believe that there is.
Originally posted by Skye
But if you read some of the text of the founders of Pure Land, for example, you realize that while devotional Buddhism is not my cup of sencha it is a direct, simple way of loosening the grip of ego on oneself, or giving people something to reach up for when they're hit rock bottom.
But see, Pure Land doesn't even have this problem because it very much makes the assertion that heaven is not right here, or at least that if it is, one needs Amitabha's grace to enter it. I can groove on that much more easily than this notion that gets passed around in America that the only reason one isn't perfectly rich and happy is just that one doesn't think positively enough.
Originally posted by Skye
Hell is here on earth, heaven is here on earth. Is one of these false? Is one true?
If everyone realized this, would there be more of one or the other?
I'd like to believe that if everyone realized the true nature of reality, we could live in a more peaceful world, but I'm not sure sometimes that it's possible. Every time I've looked hard enough, it seems that even the most enlightened people out there now and in the past couldn't help but cause suffering.
Originally posted by Skye
Holding all things in equanimity, good and bad, is a liberating experience. Have you not felt it??
Yes, but it doesn't last. And even in that equanimity, when it is there, there is also sadness. At least also in my case. Last semester, when I was feeling very joyful and inspired in my life and work, I also found that a key aspect of the compassion that drove me was a feeling of sadness when encountering the world. I wasn't depressed like I am now, and I felt so much joy, but at the heart of it there was still a sadness.
Originally posted by Skye
You consistently skewer those that cling to happiness but don't you cling to sadness just as much?
Perhaps, but the difference is that if I do cling to sadness, it's not because I desperately want to be sad, it's because I'm dedicated to honesty, truth, and reality, and I just cannot help but see that this world is a sad one. And I refuse to get into the mindset that some Buddhists do--whether modern or traditional--that these people's lives wouldn't be that way if only they'd do this or have done that at some point in the past. Yes, a lot of the suffering people endure is self-created, but much is not. And the fact that people can suffer unjustly, and do on a massive scale, makes this world a sad one in my book.
I just cannot help but see that this world is a sad one
Do you really feel so bad about this life? I'm sorry Steph but I really do think these issues are about you, not Buddhism, even candy coated Buddhism or new age things. Heaven, hell or just mundane everyday life is here on this earth and you may get the chance to experience all of them in one day, one morning or one hour :lol:
Even if we don't create the circumstances we're in, we all have choices as to how we react to them. We may not realise the choices we have, and they may be extremely dificult choices but they can be made and people in and from extemely dire situations do make them.
Practising is a way to come to that realisation, among others.
the fact that people can suffer unjustly, and do on a massive scale, makes this world a sad one in my book.
Doesn't the opposite hold true too, people also live in happines, love and health, on a massive scale. And not just people you see as middle class and sheltered.
Doesn't matter if you're on streets living hand to mouth or a millionaire in a mansion you can experience 'heaven', 'hell' or the range in between.
You can also benefit the world by ceasing to do evil an doing good and be happy that you are doing just what you can just now and feel you are doing your bit.
Choosing melacholoy is a state that seems to be self perpetuating and unhelpful to you or others, choose living instead, it's no easier but the rewards are better.
To be clear, my personal quest is not for happiness. If it was, as someone who holds the suspicion that the emotional tone of the world we live in may be entirely self-created, I'd be pretty stupid, right?
My personal quest is for truth and for meaning. I don't mind sadness; what I mind is the absence of meaning. What I hunger for, and seek, is to know the way that things really are. My hope is that there is some ultimate meaning to it all, though increasingly lately I suspect there is not. But even if there is not, I just need to know what this world is that we live in. That is my hunger. My one faith is that this is a question worth asking, a path of inquiry worth taking. Even if it crushes you.
I'm not much for light-hearted coffee talk, am I? :lol:
Get comfortable being a weirdo; assuming your motivation in being a weirdo is conducive to comfort.
Of course, you could be comfortable with being an uncomfortable weirdo, but that really is an advanced Buddhist practice which involves us just sitting down with a straight-ish posture.
Regards,
Harry.
Harry... :!:
There's a line in the movie Dolores Claiborne:
"Sometimes being a bitch is all a woman has to hold onto."
I think I could change that line for my purposes:
"Sometimes being a weirdo is all a woman has to hold onto."
And yes, I know I don't talk about it enough on here, but sitting helps immensely.
Comment