May 6, 2010
- Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Samsara -
“Samsara literally means “wandering-on.” Many people think of it as the Buddhist name for the place where we currently live. But in the early Buddhist texts, it’s the answer, not to the question, “Where are we?” but to the question, “What are we doing?” Instead of a place, it’s a process: the tendency to keep creating worlds and then moving into them. As one world falls apart, you create another one and go there. At the same time, you bump into other people who are creating their own worlds, too.
The process can sometimes be enjoyable. In fact, it would be perfectly innocuous if it didn’t entail so much suffering. The worlds we create keep caving in and killing us. Moving into a new world requires effort: not only the pains and risks of taking birth, but also the hard knocks – mental and physical – that come from going through childhood into adulthood, over and over again.”
(found via Crashingly Beautiful)
Very interesting…
Comment by speedbird — May 6, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
The circle of death and re-birth, indeed, eh?
Moment to moment, “I” am killed and reborn… When does it end?
Comment by Ian — May 6, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
A while back you wrote that you could remember when 1990 was the future, and I commented back that ‘sometimes it still is’.
This here is sort of what I was trying to say…
Comment by speedbird — May 6, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
So kind of like, what the 90′s represented to some people is something they’re still chasing?
Comment by Ian — May 6, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Sort of…
Like, there’s a difference between ‘clinging to the past’ and ‘still living the dream’. Though the actual time passes the zeitgeist can remain. Man, I’m not explaining this very well…
Comment by speedbird — May 6, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
I guess i don’t really understand what you are talking about much anymore, Ian. You seem kind of like you went from being a seeker, curious about lots of the same things I’m curious about, to seeming to be pretty sure that old dudes in saffron robes know the score about everything.
So now its just a matter of following their instructions correctly.
I’m skeptical of this stuff, and I don’t thinkthe world is principally about suffering and ignorance. But no sense in continually arguing about it, I guess. But just seems like saying “no” to the wold and withdrawing so as not to suffer anymore, meanwhile the world keeps moving on.
I don’t feel like I am suffering that much and I am very curious about the World and learning everyday.
Comment by Ted — May 6, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
I think what I mean is what Adam Ant meant when he sang of ‘an eighteenth century brain in a twenty-first century head’. (Mind you, he’s been in and out of institutions all his life, poor fellow – talk about suffering for one’s art.)
“Once is never enough, never is and never was, aha.
Here and now is all that counts, here and now in large amounts, aha
‘Be beautiful but shut up’; the going can be real tough, aha.
You can keep your fancy bars, clubby friends and fast cars, aha
And when the going gets hard, you can eat your credit cards, aha
I really tried to fight it, but what the hell I like it, aha.
There is always room at the top
Don’t let them tell you that there is not!
Made in Eng-er-land, born and bred
An eighteenth century brain
In a twenty-first century head.
If some of this fits some of you, or like the things that you might do, aha
It’s the pleasure and the pain that make us do it all again, aha. They say,
‘Be beautiful but shut up’ – The going can be real tough, aha.”
Ted, re. Old Dudes: this touches on something I’m interested in right now: what it means to ‘know’ something… I reckon that you only ever ‘know’ something if you’re continually rediscovering it. So in that sense there’s nothing wrong with suddenly rediscovering an Old Dude, in the light of the present ‘world’.
Comment by speedbird — May 7, 2010 @ 6:35 am
Yeah, but I don’t like dogma and I don’t think anybody knows the whole truth. I would rather be an explorer than a follower. To be a follower is to say “These guys know. The search is over, I will just do what they instruct, then I will know too.” I can’t accept that. I mean, I don’t know if its just my personality not to accept that, or if its that the signs are not there. It really appears that nobody has the market cornered on truth. Everyone comes waaaay short of seeming like they know.
I think that poem was cool. I think Artists and Mystics get the closest very often, at the expense of “sanity” which is worth it, I think.
Comment by Ted — May 7, 2010 @ 7:25 am
@speedbird:
I understand what you mean, but the difference between living in the past and embodying the zeitgeist escapes me. What makes the difference between this being a failure (ie: living in a fantasy world of the past, unable to let it go and see the present) and being a success (ie: keeping your values while admitting that “Here and now is all that counts”)….
I wish I knew what it was.
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 10:35 am
@ Ted:
Though I appreciate your presence here, I am getting pretty tired of you projecting your authority issues on to me.
No one “corners the market” on truth, it can’t be cornered. But people can seek it and find it. Don’t follow their footsteps, seek what they sought. There’s a few people throughout history who definitely found truth. Buddha and Jesus are the obvious examples. But Jesus died after teaching only a few years. He had a powerful message and a great effect on humanity. But Buddha taught for decades. In my mind, that makes Buddha’s teaching the one to test out, to experiment with, to try and understand for myself.
The big problem I have with Buddha (though this applies to all “teachers”) is that the terms he used are very often misunderstood, and then that misunderstanding is taught as truth. Such as “samsara”. Until I read this quote, I thought of Samsara as “all the worlds an illusion to be conquered” and that didn’t sit well with me. Seeing how this person (who happens to be a monk but that is only important because that means he has more time than I do to look into the meaning behind these things) translates it shines a new light on what Buddha tried to point to. And this new definition sits with me much better than the previous one. Hence my desire to share it here.
I want to know truth, I want to know it for myself, now, here, just like you do. But what’s the better data set to pull from, to eat and digest? My own mystic, crazy, anarchic, artistic experience? Or my own mystic, crazy, anarchic, artistic experience plus the experiences of those who have done this ahead of me? I’ll take infinity times two, thank you very much. I don’t understand why you choose to close that door and settle for just yourself.
Then how can you ever hope to know it? If no one can know the whole truth, than neither can you (unless you alone are some sort of Nietzchian superman). If its possible for anyone to know the truth, or a little bit of the truth, or whatever you want to call it, then it behooves you, as a seeker, to pay attention to what others have done and where they have gone.
At the same time, everyone in the world could know the truth, but if you didn’t, it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference what they told you. Someone else’s truth can NEVER be your truth. But that doesn’t mean that someone else’s truth can’t help point out or clarify our own truth.
I’m not saying follow anyone blindly (again, this seems to be something you are bringing to the table). But don’t follow yourself blindly either. That gets you nowhere just as quickly. Besides, there is nothing that says these are necessarily mutually exclusive. And there is plenty that says they exist side-by-side just fine.
No one says that, its just in your head, something you personally are scared of and have to deal with! The search is never over, teachers can NEVER do the work for you. There is a difference between asking for advice and appreciating their guidance and asking for advice and following it blindly. FIND RELIABLE SOURCES FOR ADVICE, PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS LONGER THEN YOU HAVE.
But they can NEVER do it for you. You still get to do all the work and exploring and discovering yourself.
Truth without “sanity” has no way of knowing that its true. You can’t find truth apart from the world. That’s what insanity is, you living in your own little world. If you can’t open your heart to the rest of the world, you can’t open it to God either. What’s the point of finding truth if you can’t share it with others?
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 11:03 am
That’s great Ted, I’m glad for you. Maybe one day I’ll find that too. But right now, even though everything in my life is pretty great (jobwise, relationshipwise, etc etc), I’m still pretty damn unhappy. Maybe that’s why I look to Buddha’s teaching, maybe that’s why it makes sense to me.
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Also, see this:
http://stumblinghorse.tumblr.com/post/578006275/this-man-was-reviewing-his-behavior-one-day-when
click through and read the whole article.
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
>> What makes the difference between this being a failure (ie: living in a fantasy world of the past, unable to let it go and see the present) and being a success (ie: keeping your values while admitting that “Here and now is all that counts”)…?
I don’t quite know, but I’ve come to a place where it seems really important.
When I’m in a really good place mentally I find myself strangely aware of how the past is still present, of how it’s all just one. I find this state of mind blissfully peaceful but hard to maintain. Something in my daily mass-produced life seeks to obfuscate it.
Hence this post really resonates with me right now…
Comment by speedbird — May 7, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
>> But [teachers] can NEVER do it for you. You still get to do all the work and exploring and discovering yourself.
Well said. The belief that teachers (or machines) can learn it for you has become a global pandemic delusion.
Comment by speedbird — May 7, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
I really like that. I’d always thought of it as something to get rid of, but that’s not really the point, is it? Better maybe to just see it, and stop trying to escape it… Seeing it for what it is, we can then decide for ourselves what’s “living in the past” and what’s “keeping the dream alive”. Its only a problem when they contradict themselves, I guess…
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
The weight is always on you, always. It can never be taken away, but you can ignore it (thinking its been taken care of for you). Often, this makes it heavier, because it needs your attention.
Comment by Ian — May 7, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
I am not afraid of these guys, its just that I don’t think they know anything I don’t. It sounds arrogant, but really its not. I don’t presume to say that microbiologists, Neurosurgeons, fighter pilots etc. don’t know anything I don’t, becsause they do. The proof is in the fact that they can be observed, expirimenting with organic compounds, skillfully operating on peoples brains and flying jets.
What do these bald headed dudes in robes supposedly know and or have? Supposedly they know the meaning of life and they have inner peace because they look at reality supposedly in the “true” way.
What can we observe them doing? Robe wearing, talking, sitting, smiling, balding.
?
In Chogyam’s case, drinking himself to death. Is that wise?
You are blindly down a path weather you admit it or not, because its set up so that you aren’t supposed to understand where it leads until you get there.
Seems like you used to be more original. I really liked you speculating about the relationship between physics and spirituality, with the flame. That kind of stuff.
Comment by Ted — May 7, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
>> you aren’t supposed to understand where it leads until you get there
That’s sort of the problem I have with Freemasonry. Every so often I think of joining to find out (I know people I could ask) but then I get this really BAD feeling inside about the whole thing and think better of it.
Actually this is where my upbringing as Church of England comes into play. There’s this (sorta unspoken) rule that EVERYONE is automatically ‘in’, though we can always choose to refuse. That seems very ‘right’ to me.
>> The weight is always on you, always. It can never be taken away, but you can ignore it (thinking its been taken care of for you). Often, this makes it heavier, because it needs your attention.
Very well put. I think this is a HUGE issue. Possibly THE issue. And although no-one (or nothing) can do it for you, there IS help to be found. I guess that’s where trust comes in.
Comment by speedbird — May 8, 2010 @ 8:53 am
@ Ted:
I never said that you were. Where did the idea that you are afraid of them come from? I said you have authority issues, which you’ve admitted to frequently in the past (and which, just for the record, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just don’t push them off on me).
They have spent a very long time studying their experience. They would be the first to tell you that you could do the same thing, if you studied your experience for a long time. They devote themselves to this just like a scientist or a surgeon, and they gain insight from this. They use that to try and help others. I cannot understand why you have a problem with that, or why you assume that, because I am investigating buddhism, I am swallowing it whole and blindly. There seems to be no grey area with you Ted. Its my blog, on which I share my interests, and you come and insult me for doing something that I’m not even doing. That’s what I find so frustrating about this.
No, its human. He’s human. Did you expect him to be otherwise?
Well, you’re right on this one. All paths are blind paths. If you know where you’re going, you’ll never get there, because, hey, if you already know, why bother? My eyes are wide open, and they see nothing. :)
But I don’t expect you to understand this, Ted, because you don’t understand surrender. Not to a person, but to God. We are very different in that regard.
You know, I liked that too. I wish I could do more posts like that. But I can’t. I simply don’t have the time, those posts take way too much concentration and too much time in front of the computer. I loved writing them but they were slowly strangling the rest of my life and my physical health. I grew tired of it.
Plus, I feel that they came from a mix of wisdom and ignorance. Gurdjieff called it wiseacering. I don’t want to just put pretty words together, I want to actually know for sure, in my bones, what I’m talking about.
And as much as I liked those posts, they came from a dark and closed off place for me. If I kept writing them, I’d have stayed in that place, so I’ve decided to focus on my life as-it-is, and stop worrying so much about saying pretty words until I have a nicer place to say them from.
So, if you don’t like the buddhist stuff fine, don’t read it. But please stop telling me I’m mindlessly bowing to “bald dudes in robes”. You insult my intelligence when you say that, mostly because you are presuming to pass judgment on me and my whole life based on what I’ve chosen to share here from my reading habits.
This blog is a place where I put together puzzle pieces. And if it turns out that my puzzle, or at least the part I’m working on right now, has a lot of “saffron yellow” in it, please don’t start asking me to go back to the blue pieces I put together before. That’s not how a puzzle works.
I hope this answers some of your questions and concerns. I appreciate it, I can see its coming from a good place, which I why I take the time to respond as I have.
Comment by Ian — May 10, 2010 @ 11:46 am
@speedbird
Yeah, I recognize that. I’ve walked away from several groups due to that kind of feeling (and Ted, a few of them were even Buddhist!). But I’ve been lucky enough to find things that feel good too. And I think that good or bad feeling is pretty much all we can expect when it comes to understanding where things lead. When do we ever, in life, truly understand where things lead?
And yes, there is help, there has to be. Otherwise, its a very sad, dark world we live in. I think Gurdjieff said it best, and I’ve (conveniently) already posted that previously here.
Comment by Ian — May 10, 2010 @ 11:51 am
I don’t mean to insult your intelligence. Peoples intelligence isn’t usually what feels insulted. Its their pride. But I am not trying to insult you at all. Just trying to make you consider something.
So here it is:
If Chogyam Trungpa were a musician, and I were to say I can’t appreciate his music merely because of his moral failings, I would be a Puritan. “holier than thou” etc. But his forte is supposed to be morality, wisdom, enlightenment, inner peace.
Becoming a severe alcaholic and womanizer to the point of developing cirrosis and alcaholic dementia and dieing at 48 are not the fruits of those qualities. So its safe to say he never posessed those qualities you seek. He was less wise and moral at the end of his life than you are now.
It just seems to be wishful thinking on your part, that people like him have the answers you seek. You would like to believe they do, and y
Comment by Ted — May 11, 2010 @ 6:41 am
…You would like to believe they do and so you do.
I mean maybe you like being a follower better than being an explorer. It is easier. Its just that there is no guarantee you will be led the right way. actually the reverse is more likely.
I actually do know what its like to “surrender to God” religious people never can get their head around that. Cognitive dissonance. I know exactly what its like. Possibly bet
Comment by Ted — May 11, 2010 @ 6:45 am
…possibly better than you. I was surrendered to God for over 10 years. It ain’t all its cracked up to be.
Comment by Ted — May 11, 2010 @ 6:47 am
Again and again, I tell you, I have never said that they “have the answers”. I have not, nor ever will, claim that anyone “has the answer”. Stop putting words in my mouth. Its always they same words and I am bored with the taste.
A false dichotomy, brought about by the issues you have with authority.
Then we’re not talking about the same thing.
Comment by Ian — May 11, 2010 @ 9:58 am
How do you know that?
Comment by Ted — May 11, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
Because for me, its not something you can try out and not like (which is what “its not all its cracked up to be” implies to me). But then again, I don’t really know what you’re talking about.
That doesn’t offer much explanation on the specifics of what you mean.
But what I mean is that God is what is, and surrendering to what is. Letting the mind open and work as an integrated part of the world that its already a part of, rather than keeping the mind as a closed system, only accepting the limited input of consciousness (which we do because that’s the only input we can control).
That’s the guiding ideal, in any case.
Comment by Ian — May 12, 2010 @ 10:38 am
God is what is and what is, is a mystery. How do you surrender to a mystery? You can’t. You just keep searching. Whenever people say they are “surrendering to God” and following a mainsteam path, it seems to me that they are giving up the search and resigning themselves to answers people in the past were satisfied with. They start following dogma and Kow towing to Clergy.
Its blatantly obvious to us when Western Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics do that. But Eastern religion is newer and more novel to us.
But you just quote the Buddha every bit as uncritically as any Bible Thumper. You are assuming his words are true and beyond reproach. Any objection is written off as problems of interpretIts an epistemology of “from authority”
Comment by Ted — May 12, 2010 @ 11:32 am
edit:
“But you just quote the Buddha every bit as uncritically as any Bible Thumper. You are assuming his words are true and beyond reproach. Any objection is written off as problems of interpretation. Its an epistemology of “from authority”
Comment by Ted — May 12, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Geez Ted, again putting words in my mouth. Just because I quote the Buddha (as well as a bunch of other people) doesn’t mean I’m assuming his words are true and beyond reproach.
Then again, hows this for a quote from the Buddha:
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.” Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
I find I’m repeating myself here, so I won’t engage in this argument any more. You keep accusing me of something that I claim is a misrepresentation of what I’m doing. This is not going to get us anywhere.
Comment by Ian — May 12, 2010 @ 12:09 pm