More Religious Nutters

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


Methodologically distracting yourself with music, certainly yes!
Just listening to music because it happens to be? Not really a problem.

So there's no problem with enjoying music, but quite the problem with needing to listen to music in order to find enjoyment.

So could a musician strive for nibbana without giving up composing and performing music? In general what kind of desires can retained apart from the desire to achieve and spread enlightenment? there must be other acceptable desires.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So could a musician strive for nibbana without giving up composing and performing music? In general what kind of desires can retained apart from the desire to achieve and spread enlightenment? there must be other acceptable desires.

I wouldn't say strive for nibbana, no.

Which is not the same as saying that he couldn't gain many benefits from buddhist practise.

He just isn't going to become a fully enlightened one without renouncing all fame and stuff (whatever reason he composes music).


The Buddhist attitude to this kind of thing is quite simple.

A mother delights in her children, she worries for her children.

As long as she delights in her children, worries for her children, she will not attain enlightenment.

Buddha would not ask, would not expect, a mother to renounce her children, to stop delighting in her children, worrying for her children. To abandon her children, would cause that mother so much guilt, so much regret, that she would never attain enlightenment (in this lifetime). In any case, she would not hear the truth in the buddha's words. Buddha forbade men and woman from abandoning family responsibility and ordaining, that made it simple, hahah.

However if that mother, were to tragically lose her children in an accident, then she would be quite capable of hearing the truth in the buddha's words - what he says about the nature of delight and such, in fact it would have become painfully apparent to her. She would then be entirely capable of attaining enlightenment. But those kinds of lessons, are up to the world to teach.


If you would deeply regret not doing something, you must do it. If you would deeply regret doing something, you must not do it. This attitude will bring you to enlightenment faster than any attempt to overcome such regrets.

If you love something too much to give it up, you love it too much to give it up. That's not to say that Buddhist practise wont eventually lead to the attachment naturally subsiding, but it's how it's done - let go of the things you are ready to let go of, only when you are ready to let go of them, not before. If something would be too painful to let go of, don't try, you wont succeed anyway.

If you want you can call it "Picking and choosing". If some of buddhism makes sense to you - "Yes, it does make sense to not get angry over that...", then pick that, take it to heart. If some of it doesn't make sense to you "Renounce all worldly things and join a monastery", then don't pick that part. Maybe one day, it will make sense to you, but you can't will yourself to accept it.

Buddha even warned against blind belief/acceptance. I like the discordian spoof of "A Discordian is forbidden from believing what he reads!" I think that comes from Buddhism, because the Buddha told his disciples to only believe what they have experienced, that even if Buddha himself says it - the disciple need not agree, indeed must not, until it has been experienced for himself.

That's not saying that Buddha thinks he is wrong - it means that, what Buddha is saying, may not be being heard accurately, may not be being understood, not comprehended. It is a very dangerous thing to believe what you hear because you might not be hearing it right, you might be believing something other than what was said. So that is why Buddha told his monks that it was vitally important that they only believe what they experience, know to be true for themselves.

All Buddhist teaching is guidance - nothing more. Truth is not found in the words.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
What is the religious aspect?

For one I believe that you used the word "responsibility." So you must have rules. Correct? Let's just go with that for now. I have some other reasons why I see it as resembling a religion.

What is the part which you just have to take on faith and can never experience as being true?

Human experience doesn't mean that much to me in regards to religion. Humans have very wierd experiences.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kidicious

For one I believe that you used the word "responsibility." So you must have rules. Correct? Let's just go with that for now. I have some other reasons why I see it as resembling a religion.

I just explained that in the post above.

A responsibility, is something you'd deeply regret not doing.

It's that simple .

Buddha did provide a lot of guidance, but even that wasn't meant to be hard and fast rules.

The main hard and fast bit, was Monastery rules.

For example, someone who has murdered their parents, or raped a Buddhist Nun, may not become a Buddhist Monk. This is mainly because it would damage the integrity of the monastic order... or in the parents case, because someone requires the permission of their parents to Ordain. Buddha liked closing loopholes .

That's not to say that people in general have a responsibility not to murder their parents, it just means that allowing such people into a Monastic order, could easily destroy that order - the monastic orders only survive due to support from the community, so they must obey the laws of the land, they must be respectable.

If a monastic order is viewed as corrupt and unprincipled then it wont have much support, and thus the environment suitable for cultivating the buddhist attitudes wont endure. But those are only rules for Buddhist Monastics, to ensure the integrity of the monastic order and maintain a positive environment - that is the purpose of the rules, they aren't used to judge people in general.

The Buddhist precepts are deliberatly vague.

For example, the 3rd precept for lay Buddhists (not monks):

Refrain from sexual misconduct.

What is sexual misconduct? It depends on the community. If masturbation is shunned, then masturbation is sexual misconduct, otherwise it is not. If orgies are perfectly normal, then orgies are not sexual misconduct. Generally, sexual misconduct means, when action motivated by lust leads to someone getting hurt. So cheating is classic sexual misconduct. But if polygamy is completely normal and accepted (in the relationship), it's not sexual misconduct for a man to have two wives.

The precepts (for lay buddhists) are really about getting along with others, that is the purpose, not to precisely define how people should act.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
The precepts are really about getting along with others, that is the purpose, not to precisely define how people should act.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

[Blake]

Generally Buddha was very careful to explain why he created rules.

In Buddhism you don't get some magical 10 commandments falling from God's ass.

When there is a rule in Buddhism (like for how Monks should act), the circumstances under which the rule was created will be included in the Sutra's - explaining why the rule was needed, the behaviors it was intended to remedy. In this way, it's easy to understand the purpose of the rule - it's easy to understand when it's okay to bend the rule, it's easy to expand the rule to accommodate similar but not identical circumstances.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
Generally Buddha was very careful to explain why he created rules.

In Buddhism you don't get some magical 10 commandments falling from God's ass.

When there is a rule in Buddhism (like for how Monks should act), the circumstances under which the rule was created will be included in the Sutra's - explaining why the rule was needed, the behaviors it was intended to remedy. In this way, it's easy to understand the purpose of the rule - it's easy to understand when it's okay to bend the rule, it's easy to expand the rule to accommodate similar but not identical circumstances.

But I'm sure that the justification for the rules is just as bogus as in Christianity. Why is it important to have reasons for rules within a religion? Reasons without justifications mean nothing.

[Blake]

What is a reason? I understand causes and conditions.

A plant grows because the seed was planted in soil (cause), and the conditions (water and temperature), were right for the seed to sprout.

What is the reason the plant grew? Don't ask me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
What is a reason? I understand causes and conditions.

A plant grows because the seed was planted in soil (cause), and the conditions (water and temperature), were right for the seed to sprout.

What is the reason the plant grew? Don't ask me.

You just said that Buddha gave reasons for the rules. I'm just asking what the justification for the rules are. Without giving me the reasons for the rules can you tell me how they are justified? If I join your organization why should I be responsible for following the rules?

[Blake]

Buddha explained the purposes of the rules.
Universally, the rule is designed to prevent causes and/or conditions.

For example, if you lie then you will be discovered to be untrustworthy, you will be viewed as such, judged as such, you yourself will become paranoid and resentful. This is not conductive to an enjoyable life. Hence the precept against false speech.

If I join your organization why should I be responsible for following the rules?

Your responsibility is to yourself. If you wish to visit a Buddhist Monastery, you have a responsibility to follow the code of conduct within a monastery, if you do not, it is the responsibility of other Buddhists to first try and educate you in the code, and then kick you out (this may also be the responsibility of the police). Why is it the responsibility of others to do this? They feel it is their responsibility to maintain an environment conductive to teaching and learning dhamma, if they let the monastic order be damaged due to people not following the rules, they will lose something of immense value to them. They would regret letting you run amok.

Responsibility is a very relative thing you see... You don't "have" to do anything, but you do have to deal with the sense of responsibility other people have.

All of the Buddhists rules are designed for personal benefit and the benefit of others (win-win), that is why you should follow them if you are able. Not because you are held responsible to do so...