Buddha & The West

Published on February 23, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

There is a fascinating lure about Buddha. A man gifted with health and material splendor from noble birth, nevertheless, grasped the essential tragedy of existence, becoming sensitized to the millions of his countrymen suffering under the power structure of caste. Buddha walked among them, loving them, instructing them, giving them hope and courage—most important, courage. Here he promised them literally nothing but the strength of themselves within:

One man on the battlefield conquers an army of a thousand men. Another conquers himself—and he is greater.

(The Dhammapada, translated from The Pali by P. Lal)

Notwithstanding his spiritual heroics, the popular belief — in the western matrix anyway — seems to be that he, together with Nirvana, is an embodiment of spiritual pessimism if not nihilism. Is it Buddha's hang-up with Nirvana or ours that gets in the way of his positive accomplishments? A more accurate western view on Nirvana would be transcendence. That is, though Karma itself by natural causes of disease and catastrophe inflicts sorrow, the humanistic trend of Buddha is missed if there is no acknowledgment that desires invoked from self-importance are self-willed, together with a deliberately conscious effort through which sorrow is self-inflicted or inflicted upon others.

Transcendence might be better defined by Wordsworth through the inverse: “The world is too much...getting and spending we lay waste our powers.”

Buddha requires Four Noble Truths to explain the path to Nirvana:

1) Accepting the life as pain and suffering.

2) Suffering is conditioned by the matrices of nature, culture, society and ancestry.

3) Therefore obliterate pain and suffering by suppressing lust for happiness.

4) The mind concludes that the entire province of pedestrian existence is unworthy.

Obviously Western culture laughs at this. The thrill of life is in the attempt at the impossible in temporal existence; certainly one does not aid the Furies into hurling the will to life into the abyss! Out-fox them, dammit! — for as long as you can. If the brand of futility is on your ass, let them find it. Yet Western culture be advised — the drive of individuality notwithstanding — that self-motives tend to crowd out moderation, which tends to transcend the pedestrian and find refuge in the betterment of all humankind.

Comments (Page 1)

WiseFawn

on Feb 23, 2004

You keep writing the articles that I keep wanting to read! I was talking to a friend once about my philosophies on happiness and on happy medium and he talked to me about Buddha. He told me that I was the closest to this idea of any person he'd met. I wasn't sure if this was good or bad.
This is another great post!

stevendedalus

on Feb 23, 2004

I'm confident that I answered your question: obviously GOOD. I trust what your friend meant was that you keep a happy balance between reality and the ideal.

bakerstreet

on Feb 23, 2004

I agree mostly. I think if you whittled away at Buddhism you could come up with a wonderful philosophy, and you could be a Buddhist/Christian, Buddhist/Agnostic, whatever. In spirit it isn't really a 'religion'. As it exists now, though, I'm not crazy about it. I wouldn't call it nihilism, mainly because it is philosophy that expects a bit more than what we have, and does appreciate understanding the 'goal', per se.

Other, more traditional religions see it as nihilism because of that goal, I think. In ways, fundamentalist Christianity is pretty nihilistic as well, in terms of their outlook on the world, and its eventual (lack of) real value. I can see parallels between people who think physical existence is bound in sin and decay and should be escaped, and people who believe that the root cause of suffering is physical existence that should be escaped. Christians just believe themselves destined for more existence, and Buddhists think it would just be more of the same mess.

Where Buddhism, and often Christianity, goes wrong for me is the the idea that the 'world' is not functioning correctly, and that the basic structure of it is wrong. Animals eat animals because... they are ignorant? Nah, I don't think so. 'Kill no sentient creature' is kind of short sighted since I appreciate trees and plants as much as I appreciate a cow or a chicken. To me, life is life, and we have to feed ourselves on it, that's the system. We can feel bad about it and repent of nature, or we can embrace and enjoy nature as a part of it.

As our religions evolve I think we need to get more comfortable with the idea that this is real existence, regardless of an existence hereafter, and that it is not wrong by design. Rejection of the world as a 'good' place is the root of a lot of religious apathy, and I can't completely swallow anything that relies solely on that idea.

On the whole though, there is a great deal to be learned from Buddhist thought. No one should reject it outright, only look at it with the same natural skepticism that they would have for any other religion. Thanks for the post, steve.

on Feb 23, 2004

To me, life is life, and we have to feed ourselves on it, that's the system.

Indeed. Even Vegans kill to eat.

JeremyG

on Feb 23, 2004

I agree with you on alot BakerStreet. If you havent already, check out taoism. I'm sure you'll find it to hold truth

Besides, if we're not supposed to eat animals, then how come they're made out of meat?

bakerstreet

on Feb 23, 2004

I keep a copy of the "Tao Te Ching" on my desk, and I read "The Tao of Pooh" and the "Te of Piglet" years and years ago. I don't agree with all of it, but there is a lot of very sound wisdom in it. Thanks

Randy Spire

on Feb 23, 2004

stevendedalus, aka White Tara, Bodhisattva of All-Encomassing Beneficient Action

Randy Spire

on Feb 23, 2004

"Where Buddhism, and often Christianity, goes wrong for me is the the idea that the 'world' is not functioning correctly, and that the basic structure of it is wrong"

this is a misunderstanding of Buddhism and what it means by 'suffering'. Suffering is not bad or wrong, nor good or right. It is merely the state we are in, period. Any notion of good or bad is something extra that you place on it. But as for making any inquiry with open mind and skepticism is at the heart of Buddha's message.

Plants and trees are alive, as are rocks, though they do lack sentience; Buddhism makes this distinction.

stevendedalus

on Feb 24, 2004

BakerSt: great analysis--you're a thoughtful guy. I graded you insightful.

stevendedalus

on Feb 24, 2004

Jeff: very "insightful"; "Suffering is not bad or wrong, nor good or right. It is merely the state we are in, period." And surely there is no "sin" involved, except perhaps for an individual's deliberate infliction of pain on another.

bakerstreet

on Feb 24, 2004

Jeff: yeah, I can see that, but it seems when you consider that Buddhists seek to shrug off existence that the distinction is semantic. We see it as bad, they don't call it bad, but they want rid of it too, right?

Granted, they want to shrug off the good stuff, too I suppose. Though it isn't 'good', LOL. Ah, well. It is a different way of thinking.

WiseFawn

on Feb 24, 2004

stevendedalus- yes, I think of it as good now. I am a firm believer in happy mediums and I am a firm believer that the search for happiness is not the path. People put so much importance on happiness, when it is actually a brief feeling at most. It is not meant to last. Contentment is the path.

Randy Spire

on Feb 24, 2004

"but it seems when you consider that Buddhists seek to shrug off existence that the distinction is semantic. We see it as bad, they don't call it bad, but they want rid of it too, right?"

no, this is a misunderstanding, though a common one generally made from an outside perspective. Buddhism does not shrug off existence, this would fall into nihilism, though I do understand how this perception is formed. Buddhism does speak of' 'emptiness' or void or whatever you want to call it, but this is only half the formula. The other half is the very real exeistence we all are part of. Emptiness represents wisdom, form (experience) is represented by compassion. We can't take one and not the other, in fact it goes on to be realized that they are one in the same. Myself sitting here typing, you here reading is simply form in a process of continual change (& evolution) which is also inherently empty, there is nothing to deny, get rid of, or label bad. Things just simply are and it is a matter of what we do with them and with what state of mind they are experienced.

As for suffering, it is in many ways similar to the notion of sin, it serves a specific purpose in the context of the larger system. the primary difference I see between Christianity and Buddhism is that Christianity holds that we as individuals are inherently something negative (sinners) whereas Buddhism comes from a perspective where we are all inherently complete as we are. I realize this is a gross generalization, but it does I feel influence they way the different traditions are parcticed and realized by individual practitioners.

Randy Spire

on Feb 24, 2004

and i dont mean this to be a criticism, just noting a dirrefence in methodology.

messybuu

on Feb 24, 2004

The problem I see with Buddhism is that I don't see anybody actually practicing it. Who accepts their suffering in life and suppresses the desire to be happy (or to have others be happy)?

I don't agree with Buddhism though. Sure, desire begets suffering, but it's still a worthy investment.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!