Occidental and Oriental Philosophies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]

I’m not knocking christianity here but most, if not all of the tenets existed in many cultures long before there was a christian religion.
[/quote]

Yup. Even the rituals. [/quote]

Buddhism, Christianism, Taoism and Confucianism have one essential thing in common :

They tried to replace the neolithic law of violent retribution with a new law : a law of universal love.

Christianity did it in a very unique way : its founder sacrified himself.
One “scapegoat” to abolish the need of scapegoating forever.

I’m often quite surprised to see how few people actually understand this. Even amongst christians.

[/quote]

I am not quite convinced that Daoism is promoting universal love.[/quote]

really ?
“Act without expectation.” is probably one the best definition of universal love i have ever read.

or this :

“Embracing Tao, you become embraced.
Supple, breathing gently, you become reborn.
Clearing your vision, you become clear.
Nurturing your beloved, you become impartial.
Opening your heart, you become accepted.
Accepting the World, you embrace Tao.
Bearing and nurturing,
Creating but not owning,
Giving without demanding,
Controlling without authority,
This is love.”

the new-age version of Daoism which is currently sold in the West, especially in the martial arts world, do not empashize Love… probably because it would make it sound too much christian. [/quote]

Excuse me, but to me that does not talk about love.

It talks about acting when it bears fruit and abstaining when it would not make a difference to resist.

It means living according to the way, whether there is “love” or not.[/quote]

Love is more than invading someone’s personal space with your dick…

82

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

-i will agree that the missionaries of Christianity played a complex role in the spread of Western Culture.
But I will disagree (as would any serious historian) that this role was entirely negative.
Acculturation is a destructive process that occured each time an isolated culture is contacted by a more technologically advanced culture.
Even without religious missionarism and military imperialism, the contact between the West and the rest of the world would have been devastating.
In some areas, the works of the missionaries actually preserved some local languages, stories, knowledge that would have been lost forever.

[/quote]

The resolution to the earlier mischaracterization of “Western philosophy” (metonymized as the Catholic Church) is, yet again by you, my friend, perfectly and succinctly contained in a few lines of text.

Certain of our “non-Christian” posters here would benefit from taking a step back from their desperate need to assure themselves and everyone they can get the message out to that Christianity has been nothing but a culture consuming juggernaut. A little perspective goes a long way.
[/quote]

Well said Cortes. Western Philosophy != Christianity…Especially since a good many philosophers were atheists.

83

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]

So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.

I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]

Ultimately, anything that manifests itself in the natural world is of equal value, as it is [of] the same thing.

That does not mean that I’m unmoved by a movie, or the passing of a loved one. I don’t even think there’s such a thing as a human without attachments, but we’d be wise to maintain an overview of what is true and permanent, instead of continue to get caught up in obsessions of the flesh.

And yes, it’s a viewpoint that’s difficult to grasp for many westerners, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

84

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death. [/quote]

Please do.

85

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

(…)

Correct, they are not called to drop out of society and hide away to seek enlightenment. Most orders are called out to give up all possessions and serve people. I do not know any order that is called to drop out of society all together. There are retreats and monasteries, but the people who work there serve those who serve others. Nobody is called to meditate and pray and do nothing else. That’s called rest and they do rest, but not as a life.

(…)

You think so? I do like silence and I do enjoy being by myself, but I am usually doing something. I may be reading, which I enjoy a lot and wish I had more time to do. Or I pray and read scripture, but I actually am completely entertained by that process. I don’t find it boring or burdensome at all. Or sometimes I enjoy sitting outside with a good whiskey, cigar and music in my ears. I do a lot of thinking that way but it’s not sitting in silence doing nothing. I like doing shit with my quiet time.[/quote]

Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.

Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.

The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.

These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.

It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.

Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.

When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]

Do you have the names of these monasteries? Or one of them? I don’t know of any that are called to solitude and prayer only. That’s a component but it violates the tenet of service.

Further, do you really think that focusing on the self and removing suffering will lead you to happiness? I don’t. You may be delightfully self aware, in tune with the cosmos and what ever, but the absesnse of suffering doesn’t default to happiness. An absence of suffering is just an absesnce of suffering. The default state of man is neutral, not happy. I see no evidence what so ever that humans are by default happy when not suffering. Quite frankly, I have suffered many things in my life and manged to be happy despite the suffering. Think about the things that make you happy, I mean truly happy, do any of them include isolation and separation? Hell, I consider myself a pretty happy person in general.

Further, are we saying things can make people happy at all? Trust me, you give me a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 I would be really damn happy, at least for a little while. Are you going to say that my joy isn’t real because of the way I got it?

The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth and gain wisdom not elicit a feeling. Lot’s of things can make you happy. You don’t have to go to tibet or meditate to find it.

86

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.

Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.

The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.

These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.

It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.

Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.

When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]

There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.

I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.

I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.

Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]

Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]

So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.

I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]

Only to find out that your new world view isn’t any better. The grass ain’t greener in the east, if it were, everybody would do it.

87

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.

Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.

The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.

These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.

It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.

Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.

When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]

There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.

I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.

I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.

Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]

Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]

So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.

I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]

A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death. [/quote]

I think I would be in agreement with you. I don’t agree with this statement of his:

" Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start."

I think that for the most part only immaterial things have intrinsic value. I won’t be able to give any rigorous proof for this though its simply my thoughts. But I’d also never use it or its opposite as the base of an argument.

To go really out there on something…and feel free to call it made up I present no evidence…I think we are hardwired such that certain thoughts are very difficult for our mind to dwell on…some thoughts may be impossible for us to even think in my opinion. Also that some thoughts and feelings are so profound that when we have them they change us permanently. My best friend died at 22 from a terrible lingering disease…not from the disease itself which they thought finally cured, but from a doctor’s error in treatment when he had switched back to a local hospital…my thoughts about this are no different than they were almost 20 years ago I just don’t(can’t?) think about it as much, but I’d certainly say things other than the physical death… the emotions and thoughts…have effected my life greatly and outside the moment.

88

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]

So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.

I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]

Ultimately, anything that manifests itself in the natural world is of equal value, as it is [of] the same thing.

That does not mean that I’m unmoved by a movie, or the passing of a loved one. I don’t even think there’s such a thing as a human without attachments, but we’d be wise to maintain an overview of what is true and permanent, instead of continue to get caught up in obsessions of the flesh.

And yes, it’s a viewpoint that’s difficult to grasp for many westerners, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
[/quote]

I just don’t feel the need to purge myself of things to be happy. I am happy with things. Second, I understand and accept that my life can change and my whole world can be taken from me in the blink of an eye.
But living simply isn’t an exclusively eastern tenet, Christianity does to admire the simple life, free of possessions. There is no assertion though that you have to to be happy.

I am willing to bet if you gave up everything and lived a good clean buddhist life, you would be no happier.

89

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.

Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.

The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.

These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.

It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.

Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.

When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]

Do you have the names of these monasteries? Or one of them? I don’t know of any that are called to solitude and prayer only. That’s a component but it violates the tenet of service.

Further, do you really think that focusing on the self and removing suffering will lead you to happiness? I don’t. You may be delightfully self aware, in tune with the cosmos and what ever, but the absesnse of suffering doesn’t default to happiness. An absence of suffering is just an absesnce of suffering. The default state of man is neutral, not happy. I see no evidence what so ever that humans are by default happy when not suffering. Quite frankly, I have suffered many things in my life and manged to be happy despite the suffering. Think about the things that make you happy, I mean truly happy, do any of them include isolation and separation? Hell, I consider myself a pretty happy person in general.

Further, are we saying things can make people happy at all? Trust me, you give me a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 I would be really damn happy, at least for a little while. Are you going to say that my joy isn’t real because of the way I got it?

The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth and gain wisdom not elicit a feeling. Lot’s of things can make you happy. You don’t have to go to tibet or meditate to find it.[/quote]

Sure, there’s actually one in english: http://www.koningsoord.org/en/01_ol_gemeenschap.htm It appears that their sense of community is mostly confined to the community of nuns within the monestary. They do offer retreats to civilians though; to introduce them to the life of a monk/nun.

I don’t doubt your word Pat, but I guess it depends on how you define happiness. How do you define what’s happiness for you?

Actually, I’m usally happy [to be] by myself in isolation, but I’m an introvert. I don’t know what it’s like for extroverted people.

If a religion or philosophy does not lead to some form of happiness or contendness, or if it doesn’t alleviate suffering in some way; what good is it?

90

[quote]pat wrote:

I just don’t feel the need to purge myself of things to be happy. I am happy with things. Second, I understand and accept that my life can change and my whole world can be taken from me in the blink of an eye.
But living simply isn’t an exclusively eastern tenet, Christianity does to admire the simple life, free of possessions. There is no assertion though that you have to to be happy.

I am willing to bet if you gave up everything and lived a good clean buddhist life, you would be no happier. [/quote]

I don’t think I would be happier, that’s true. But that’s because I have no things of real value except my house, and that’s mostly the bank’s property still.

91

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.

Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.

The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.

These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.

It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.

Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.

When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]

Do you have the names of these monasteries? Or one of them? I don’t know of any that are called to solitude and prayer only. That’s a component but it violates the tenet of service.

Further, do you really think that focusing on the self and removing suffering will lead you to happiness? I don’t. You may be delightfully self aware, in tune with the cosmos and what ever, but the absesnse of suffering doesn’t default to happiness. An absence of suffering is just an absesnce of suffering. The default state of man is neutral, not happy. I see no evidence what so ever that humans are by default happy when not suffering. Quite frankly, I have suffered many things in my life and manged to be happy despite the suffering. Think about the things that make you happy, I mean truly happy, do any of them include isolation and separation? Hell, I consider myself a pretty happy person in general.

Further, are we saying things can make people happy at all? Trust me, you give me a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 I would be really damn happy, at least for a little while. Are you going to say that my joy isn’t real because of the way I got it?

The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth and gain wisdom not elicit a feeling. Lot’s of things can make you happy. You don’t have to go to tibet or meditate to find it.[/quote]

Sure, there’s actually one in english: http://www.koningsoord.org/en/01_ol_gemeenschap.htm It appears that their sense of community is mostly confined to the community of nuns within the monestary. They do offer retreats to civilians though; to introduce them to the life of a monk/nun.

I don’t doubt your word Pat, but I guess it depends on how you define happiness. How do you define what’s happiness for you?

Actually, I’m usally happy [to be] by myself in isolation, but I’m an introvert. I don’t know what it’s like for extroverted people.

If a religion or philosophy does not lead to some form of happiness or contendness, or if it doesn’t alleviate suffering in some way; what good is it?

[/quote]

Their tenets are:
bear one anotherâ??s weaknesses with the greatest patience,
obey one another,

not to seek your own advantage, but rather what is good for the other.

They live in solitude but serve the community. So it’s not an isolated life it’s a life of service. It is through service that the greatest joy is attained.

That’s what I figured.

Happiness is a feeling of joy. I am at most joy when I serve and my life is at peace, I am at peace I and my family is doing well and my possessions are well and not in need of repair.

92

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]

So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.

I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]

Ultimately, anything that manifests itself in the natural world is of equal value, as it is [of] the same thing.

That does not mean that I’m unmoved by a movie, or the passing of a loved one. I don’t even think there’s such a thing as a human without attachments, but we’d be wise to maintain an overview of what is true and permanent, instead of continue to get caught up in obsessions of the flesh.

And yes, it’s a viewpoint that’s difficult to grasp for many westerners, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
[/quote]

Apologies in advance if this post is confusing.I started writing and my brain wanted me to chase that rabbit all the way down the hole and the hole was long.

Up to now I’ve been reading and thinking more than reacting, because I want to learn, and this discussion is very interesting.

My gut wanted me to react a few times that I held back and now I’m glad I did.

I can see some of what you are talking about, and I do think there is definitely value in learning to divest oneself of the unnecessary, the material, and also of certain ideas that tend to serve to draw one back to the temporal comfort of the material world.

I’m sure I don’t fully grasp what is implied in the “letting go” of buddhism, but I think I have a vague idea. I gave it and taoism a good bit of study a while back, and was genuinely interested in Buddhism at the time (not to convert to, but at a time when I was pretty heavily engrossed in searching for the eternal truths contained in the big religions, so certainly positively and open mindedly).

I’m going to ask a question now, that may sound like a rhetorical device but is honestly not intended as one. I’d just honestly like an answer from those who subscribe to these types of philosophies: What’s the point, ultimately?

If, in the quest to transcend all suffering, you create what amounts to a vast, empty universe unto yourself, and actually succeed in your endeavors, haven’t you just become, at best, a god of nothing? Again, it is honestly hard for me to pose this question without it seeming facetious or sneering, so please take me at my word that I am being sincere here.

When I hear eph talking about reaching a point where you essentially remove yourself from emotional attachment to other humans, or infer positively that one could lose a close relative and essentially (to my ears) not care, or remove oneself from care, if you prefer, that sounds like a philosophy I want nothing to do with.

I would also like to hear the story of your grandmother, BG (if you’ve not posted it and I just haven’t gotten there yet). I’m thinking now of my two year old son. I have never, never loved anyone like I do this boy. He is my first child and I was surprised to learn that there was another kind of love that I had never before known nor been able to imagine until he was. It is a strange, often frightening love, that I feel both master of and slave to simultaneously. It is fierce and passionate, as all real love is, but there is something more. Something harder, maybe not possible to describe.It is creative and, if I do not control it, it could as easily become destructive. I have had discussions with my wife about it. And I have honestly admitted to her that if she died, I would eventually get over it (and trust me, I very deeply love my wife). Same goes for my father, mother, brother, my best friend, or any other person close to me. Save one.

At times I play morbid what-if games with my imagination and visualize the death of those close to me. With my wife,I can think about how I would change my lifestyle, what I would do with my son, how I would alter my business, even the kind of person I might remarry, and on and on. But when I try the same weird game with him, I can never get past the moment of his death. I cannot even imagine a life without him anymore.

Now, it would seem to me that a philosopher of the East would see pain, misery, and primarily bondage in this. I disagree (sort of). I AM bound by that love. I DO pay a price. But what is the use of gaining perfect freedom if you find yourself, ultimately alone?

I have gained the greatest gift, the greatest, yes, happiness that I have ever know, in my son. But great gifts come at a hefty cost. For the rest of my existence, I owe for this love. This is why I said the love itself was frightening. If it were not, I could go about as I had before, without any true consequences, ultimately, without anything to lose. Some would call that free. My Western romantic cowboy brain, however, tells me that it is my giving in to bondage that actually, truly sets me free.

And with this, we come back full circle, I think, to the philosophy of Christ, freedom via sacrifice, and the Western ideal of the ultimate sacrifice (laying one’s life down for one’s friends) being the ultimate virtue.

This probably require more exploration but I’d better post before write another 50 lines!

93

[quote]pat wrote:
Happiness is a feeling of joy. I am at most joy when I serve and my life is at peace, I am at peace I and my family is doing well and my possessions are well and not in need of repair.
[/quote]

Amen, my brother.

Actually,BG and I, among others, had a similar exchange about this subject elsewhere and I will not speak for him but I did think we pretty much agreed there and I reached a very similar conclusion to this one.

94

Cortes,

I can’t help but to feel disappointed by your perception of my posts, but allow me to elucidate:

You don’t transcend suffering: as long as there is a physical manifestation of you there’ll be suffering. The only thing that might happen is that value is no longer attached to said suffering. Secondly, there’s no solid “you” that can become a god of nothing.

“You” are an temporary apparition of the senses.

That’s not what I said at all Cortes. I believe my words are clear enough to convey the message I meant to convey without ambiguety.

How can we have an open and honest debate if you filter my words through your preconceptions in such a way that distorts the meaning of those words?

95

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Sure, there’s actually one in english: http://www.koningsoord.org/en/01_ol_gemeenschap.htm It appears that their sense of community is mostly confined to the community of nuns within the monestary. They do offer retreats to civilians though; to introduce them to the life of a monk/nun.

I don’t doubt your word Pat, but I guess it depends on how you define happiness. How do you define what’s happiness for you?

Actually, I’m usally happy [to be] by myself in isolation, but I’m an introvert. I don’t know what it’s like for extroverted people.

If a religion or philosophy does not lead to some form of happiness or contendness, or if it doesn’t alleviate suffering in some way; what good is it?

[/quote]

Their tenets are:
bear one anotherâ??s weaknesses with the greatest patience,
obey one another,

not to seek your own advantage, but rather what is good for the other.

They live in solitude but serve the community. So it’s not an isolated life it’s a life of service. It is through service that the greatest joy is attained.

That’s what I figured.

Happiness is a feeling of joy. I am at most joy when I serve and my life is at peace, I am at peace I and my family is doing well and my possessions are well and not in need of repair.
[/quote]

The community is their convent and they aid the outside world by prayer. That’s all they do, except for acting as a retreat for the curious.

My joy is fresh air and a clear mind. That makes me happy.

96

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death. [/quote]

Please do.[/quote]

The Reader’s Digest version is as follows:

My grandparents lived in a very small town in MA, one of the many small towns built around the textile industry of their time, and that town became smaller still when those businesses shrank and disappeared. They were married for over 50 years. Lived in the same house. Never owned a car. Went to Church and did banking and such every weekend by cab. Groceries and milk delivered. Lived on Social Security when I was in elementary school and visited every summer. Scrounged all year long to save maybe $40 in addition to the $$ my parents gave when I spent the summer so I’d have a little extra for entertainment and such. Lived a very modest life is the picture I’m painting.

I’m in my early 30’s when my grandmother passed. Grandfather had passed years earlier. At the funeral and after, I was inconsolable. She was like my mother. Here I was, in the middle of my then career, chasing an office, a title, the next promotion, the salary, the next car, the next “shiny object”. In fact, it was my toxic job that I left in a panic and raced 3 hours breaking every traffic law imaginable to make it to her deathbed right before she passed. I made it by no more than 20 minutes before she took her last breath.

I was making more money at the time than they ever made in their lives. I could literally lose that $40-50 they scrounged all year long to save for my benefit as a kid (a sacrafice I didn’t fully appreciate until that moment) and not even know it was gone out of my pocket. I never even bothered to balance my checkbook and they saved every nickel. I drove a flashy BMW M3. I had all the trappings of “being on the rise”. And as I looked around the house after the funeral, it was filled with so many people from all over town, including family, that just loved my grandmother. People I had never met, but knew of me, her grandson. And in that instant, I realized she was indeed “rich”, and it was I who was “poor”. She married and buried her husband in that modest home. Never brought any shame to herself or her family. Raised a son and daughter. And hosted a beloved grandson every summer, in spite of the financial strain. They had nothing, but never told me no.

I had an epiphany that day…a “what the fuck am I chasing?” moment that forever changed me and I shared my thoughts with my uncle, and he agreed. By any reasonable measure of wealth, they were “poor”. The house, although paid for, was modest - it seemed so much larger when I was a kid. When she passed, there was very little, if any savings. The only asset was the house and it’s contents. And the memories.

I didn’t stop “chasing” that day. I’m competitive, it’s my nature. But from that moment forward, material things - car, size of house, whatever, didn’t mean shit to me. From that point forward, I considered major purchases carefully, to make sure my heart wanted it, and not my ego. I don’t live in a small town like they did, and cultivating the kind of relationships she had is a difficult thing to do in our modern world. But it made me appreciate those in my life more. And to value those relationships fully.

I went back to that house last year. It’s empty now. For sale. I looked through the windows and reminisced…and shed some tears. Even thinking of her now, after all these years, brings a tear, a sniffle, a quivering lip and a deep breath or three. I went to the backyard where I used to practice “pitching” rocks against a rock wall some of those summers. That rock wall was now walled off with landscaping railroad ties. I reached behind, and took a rock from that wall that I keep with me at my home…a piece of my real “home”. I’d take the whole house with me if I could.

There are many “McMansions” in our world today, but very few “homes”.

That’s my story.

97

[quote]pat wrote:
Trust me, you give me a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 I would be really damn happy, at least for a little while. Are you going to say that my joy isn’t real because of the way I got it?

The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth and gain wisdom not elicit a feeling. Lot’s of things can make you happy. You don’t have to go to tibet or meditate to find it.[/quote]

your joy would be fleeting, and that’s not joy at all. the only everlasting joy I’d argue is that from within and understanding your connection to each other and everyone, and your “god”.

98

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If a religion or philosophy does not lead to some form of happiness or contendness, or if it doesn’t alleviate suffering in some way; what good is it?
[/quote]

The search for truth? It’s a tremendous method of drilling down and troubleshooting. I use the philosophical method of drilling down all the time. It certainly helps with my job. The methods may not give you all the answers, but you know what you know with more certainty and know what you do not know with more certainty. That helps bring peace in my life so I guess it contributes to happiness but the purpose is the search for truth, not in an abstract way. What I mean when I say ‘truth’ isn’t any kind of mystical hogwash, I mean truth in the sense of ‘what is the case’.

99

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Cortes,

I can’t help but to feel disappointed by your perception of my posts, but allow me to elucidate:

You don’t transcend suffering: as long as there is a physical manifestation of you there’ll be suffering. The only thing that might happen is that value is no longer attached to said suffering. Secondly, there’s no solid “you” that can become a god of nothing.

“You” are an temporary apparition of the senses.

That’s not what I said at all Cortes. I believe my words are clear enough to convey the message I meant to convey without ambiguety.

How can we have an open and honest debate if you filter my words through your preconceptions in such a way that distorts the meaning of those words?

[/quote]

I thought you might say so, hence all the caveats. One more time, I honestly would like to understand what you mean.

Here is the post that I was referring to:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.

People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.

In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start. [/quote]

The final paragraph, particularly the part I bolded, is the part I am apparently not getting.

I’m even squinting my eyes real hard right now but it’s still not changing too much for me. Is it supposed to pop out like one of those magic-eye 3D poster thingies?

I’m messing with you. But seriously, you mind explaining that last paragraph to me in non enlightened dumb western guy terms? :wink:

100

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I’m thinking now of my two year old son. I have never, never loved anyone like I do this boy. He is my first child and I was surprised to learn that there was another kind of love that I had never before known nor been able to imagine until he was. It is a strange, often frightening love, that I feel both master of and slave to simultaneously. It is fierce and passionate, as all real love is, but there is something more. Something harder, maybe not possible to describe.It is creative and, if I do not control it, it could as easily become destructive. I have had discussions with my wife about it. And I have honestly admitted to her that if she died, I would eventually get over it (and trust me, I very deeply love my wife). Same goes for my father, mother, brother, my best friend, or any other person close to me. Save one.

At times I play morbid what-if games with my imagination and visualize the death of those close to me. With my wife,I can think about how I would change my lifestyle, what I would do with my son, how I would alter my business, even the kind of person I might remarry, and on and on. But when I try the same weird game with him, I can never get past the moment of his death. I cannot even imagine a life without him anymore.

[/quote]

Wow, we are of the same mind here. And I’ll tell you, just thinking of the above is so frightening to me, I try to avoid it at all costs. That said, as to the earlier part of your post, I’m not sure you’re understanding what I believe the meaning of letting go is…I do not believe it makes you this island unto yourself or a god of nothing.

I like to think of it more as a surrender, and a harmony with the unavoidable ebb and flow of life. For instance, most men would think of their mate leaving them as “bad”…and by contrast, I’d prefer not to attach a value judgment to it, instead preferring to acknowledge that things change and that try as you might, you cannot control the outcome. Does that make me an “island” or does it make me better prepared and accepting that some rain will fall in your life and it’s neither bad nor good to get wet from time to time :slight_smile: ?

There are many things that we busy ourselves with each day that add nothing to our lives and that we expend great energy in an effort to “control”. The only thing we can control, is ourselves. I’m still immersed in thoughts of my grandmother after writing my story, so I’m sure I’m doing a terrible job explaining my thoughts here.