Buddhism - force for good, mental conditioning, or both?

[Blowtus]

I've become very interested in Buddhism lately, after reading a few of the fundamentals and being amazed how strongly they line up with my rational world view. I have posted the following to a Buddhist forum, but my skeptical nature is always wary of one sided views Would be interested in any thoughts from the folk here.


Firstly - I am very new to the teachings of Buddhism, have come across it in my search for a rational path to a better world. I find much value in what I currently understand to be Buddhism, the practice of meditation is a particularly new line of thought for me, but am plagued by what I am finding a fundamental issue - I still have much reading to go, so I apologise if this would have been evident had I continued to read instead of posting.

I presently have a large desire to improve the world / universe. I believe this desire to have come from the suffering I endure at the hands of what I see as a less than optimally ordered world, but to also have grown because of the joy I find in it and the wish for others in the future to experience it, in a more positive way if possible. My positivity towards others, and the 'humanity' concept makes me feel better about myself in general.

Were I to progress down the path of Buddhism, and find enlightenment at the end of it - I am led to understand I would have neither the present suffering, or egotistical 'I'm a good person because I'm nice to people and want to improve the world' standpoints to motivate me for the betterment of humanity / things in general. On the positive side, it seems likely I would have a much better idea of what we should be aiming for, and would have more capabilities to achieve such.

Basically - it seems extremely evident that Buddhism is an effective way of ending one's own suffering, (and becoming a 'better' person for it) but it is less evident that choosing a Buddhist path is the best thing from a global / universal perspective. I would love to hear some views and be pointed to any reading material relating to this and similar.

Perhaps this quandary comes back to my presently materialistic view of meditation as existing solely within one's own brain, effectively a form of mental conditioning? I see it as unlikely that anyone but myself could convince me of otherwise, and have commenced with some basic breathing meditation. I am a little fearful of the minds capabilities to delude itself given sufficient exercise though...

 

[speed]

Were I to progress down the path of Buddhism, and find enlightenment at the end of it - I am led to understand I would have neither the present suffering, or egotistical 'I'm a good person because I'm nice to people and want to improve the world' standpoints to motivate me for the betterment of humanity / things in general. On the positive side, it seems likely I would have a much better idea of what we should be aiming for, and would have more capabilities to achieve such.

Basically - it seems extremely evident that Buddhism is an effective way of ending one's own suffering, (and becoming a 'better' person for it) but it is less evident that choosing a Buddhist path is the best thing from a global / universal perspective. I would love to hear some views and be pointed to any reading material relating to this and similar.

Perhaps this quandary comes back to my presently materialistic view of meditation as existing solely within one's own brain, effectively a form of mental conditioning? I see it as unlikely that anyone but myself could convince me of otherwise, and have commenced with some basic breathing meditation. I am a little fearful of the minds capabilities to delude itself given sufficient exercise though...

Thanks for posting this quandry. I find your questioning refreshing--especially in regards to meditation. A very wise man you are Blowtus.

As for Buddhism itself, my aphorism to anyone who is a Buddhist, or questions why Im not a Buddhist is this: I am already a nihilist, and as perfect nihilism is the end or goal of buddhism, what then does it have to offer me?

In regards to Buddhism and the world. You know, Buddhism was supported by many a corrupt Indian prince, as Buddhists were known to have few worldly desires and aspirations. Excessive inward buddhism, is i suppose good or positive for each single person, but perhaps not good for the whole unless everyone is on board.

 

[Seditious]

Basically - it seems extremely evident that Buddhism is an effective way of ending one's own suffering, (and becoming a 'better' person for it) but it is less evident that choosing a Buddhist path is the best thing from a global / universal perspective.

One of the most fundamental points in Buddhism, at least to the Dalai Lama, is compassion, and perhaps aims for the most universal compassion of any religion/philosophy.

 

[Blowtus]

It certainly speaks of compassion and is most positive toward it - but can compassion exist independantly of self oriented desires? Is it more than the internal desire to view ones self as a 'good' person, or to improve the world for ones own benefit?

 

[Demilich]

Buddhism's insights with regards to compassion and the like are more valuable than the whole of Judeo-Christian religion as far as I'm concerned.

 

[judas69]

Can you be more specific?

 

[Seditious]

Is it more than the internal desire to view ones self as a 'good' person, or to improve the world for ones own benefit?

yes it is, as I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between two acts which look compassionate if in one instance the seeming compassionate person was just hoping for an opportunity to pick-pocket the person's wallet. It isn't you being compassionate if someone js accidentally or instrumentally aided by you, but for you to intend to aid them, as even if you fail, or don't even try, but feel for them, you can be said to have compassion. It's really nothing to do with egotistical self-righteousness. I believe even Hume recognised this also (among others I'm sure, but he in particular comes to mind)

 

[Blowtus]

It isn't you being compassionate if someone js accidentally or instrumentally aided by you, but for you to intend to aid them, as even if you fail, or don't even try, but feel for them, you can be said to have compassion. It's really nothing to do with egotistical self-righteousness. I believe even Hume recognised this also (among others I'm sure, but he in particular comes to mind)

You think 'real' compassion is not necessarily born of any benefit to the self then? Would love to understand the mechanisms for the development / evolution of such a feeling. I concede that it is possible I presently care for people out of some sort of basic love for humanity, but I am unable to seperate this from the benefits it gives to me. A point for me to think on anyway...

I couldn't find much from Hume on compassion with a quick search, he seems worth a read though so I might see what I find at the library next time I'm there.

 

[Seditious]

You think 'real' compassion is not necessarily born of any benefit to the self then?.

no. I think, like Hume, that is thoroughly to misunderstand compassion itself, and perhaps to do so because that is all we ever observe in the world.

Would love to understand the mechanisms for the development / evolution of such a feeling..

I don't believe compassion (beyond what are likely to be chemical issues such as mother-child bond, sexual attraction, and the like) exists for some evolutionary reason. It is said you can put types of morality into catagories and the last is beyond all common sense or self-interest ('dont hit me I wont hit you') is an actual 'compassion' and supposedly something rarely taught/encouraged anywhere but in the religions. I found that an interesting point because compassion isn't something I necessarily support, and I definitely don't think it is natural/evolutionary.

I concede that it is possible I presently care for people out of some sort of basic love for humanity, but I am unable to seperate this from the benefits it gives to me. A point for me to think on anyway...

I'm not sure I have a basic love for humanity any more than a person who isn't a sociopath has---I infer others look like me think like me and thus have the capacity to 'feel' like me, and I hate feeling bad, so seeing how much they are like me, I imagine it must be bad for them too to 'feel bad' as it is for me. I think that is a recognition which needs to precede any ideas of self-interest in morality, because a sociopath might see humans as prey and amusement and not be able to separate those objects called people from benefits to his sick needs. but yea anyways, I think most people would say altruism doesn't exist (unless using a slack definition), since all our acts tend to be with self-interest in mind, but true altruism/compassion/etc. seem to be something people think they can strive for, no matter how counter-intuitive and unnatural it is.

I couldn't find much from Hume on compassion with a quick search, he seems worth a read though so I might see what I find at the library next time I'm there.

key words would be 'morality', 'self-interest' or 'sympathy' (he uses 'sympathy' for what we'd call 'empathy'). I don't know if he speaks of compassion itself.

 

[schivmeister]

Buddhism had been a key interest during my study of beliefs..it is unlike any other but i only see it as more of a teaching rather than a religion. So any1 can be a buddhist, only u wont call urself one

 

[Blowtus]

I don't believe compassion (beyond what are likely to be chemical issues such as mother-child bond, sexual attraction, and the like) exists for some evolutionary reason. It is said you can put types of morality into catagories and the last is beyond all common sense or self-interest ('dont hit me I wont hit you') is an actual 'compassion' and supposedly something rarely taught/encouraged anywhere but in the religions. I found that an interesting point because compassion isn't something I necessarily support, and I definitely don't think it is natural/evolutionary.

In what sense do you not support compassion? On just the individual level, or the societal / universal level too? I can see a purpose in keeping with our instinct for avoiding pain in both, (given that compassion is applied in a thoughtful manner) but neither is short term or direct enough to make it as clear as one could wish I care for others because I can both rationalise and experience that it is better in the long term for myself. My exercise of compassion would not be the popular conception of gentleness and care for every individual though - more the encouragement of positive growth in the world around me, potentially requiring direct and forceful measures 'at times'. Perhaps to some it would seem an unsuitable use of the word compassion? Any other use would seem detrimental, to me.

I'm not sure I have a basic love for humanity any more than a person who isn't a sociopath has---I infer others look like me think like me and thus have the capacity to 'feel' like me, and I hate feeling bad, so seeing how much they are like me, I imagine it must be bad for them too to 'feel bad' as it is for me.

None of that would seem to explain any motivation for caring that others feel bad though - if you come across a stranger in horrendous pain, it's much more likely to be a negative experience than positive, no? Would seem the case for the general populace, and myself, anyway. Perhaps those in pain remind us of potential suffering, and we try to remove that reminder?

 

[Seditious]

In what sense do you not support compassion?

oh, it's just that it's been one of a key handful of ideas I've been thinking about for about the past 2 weeks straight now (before then too obviously, but in focus just recently), and I'm not sure yet where I stand on it. Today I managed to articulate things a little better but I still haven't finished thinking through the whole system of things yet so I really can't say what my position regarding it is yet.

My exercise of compassion would not be the popular conception of gentleness and care for every individual though - more the encouragement of positive growth in the world around me, potentially requiring direct and forceful measures 'at times'. Perhaps to some it would seem an unsuitable use of the word compassion?

no I think you'd be right. Most people can understand sometimes you have to say 'stop being a coward' or some such thing to a friend and you do it because you care about them and want them to behave in a way that is good for them, so though it can be 'forceful' or 'unpleasant' definitely doesn't mean there is no compassion because of that.

None of that would seem to explain any motivation for caring that others feel bad though - if you come across a stranger in horrendous pain, it's much more likely to be a negative experience than positive, no? Would seem the case for the general populace, and myself, anyway. Perhaps those in pain remind us of potential suffering, and we try to remove that reminder?

I'm not sure I could speak on a motivation to care, just that we seem to. When you realise others suffer like you, and you know it sucks for you, it seems natural to just think 'man, yea that sucks' without need fo any motivation or intention, it's like a deduction from the beliefs. Unless we have some reason to think 'you deserve to suffer' we tend to think of it as a bad thing and since you care when it happens to you, and when you've seen something of yourself in them (the same human experience) you seem to just transfer over the same sort of emotional behavior. I mean you don't seem to care about any plant or animal in which you don't see that certain sort of humanity, that experience of suffering like we have. it seems like just a consequence of that perception to me, nothing intentional.

 

[Korona]

The Antichrist has a pretty good section on Bhuddism:
Nietzsche : The Antichrist

section 20 till about section 30 or 40

 

[Arthyron]

In my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Buddhism, it would seem a very benevolent and beneficial spiritual path both for the individual and those affected by said individual when accurately and dutifully followed. However I also believe the same could be said of many of the world's religions and spiritual paths.

 

[Korona]

I think that really depends how you qualify benificial and benevolent
Giving a man the guilt of sin is certainly not something to take lightly...

 

[Arthyron]

I think that really depends how you qualify benificial and benevolent
Giving a man the guilt of sin is certainly not something to take lightly...

People are not given the guilt of sin, they accept it. You can choose to believe in sin or reject the concept outright. It's not the fault of Buddhism if someone accepts it, it is simply there, like most religions/spiritual paths. Those that accept the tenets of Buddhism (and with it the concept of sin) are often inspired to better themselves. So sin, in the Buddhist sense, and the guilt that arises from it, is the catalyst for self-improvement. I would most certainly qualify that self-improvement as both beneficial and benevolent.

 

[Korona]

AFAIK Bhuddism has no concept of either sin or guilt. It simply says "I suffer - how can I overcome this?"

I was refering to other religions which you said were just as benevolent and beneficial...
As for sin, I think you need to be taught this concept. I don't really think religions leave it at that either, saying hey there is this notion we have - "Sin" - take it or leave it. Rather its the centerpoint of the Judaeo-Christian religion and worldview.
I would also ask for an example of someone improved by teaching them the concept of sin. If you mean scared into doing something good, then perhaps, but I call that intimidation rather than true benevolence (look up Pascal's wager). Personally I find the idea that we can perform an action that seperates us or draws us appart from God a bit stupid, and certainly doesn't sound like how a benevolent father would act to me

 

[Arthyron]

AFAIK Bhuddism has no concept of either sin or guilt. It simply says "I suffer - how can I overcome this?"

I was refering to other religions which you said were just as benevolent and beneficial...
As for sin, I think you need to be taught this concept. I don't really think religions leave it at that either, saying hey there is this notion we have - "Sin" - take it or leave it. Rather its the centerpoint of the Judaeo-Christian religion and worldview.
I would also ask for an example of someone improved by teaching them the concept of sin. If you mean scared into doing something good, then perhaps, but I call that intimidation rather than true benevolence (look up Pascal's wager). Personally I find the idea that we can perform an action that seperates us or draws us appart from God a bit stupid, and certainly doesn't sound like how a benevolent father would act to me

Ok, I have an example of you. A man is committed to a relationship with one woman (some might call it "marriage"). But this man also looks at a lot of porn, lusts over every beautiful woman he sees, has affairs with any woman he can (or pick any one of those things). His wife is too subservient to really do anything about it, but be miserable and is thinking of divorce. Enter the concept of sin and guilt. The man realizes that he's violating the commitment he made to one woman. Because his realization of the wrong of his actions, he begins to abstain from them, and eventually overcomes all of them and no longer does them. His wife is happy and more open to being intimate with him, and his desires are then fulfilled, so he needn't look elsewhere. Their marriage is saved. That's not a very far-fetched situation, as I've seen it occur.

As far as sin being a matter of fear, not quite. Fearing punishment is not the main reason for abstaining from sin. I realize a lot of people (fundamentalists in particular) push this idea, but it's not what Scripture says. There are many reasons more pertinent and important to a Christian walk to abstain from sin. Among them are health/enjoyment (as most sins have negative, potentially dangerous/harmful consequences), peace amongst social groups (i.e. a good marriage, familial health, synergy in a workgroup, etc etc), and also the desire to do good in and of itself because of the apsiration to be like Christ (the paradigm and definition of morality).

You see, if one is truly a Christian, as Scripture dictates, the change comes from within and is edified outwardly. You may know Christianity as outward rules and regulations that supposedly change what is within, but that's not what is taught by Scripture mostly. Having been witness to a number of friends and acquaintances both before and after their acceptance of Christ, the change in their manner, conduct, health, happiness, peace, and general enjoyment of life is like night and day. Perhaps it is all one big placebo effect and we're all delusional moonbats, that's very possible. But you cannot argue with the results. Many people as a result of becoming a Christian, live better quality lives than they would otherwise lead. So even in my own life and the lives of those around me, if the concept of sin is introduced with all those other stipulations and teachings in mind, the potential for good/improvement is vast and immeasurable. There are other religions where such improvements have been made as well, but I have less experience with them than I do with my own religion. That is what I meant.

 

[Seditious]

A man is committed to a relationship with one woman. this man has affairs with any woman he can. His wife is too subservient to really do anything about it, but be miserable and is thinking of divorce. Enter the concept of sin and guilt. The man realizes that he's violating the commitment he made to one woman. Because his realization of the wrong of his actions, he begins to abstain from them, and eventually overcomes all of them and no longer does them. His wife is happy and more open to being intimate with him, and his desires are then fulfilled, so he needn't look elsewhere.

that's not to do with some sort of 'beneficiality of a spiritual path' though

a man may feel guilt for causing his wife to feel bad, or feeling he is wronging her, but that is entirely secular.

to add in the concept that in doing so he will either suffer in purgatory for a while, or if he does not accept that what he did was not only an upsetting thing but a 'sin to god' then he will spend -eternity- in hell for it, is hardly benevolent or beneficial. that kind of fear and added guilt (of disobeying god or whatever) is something Buddhism strives to remove. I think this is what Korona was getting at---Christianity is, to steal an old phrase, the disease for which it pretends to be the cure.

 

[Korona]

- what seditious said
I think any man with a shred of dignity will stop something if it hurts his wife (and isn't for her own good like stopping her taking crack or something)

The difference between something bad and a Sin is that a bad thing is just that, whereas a Sin is something that supposedly hurts God, and that seperates a person from God.
I can't reconcile that picture and Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. The father never stops loving his son. He is happy because he is returned, not because he is repentant. Indeed the father rejects the son's apology.
Some theologians have said that the son returning home demonstrates repentance, but he goes home to get good food and a better life - he is still acting selfishly, so I don't think that interpretation holds and begs the question why the Father doesn't want to hear the son repent.