...A good Heart...

[TaraMaiden]

Matthieu Ricard is a Buddhist monk, an author, translator, and photographer. He has lived, studied, and worked in the Himalayan region for over forty years.

 

The son of French philosopher Jean-François Revel and artist Yahne Le Toumelin, Matthieu was born in France in 1946 and grew up among the personalities and ideas of Paris’ intellectual and artistic circles. He earned a Ph.D. degree in cell genetics at the renowned Institut Pasteur under the Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob

 

He writes:

 

"Among all the clumsy, blind and extreme ways we go about building happiness, one of the most sterile is egocentrism. “When selfish happiness is the only goal in life, life soon becomes goalless,” wrote Romain Rolland. Even if we display every outward sign of happiness, we can never be truly happy if we dissociate ourselves from the happiness of others. This in no way requires us to neglect our own happiness. Our desire for happiness is as legitimate as anyone else’s. And in order to love others, we must learn to love ourselves. It’s not about swooning over the color of our own eyes, our figure or some personality trait, but about giving due recognition to the desire to live each moment of existence as a moment of meaning and fulfillment. To love oneself is to love life. It is essential to understand that we make ourselves happy in making others happy.

 

In brief, the goal of life is a deep state of well-being and wisdom at all moments, accompanied by love for every being, and not by that individual love that modern society relentlessly drums into us. True happiness arises from the essential goodness that wholeheartedly desires everyone to find meaning in their lives. It is a love that is always available, without showiness or self-interest. The immutable simplicity of a good heart."

 

From here.

 

discuss.

[zengirl]

Yup, that's a good summation of the heart of much Buddhist philosophy -- the notion of enlightened self interest. Interestingly, while Buddhism IS a religion and has all the trappings (God, creation myth, etc) of one and can explain many of its moral tenets and practices through its religious systems, it does not assume one requires a God for morality to exist.

 

It's why when the question comes up on forums (usually Reddit/atheism) as to how atheists and agnostics can find a guiding moral principle, I'm always baffled. What does God have to do with morality? Despite believing in God, it has basically none to do with mine. I'm a good person because it makes me happy, and I help others because helping others helps me. Cooperation should be the natural "setting" for the human mind, honestly. It makes pragmatic sense and sets a strong moral tone.

[Professor X]

Yup, that's a good summation of the heart of much Buddhist philosophy -- the notion of enlightened self interest. Interestingly, while Buddhism IS a religion and has all the trappings (God, creation myth, etc) of one and can explain many of its moral tenets and practices through its religious systems, it does not assume one requires a God for morality to exist.

 

It's why when the question comes up on forums (usually Reddit/atheism) as to how atheists and agnostics can find a guiding moral principle, I'm always baffled. What does God have to do with morality? Despite believing in God, it has basically none to do with mine. I'm a good person because it makes me happy, and I help others because helping others helps me. Cooperation should be the natural "setting" for the human mind, honestly. It makes pragmatic sense and sets a strong moral tone.

Judaism also got this, in essence, moral deeds are divided into 2, universal morals and god-given morals.

Universal morals are "laws" such as: no killing, no stealing, etc etc, while all the god-given ones are those that men can't find on it on, in other words, are not so obvious and thus needs the bible to find them.

 

Judaism also uses the explanation you gave about how atheists do have moral standards up to par with religion without believing, to show the existence of universal morals.

[TaraMaiden]

Yup, that's a good summation of the heart of much Buddhist philosophy -- the notion of enlightened self interest. Interestingly, while Buddhism IS a religion and has all the trappings (God, creation myth, etc) of one and can explain many of its moral tenets and practices through its religious systems, it does not assume one requires a God for morality to exist.

.

 

could you clarify your view of the bolded section, please...?

 

where is there a citation of God in Buddhism, that is pertinent to Buddhists worshipping same?

Or do I misunderstand you?

[zengirl]

could you clarify your view of the bolded section, please...?

 

where is there a citation of God in Buddhism, that is pertinent to Buddhists worshipping same?

Or do I misunderstand you?

 

I should've said gods plural. And Buddhists don't worship a personified God. That may be the crucial difference, nor is the notion of God as omnipotent. There are personified "gods" (devas) and there is the notion of a universal spirit outside the samsara. Different schools of Buddhism react to these ideas differently. For instance, mine considers the devas and hungry ghosts and such to be more metaphorical than the reality of alternate realms layered together.

 

I can expand more when I have greater time.

[BetheButterfly]

Matthieu Ricard is a Buddhist monk, an author, translator, and photographer. He has lived, studied, and worked in the Himalayan region for over forty years.

 

The son of French philosopher Jean-François Revel and artist Yahne Le Toumelin, Matthieu was born in France in 1946 and grew up among the personalities and ideas of Paris’ intellectual and artistic circles. He earned a Ph.D. degree in cell genetics at the renowned Institut Pasteur under the Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob

 

Hello TaraMaiden,

 

I've never heard of him. Thanks for sharing about him.

 

He writes:

 

"Among all the clumsy, blind and extreme ways we go about building happiness, one of the most sterile is egocentrism. “When selfish happiness is the only goal in life, life soon becomes goalless,” wrote Romain Rolland.

 

Agreed. I also think life gets boring and empty when selfish happiness is the only goal in life.

 

Even if we display every outward sign of happiness, we can never be truly happy if we dissociate ourselves from the happiness of others. This in no way requires us to neglect our own happiness. Our desire for happiness is as legitimate as anyone else’s. And in order to love others, we must learn to love ourselves.

 

Agreed

 

It’s not about swooning over the color of our own eyes, our figure or some personality trait, but about giving due recognition to the desire to live each moment of existence as a moment of meaning and fulfillment. To love oneself is to love life. It is essential to understand that we make ourselves happy in making others happy.

 

Agreed

In brief, the goal of life is a deep state of well-being and wisdom at all moments, accompanied by love for every being, and not by that individual love that modern society relentlessly drums into us. True happiness arises from the essential goodness that wholeheartedly desires everyone to find meaning in their lives. It is a love that is always available, without showiness or self-interest. The immutable simplicity of a good heart."

 

From here.

 

discuss.

 

That is beautiful!

 

I believe Jesus teaches this too when he commands his followers to love others and to help those in need.

 

Thanks for sharing!

[johan]

I think recent events have shown that you can change your not-so-good heart out for a good one at any time. Even at 71 years of age. It's never too late.

[BetheButterfly]

I think recent events have shown that you can change your not-so-good heart out for a good one at any time. Even at 71 years of age. It's never too late.

 

100% agreed :) :) (I'm smiling a lot to fulfill the quota) :)

[mercy]

I thought Buddhism was a way of life, not a religion.

 

OP, great post, thank you.

[wuggle]

In brief, the goal of life is a deep state of well-being and wisdom at all moments, accompanied by love for every being...

 

I have struggled all my life with trying to find the answer to the question "why am I here", I have studied and questioned many religions and world views (including 'Bumble the brave kitten' ) and find much truth in buddhism, possible more than in any other religion or philosophy. But I'm struggling with this statement.

 

I have, for fleeting moments only, through meditation, beer, depression or other means, felt that complete inter-connectedness, and one-ness with everything, where the questions themselves melt away, but these are fleeting moments only and I often question whether these are not the 'truth' but merely a distraction. If I achieve this state of "well being" for myself how is that answering the question "why am I here". I often think that I dont mind being unhappy in myself untill I have an answer to the question itself "why am I here" ? to me I can live with myself until I find the answer, as long as I don't stop or settle for some answer that deep deep down I know isn't true. Even if that often doesn't make me happy.

 

Maybe, the reason for me being here is to lay bricks, or fix plumbing but I'm not doing that, maybe it's to realise that there is a god and I have been wrong to question that all my life. Maybe I will never know.

 

The best answer that I have at the moment is that my own happiness is irrelevant, my state of well being likewise. I think I am a member of a race of beings whose "evolution" I am part of. My own personal specialty is IT, and when I look at the evolution of our species I do see a merging of humanity with technology and am not unhappy that I have done my own little bit to aid that. Maybe that is the reason for my life. Maybe the reason for every persons life is so specific to them that it is completely different. I sometimes don't mind making a friend unhappy if I honestly think that by doing so I am helping them, maybe to learn something or grow in some way.

 

I guess I just struggle sometimes with the "stock" aim of life expressed above, When we have this "deep state of well being" what the hell are we supposed to do then ? I sometimes think this sentiment is too simplistic.

 

Happy to be proven wrong though.

[TaraMaiden]

I should've said gods plural. And Buddhists don't worship a personified God. That may be the crucial difference, nor is the notion of God as omnipotent. There are personified "gods" (devas) and there is the notion of a universal spirit outside the samsara. Different schools of Buddhism react to these ideas differently. For instance, mine considers the devas and hungry ghosts and such to be more metaphorical than the reality of alternate realms layered together.

 

I can expand more when I have greater time.

 

I had a feeling you meant 'Gods'....which is why I didn't jump to conclusions and phrased it more as a request for clarification, rather than as a request that you clarify your interpretation....

I also wanted to avoid putting words into your mouth...

 

To all reading;

There are several different branches of Buddhism, generally divided between two main schools or 'Vehicles':

Theravada, the oldest surviving Buddhist school, and Mahayana.

Mahayana itself can be subdivided into other traditions, the most prominent of which, I would say, is Tibetan Buddhism.

Zen Buddhism would also come under the 'umbrella' of Mahayana, but this is an extremely simplified overview....

 

I follow Theravada.

As her name may suggest, zengirl follows... Zen..... but I could very well be wrong. After all, 'Tara' is a Tibetan Buddhism female Buddha, and as i said, I follow Theravada....

 

But this would perhaps illustrate that labelling and 'sectioning' people into different categories is not essential, or even productive, if you like....

Where i would say zengirl and i agree, is that the 'gods' she spoke of - are not omnipotent, and eternal.

They too are subject to an impermanent existence - and yes, there are certain realms' inhabited by different beings, born into these realms, and all these realms are personifications, or allegorical existences... many eminent scholars of Buddhism view these different realms as being representative of 'Mind- states'....

 

just thought I'd fill in a few details....

 

This is why, even in Buddhist circles, there is occasionally discussion as to whether Buddhism is a Philosophy or a Religion.

I consider it to be both.

[TaraMaiden]

I have struggled all my life with trying to find the answer to the question "why am I here", I have studied and questioned many religions and world views (including 'Bumble the brave kitten' ) and find much truth in buddhism, possible more than in any other religion or philosophy. But I'm struggling with this statement.

 

I have, for fleeting moments only, through meditation, beer, depression or other means, felt that complete inter-connectedness, and one-ness with everything, where the questions themselves melt away, but these are fleeting moments only and I often question whether these are not the 'truth' but merely a distraction. If I achieve this state of "well being" for myself how is that answering the question "why am I here". I often think that I dont mind being unhappy in myself untill I have an answer to the question itself "why am I here" ?

 

The reason the answer eludes people, is because - there is no answer.

It would, insofar as some eminent Buddhist minds would say, be considered an 'unconjecturable'.

When people ask the question "Why am I here?" they're asking the wrong question.

 

The question they should be asking, is -

"Well, here I am. what shall I do while I'm here?"

 

To many, you only get one shot at it.

so every 60 seconds you spend miserable, was a whole minute in which you could have chosen to have fun.

Be good, and be kind to others.

 

it really doesn't matter one iota whether heaven exists, or not.

The important is to try to at least behave as if it did.

[wuggle]

The reason the answer eludes people, is because - there is no answer.

It would, insofar as some eminent Buddhist minds would say, be considered an 'unconjecturable'.

When people ask the question "Why am I here?" they're asking the wrong question.

 

The question they should be asking, is -

"Well, here I am. what shall I do while I'm here?"

 

To me they are the same question. "why am I here ?" and "what shall I do while I'm here"

 

To many, you only get one shot at it.

so every 60 seconds you spend miserable, was a whole minute in which you could have chosen to have fun.

Be good, and be kind to others.

 

I don't mind having fun, quite like it. I do try not to be miserable, and with the help of the good things in my life (eg my wife) manage it most of the time.

 

 

it really doesn't matter one iota whether heaven exists, or not.

The important is to try to at least behave as if it did.

 

Now this I have a problem with. I can't behave as if heaven exists if every fibre of my being screams out that it probably doesn't. From my understanding of life at this point in my life, There probably is no heaven. The universe if not bothered about my happiness (even though I am ) so I can only behave to the best of my understanding until that understanding changes in some way, and right now I believe that I am part of a race of beings whose evolution I am a miniscule part of. I must try to help people understand IT, I must seek to create something beautiful (no matter how long that takes me to learn how to do), I must seek to find out exactly what I should be doing whilst trying to do what I think I should.

 

Even I'm confused now

[zengirl]

I thought Buddhism was a way of life, not a religion.

 

OP, great post, thank you.

 

No, it's a religion. Though it's also a way of life. And it's a more 'forgiving' religion in some ways than what Westerners might consider "religions." But so are most Eastern religions. It's very frustrating when people who do not follow your religion suggest it's not a religion, btw.

 

I had a feeling you meant 'Gods'....which is why I didn't jump to conclusions and phrased it more as a request for clarification, rather than as a request that you clarify your interpretation....

I also wanted to avoid putting words into your mouth...

 

Right. When I type on the iPad, things go awry. I was also splitting focus. Sorry. I could go into long rapt discussion about God and gods in Buddhism. I think it's rather complex, if you look at all the schools and all the rich history of Buddhism. It's not a God-centered religion, which is why people often say Buddhism has no God (or gods). In the Mahayana school, there is more said on something closer to a universal force, I think than in the school you follow (I've studied pieces of the Theravada school, but you can correct me if you like). I am a Zen Buddhist, yes, though I would also distinguish that by saying I'm a Japanese Zen Buddhist. Which means that while I think about such things as I'm going to describe and basically believe them, it's not really central to my religion in any way. Zen just isn't about that stuff, particularly the Japanese tradition.

 

Mostly, the difference is in things like the Lotus Sutra, which certainly does not make Buddha "God" in any way (I've heard people say that and cringed) but suggests that he was also not merely man or even close but an instrument of the universe or universal spirit. To me, that spirit is a type of God, though it is not a Creator. A Creator, as seen in many other religions, is merely ONE type of God. There are others, I would say 3 basic kinds:

 

1. Gods-as-morals (like the devas); never really a singular God

2. Creator-gods, generally these are solo, but not always

3. The god-force, a universal consciousness, etc.

 

I just don't follow the idea that God has to look like what it does in the Judeo-Christian tradition. There are many other traditions out there.

 

But, sorry, I didn't mean to go off-topic. I hate hate hate when people try to tell me my religion is not a religion, which is the only reason I put those parenthetical statements there in the first place.

 

But this would perhaps illustrate that labelling and 'sectioning' people into different categories is not essential, or even productive, if you like....

Where i would say zengirl and i agree, is that the 'gods' she spoke of - are not omnipotent, and eternal.

 

The devas are not, no, but the conscious force of the universe may well be. We cannot be sure. (I could throw in all kinds of Buddhist terms and stuff, but I'm trying to minimize that.)

 

This is why, even in Buddhist circles, there is occasionally discussion as to whether Buddhism is a Philosophy or a Religion.

I consider it to be both.

 

I consider all religions to also be philosophies, so I do as well. However, I think questioning whether Buddhism is a religion or not seems a very Western thing to do, fwiw. Of course, in Zen we question everything, but all questions are not the same.

[mercy]

It's very frustrating when people who do not follow your religion suggest it's not a religion, btw.

 

 

 

 

I meant no disrespect. I have been taught it is a way of life. I am a Christian who practices Zen meditation.

 

Sorry to have frustrated you.

[zengirl]

I meant no disrespect. I have been taught it is a way of life. I am a Christian who practices Zen meditation.

 

Sorry to have frustrated you.

 

Oh, I'm sorry if I overreacted. I've been inundated with ignorance lately and I may have been a bit too sharp. ZEN itself can be a way of life, yes, and we can separate the practice of Zen (it's many practices) from Buddhism. Just as we can find many other things in other religions to practice without worship.

 

Last summer, I read an article stating Christians shouldn't do yoga because it was a religious practice. It kind of is, sure, as it comes from a religion, but you can absolutely do it (or Zen meditation) without being religious about it.

[TaraMaiden]

To me they are the same question. "why am I here ?" and "what shall I do while I'm here"

To my mind, the first question seeks purpose.

the second question seeks vocation.

and no, it doesn't have to be religious, spiritual or aligned to any calling.

 

 

I don't mind having fun, quite like it. I do try not to be miserable, and with the help of the good things in my life (eg my wife) manage it most of the time.

you forget i know what you're like if your soufflé doesn't rise....

 

 

Now this I have a problem with.

 

Actually, i don't think you do....

 

I can't behave as if heaven exists if every fibre of my being screams out that it probably doesn't. From my understanding of life at this point in my life, There probably is no heaven. The universe if not bothered about my happiness (even though I am ) so I can only behave to the best of my understanding until that understanding changes in some way, and right now I believe that I am part of a race of beings whose evolution I am a miniscule part of. I must try to help people understand IT, I must seek to create something beautiful (no matter how long that takes me to learn how to do), I must seek to find out exactly what I should be doing whilst trying to do what I think I should.

I think you pretty much have it in a nutshell...

Some people spend their entire lives wondering and pondering the big question... but sometimes, rather than waste precious time and grey cells, our best bet is just to be the best person we can be, learn from our errors, try to not repeat them, and live life so that on our deathbeds we can say, "overall, I did pretty good." Touch the lives of just one other person with happiness kindness, love and joy - and we've made a difference.

 

 

 

Last summer, I read an article stating Christians shouldn't do yoga because it was a religious practice. It kind of is, sure, as it comes from a religion, but you can absolutely do it (or Zen meditation) without being religious about it.

 

all those following this thread might like to read up on Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk who integrated Buddhism into his Theistic practice, and Jim Pym, a Quaker, "A [Zen] Buddhist for 40 years, as well as being closely involved with the Quaker movement, Pym aims this book at those who don't realize that embracing Christian values can be complementary to being a Buddhist."

The book in question, is this one.