ajani_mgo
09-24-2006, 06:26 AM
I have been watching and thinking about Buddhist asceticism nowadays, and I start to wonder where on the Middle Path they stand?
I am not against the asceticism practices I cite, I just require an answer for them - those asceticism I really spite are those that clearly do not have a clear meaning and are the worst forms of human denial.
There are monks in Japan who would soak themselves in cold water naked, something most of us consider dehumanizing and being a terrible experience. Yet as the monks meditate, and even as scientists attempt to rationalize their explainations for it, their body temperature doesn't fall, and in fact some times even rises. For this, I believe that we cannot reasonably say that they are "suffering" as is.
The nature of suffering in Buddhism is usually mental, as even Buddhas themselves may not be fred from that of the physical. When the Buddha first turned the Wheel, and formulated the Middle Path, he advocated a clear balance between the merry-makers who cared not about spiritual liberation, and the ascetics who could be said to be committing suicide via their methods of excessive starving, pain-inducing etc. etc.
Yet as is the nature of faith today as it was in the past, all forms of the physical torment one may feel will very strangely be justified and ignored by the mind of the faithful or the fanatical religious. All forms of pain, injustice, discomfort, unexpected events etc. etc. of life always seem to be alleviated as long as spiritual opium is there to use, or if htere is meaning given to the suffering.
The first failure of this opiate, usually results from disillusionment from what one is doing, and consequent refusal to use this opiate again.
The Buddha would have continued leading his subjectively-"happy" life of an ascetic if he had chosen to continue his self-denial methods. However, once his disillusionment crept in strong enough, he totally had a loss of faith, instead of turning back to his methods once more as opium.
If I were to raise a parallel of the Buddha with something more accessible to us of today, it would have to be the Christians who would pray upon something unpleasant. The power of faith is truly astonishing, as I have witnessed both from a first-person and third-person view many times in many forms, and those who continue to cling onto God often find themselves back in His Hands, before blaming themselves for doubting Him initially. Such often becomes a cyclic meaning of being faithful for the sake of being faithful, an unconditional placement of faith in spiritual liberation.
In many aspects of life, such faith would be good, as I often wish for all to utilize their faith in some parts of life rather than the others. After liberation, I suppose the Buddha saw the flaw in using such faith in spiritual affairs, having been through such loss of faith thrice in his life, twice being from his yogic masters' guidance, and coincidentally with very good timing of the Kalamas' question to him, he spoke of such other ways of approaching spirituality rather than through blind faith in the Kalama Sutra.
Going back to the topic, for those whose disillusionment forbids them from reaching onto Him again will in contrary, lose their faith forever, as did the Buddha.
The Hindu brahmins themselves in their asceticism would not really have felt much disillusionment in what they were doing wasn't it, as they did so by faith? They would not have classified their methods as being OFF the Middle Path if they had their version. In fact, this WAS The Path, not the Middle Path.
Modern Japanese ascetics cannot exactly be said to not follow the Middle Path, for they do in fact. The esoteric Sakya schools of today also teach methods of making the worst extremities painless and in fact, very spiritually-enriching with all due respect to the Buddha's Middle Path. Yet the fact that they put themselves up to such physical "torture", even as they do not feel it, seems like a dangerous treading on the meaning of Buddhism.
Well, one thing for sure is that most of us here would not just be running into the forests and start ascetic practices any day soon - to us Buddhism is the everyday moment, without the need for the unusual practice.
But knowing that such other interpretations of the Dharma exist, on where exactly do we draw the line, on what is ascetism, and what is practice? Is practice concerned with all that is mental only, or is there anything physically-demeaning that cannot be considered practice? :rockon:
I am not against the asceticism practices I cite, I just require an answer for them - those asceticism I really spite are those that clearly do not have a clear meaning and are the worst forms of human denial.
There are monks in Japan who would soak themselves in cold water naked, something most of us consider dehumanizing and being a terrible experience. Yet as the monks meditate, and even as scientists attempt to rationalize their explainations for it, their body temperature doesn't fall, and in fact some times even rises. For this, I believe that we cannot reasonably say that they are "suffering" as is.
The nature of suffering in Buddhism is usually mental, as even Buddhas themselves may not be fred from that of the physical. When the Buddha first turned the Wheel, and formulated the Middle Path, he advocated a clear balance between the merry-makers who cared not about spiritual liberation, and the ascetics who could be said to be committing suicide via their methods of excessive starving, pain-inducing etc. etc.
Yet as is the nature of faith today as it was in the past, all forms of the physical torment one may feel will very strangely be justified and ignored by the mind of the faithful or the fanatical religious. All forms of pain, injustice, discomfort, unexpected events etc. etc. of life always seem to be alleviated as long as spiritual opium is there to use, or if htere is meaning given to the suffering.
The first failure of this opiate, usually results from disillusionment from what one is doing, and consequent refusal to use this opiate again.
The Buddha would have continued leading his subjectively-"happy" life of an ascetic if he had chosen to continue his self-denial methods. However, once his disillusionment crept in strong enough, he totally had a loss of faith, instead of turning back to his methods once more as opium.
If I were to raise a parallel of the Buddha with something more accessible to us of today, it would have to be the Christians who would pray upon something unpleasant. The power of faith is truly astonishing, as I have witnessed both from a first-person and third-person view many times in many forms, and those who continue to cling onto God often find themselves back in His Hands, before blaming themselves for doubting Him initially. Such often becomes a cyclic meaning of being faithful for the sake of being faithful, an unconditional placement of faith in spiritual liberation.
In many aspects of life, such faith would be good, as I often wish for all to utilize their faith in some parts of life rather than the others. After liberation, I suppose the Buddha saw the flaw in using such faith in spiritual affairs, having been through such loss of faith thrice in his life, twice being from his yogic masters' guidance, and coincidentally with very good timing of the Kalamas' question to him, he spoke of such other ways of approaching spirituality rather than through blind faith in the Kalama Sutra.
Going back to the topic, for those whose disillusionment forbids them from reaching onto Him again will in contrary, lose their faith forever, as did the Buddha.
The Hindu brahmins themselves in their asceticism would not really have felt much disillusionment in what they were doing wasn't it, as they did so by faith? They would not have classified their methods as being OFF the Middle Path if they had their version. In fact, this WAS The Path, not the Middle Path.
Modern Japanese ascetics cannot exactly be said to not follow the Middle Path, for they do in fact. The esoteric Sakya schools of today also teach methods of making the worst extremities painless and in fact, very spiritually-enriching with all due respect to the Buddha's Middle Path. Yet the fact that they put themselves up to such physical "torture", even as they do not feel it, seems like a dangerous treading on the meaning of Buddhism.
Well, one thing for sure is that most of us here would not just be running into the forests and start ascetic practices any day soon - to us Buddhism is the everyday moment, without the need for the unusual practice.
But knowing that such other interpretations of the Dharma exist, on where exactly do we draw the line, on what is ascetism, and what is practice? Is practice concerned with all that is mental only, or is there anything physically-demeaning that cannot be considered practice? :rockon: