I dont consider myself a Buddhist, but for some reason I always stuck close to it and studied the texts...

So even they recognize Budhism is Satanic

Buddhism is one of the most interesting belief-systems there is. It's simply fascinating to study and read about.

That is a bad view, because an Arhat is simply an arhat, there is not failed arhat, because then they would not actually be one.

Buddhism teaches to go into the "hells" to save beings who cannot escape their detrimental karmic reactions without a hand

That is not Satanic

not op, but you're right. the modern day church is built on the ten commandments, a lake of fire, and fear because it's easy and simple and people don't want to ask questions they can't get definite answers to. but the real beauty of the bible shines when you read and contemplate the life and teachings of jesus christ.

Jesus was not even a stream enterer, since he would have know that nibanna was possible and that God is a fantasy. Jesus was more a Hindu.

God is not fantasy to Christ. God is the center in Christ.

And Hindu isn't a religion, the "hindu" thought is more applicable. For example, He was learned in Vedic Scripture.

Nietzsche summed it up best when describing Buddhism as less of a religion and moreso psychological hygiene. And he was right for the most part, considering how many partake in a secular manner.

As far as addressing such questions in Christianity, I'd rely on talking to a seasoned confessional priest than bothering figuring out which of the 50 gorillian Christian sects has the right set of answers.

It seems to me that the greatest problem is the conflict of narratives. Buddhism is introspective and focuses on the individual, while Christianity is operating along a paradigm of Redemption. Action and consequence are how it displays as such in the Bible.

Buddha seems to have the right idea in not having a sole seat of authority (god), and thus not setting a stringent, dumb model of spite or redemption. This opens up the conversation much more, helping people learn more about why they shouldn't do certain things, rather than why they *shall* not.

>For example, He was learned in Vedic Scripture.
that would make him a Brahmin, a Hindu is someone who lives to the east of the Indus.

the buddha said that there was one retard who claimed to be god

Yes, Buddha would be more of a gnostic than an nicean Christian.

Christ = Krishna confirmed

Buddhism and Eastern philosophy first of all accept existence and look for a better way to live it. Christianity and Western philosophy asks what existence is, while certain sects have similar questions as easterners. I very much view Buddhism and Eastern philosophy as nonsense, and unimportant questions

But you should read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy

there is no buddhist philosophy, but there is an attempt by westerners to build one [especially a political philosophy, because westerners have failed to found one to come close to their fantasy of their liberal/libertarian society]

This

Zen Buddhism is based on meditation. Sit, breathe, live in the moment. When you learn how to do it, it makes life easier.

Op here. I appreciate the answers. But I have a counter argument to your claims. Buddhism describes why people live better lives than others, why people are more talented than others, and what will happen to all of this when we die: through the rebirth system. Some of us live better lives than others because of the efforts of our previous life. Some people have the mind of an ant, which implies that they were an ant in a previous life. Some people live lethargically and do nothing, which suggest that those people will be reborn as dung beetles and moths. Perhaps a person who has studied science all his life will be reborn as someone with a natural facility for science, such as Albert Einstein. A person who is charitable may be reborn into a heaven realm, while a mass murderer will be reborn in a hell realm.

What Im saying is that buddhism describes WHY we are living the lives we are living, and what will happen to all of our talents and efforts when we die. I have never ran across a passage in the bible that describes this. Am I missing something?

I partake in zazen myself.

nobody on earth knows what ''why'' means. Stop being a rationalist.

Also, there are two possibilities to read the word ''past life''.
-there is the rebirth interpretation like you said [and rebirth is the most retarded way to name it, become it is more birth than re-birth]
-the taking of experience as personal
which means that whatever you experience in daily life [people call this reality], your dreams and what you experience in deep jhana as ''past life'' is something that is not personal [because not permanent, uncontrollable, therefore stupid to take this seriously once you want to be happy]
it is true that some people live things in jhana which are ''like daily life'' and you live ''again'' ''previous'' experiences, but they are not personal. the whole point of this observation is to stop taking personally what you feel and think . THese past lives are not yours, just like your dreams are not yours, just like your daily reality is not yours

you do not need the whole mechanism about the rebirth to see the dhamma. THe second interpretation is always true and it is the one which counts.
There is no way to tell whether rebirth exist. perhaps yes, perhaps no.
BUT
without the faith in rebirth, there is no incentive for anybody below stream entry to take the dhamma. Most people who have not seen the dhamma totally loves their lives and even think that the dhamma is stupid.
At stream entry, what drives you to nibanna is the lack of permanence to be happy in what you think and feel.

So once more, before stream entry, you can care about rebirths, after stream entry you no longer care about this.
Also, once you deal with rebirths, nobody but the buddha knows how karma works [and it is not like I kill ants so I will be reborn ugly or I give food to hobos so I will be rich next life] and he even said that there is no point thinking about it [which is true as soon as you have right view [either by faith or at stream entry]

...

What's a good starting point for a westerner with absolutely 0 experience with eastern thought?
I was suggested 'The three pillars of zen', is it good?

Siddhartha is a Catholic saint.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

Catholicism is Satanic devil religion

bump

Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh

It reconciles Christianity and Buddhism so well that even a small child could understand the simplicity of it. Very good book for the Christian / Buddhist who sees the similarities and benefit of both thoughts of religion / Philosophy

christians are bad at contemplation. they do not even have a clear exposition of the first jhana

People all the time admit that they have no control over their lives.

"I feel good today." "this song makes me happy." "that smell makes me hungry." "this movie makes me angry." "I am tired right now."

We all admit that we have no control over our lives, yet we are ignorant about our lack of control. Buddhism addresses this issue. Christianity, as far as I can tell, doesnt.

To me, the pragmatic problem of christianity is that they have priests+monks, instead of having monks like in buddhism. Normal people are left alone with the priests who are just failed monks. And monks in christianity do not communicate well about their meditation.
Then of course, there is issue that christians do not have the right view, even though ayya khema says that a few christians monks manage to understand the right view in some book form the middle age.

>And monks in christianity do not communicate well about their meditation

Another strange thing about christianity is that the bible doesnt even discuss any form of meditation. The most information that I have ever found about the subject is "you do not need to worship god like you do other gods" which is in Matthews.

Even still, I find it strange that the bible doesnt address a phenomenon which some religions are entirely founded on, like Zen.

You like it because it says you're responsible for everything - and you make your own comfort - path - wellbeing, your own mind everything for you - is done alone - do not be attached to anything or anyone - don't expect anything or anyone to help you, don't expect to reach enlightenment suddenly by virtue of something else other than hard work from your side.

It excludes God and other people - it's just you that matters. And you learn to develop no attachments.

It's like:
>Acknowledge life is meaningless, then acknowledge that acknowledging stuff is meaningless. You need to reach enlightenment. This enlightenment can only be found inside your mind
"Your bussy mind keeps you in noise and darkness, only the immutable truth can wake you up - BUT the truth is not in the concreteness of forms but rather in the abstract of thought"

Thing is if you get attached to Buddhism then you're not actually practicing it.

Buddhism monks see it like - in all this process - look around nature, how it is balance. Be like nature, flow in life and in your practice to reach ( englightmenet if you remember that's the purpose ) - then when for yourself you choose to live in harmony with nature around you - health and peace of mind comes - and that's the step to enlightenment to have that peace of mind, that numbness before biological demise which will destroy you regardless.

Christianity: be attached to Jesus to God.

Buddhism: be attached to nothing and no one.

Everyone is going to hell, but trough Jesus you can just live forever.

They end up both being "attached to yourself".

>Buddhism monks see it like - in all this process - look around nature, how it is balance. Be like nature, flow in life and in your practice to reach ( englightmenet if you remember that's the purpose ) - then when for yourself you choose to live in harmony with nature around you - health and peace of mind comes - and that's the step to enlightenment to have that peace of mind, that numbness before biological demise which will destroy you regardless.

I came to buddhism because I was interested in becoming closer to nature. I have bad anxiety problems, and I thought that I could cure my problems naturally instead of using drugs.

East-Asian buddhism like Zen keeps nature close, but the older schools of buddhism like Theravada actually arent very intimate with nature. Theravada comes off as dry and mathematical, with no room for feelings really. that's the way I interpret it, anyway, I could be wrong because I am not an expert.

So a cognitive dissonance begets from this difference. I dont really know if I should "be like the zen buddha" or "be like the theravada buddha," because both characters are very different in my eyes.

Even in buddhism you are attached to Dharma, and in Christianity having its Dharma be the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Since we are naturally parts of these things, coming from them, it isn't attachment that is detrimental.

Depends the Christian because you categorize them based off of presumption rather than consider a Christian who studies Dharma and Jnana.

No. The "psychological hygiene" aspect of Buddhism is just a preliminary practice. There is a lot more to Buddhism after that groundwork has been laid down. And as far as Inunderstand it Buddhism doesn't even believe in the individual. There is no "individual", it's an illusory concept.

Can anyone explain what this image is about?

Would it be correct to say that gnostic Christianity comes closer to the Buddhist way of seeing things than other Christian sects?

bump

it is the origin of dukkha explained once you are good at jhanas

Q&A Forum: PATICCA SAMUPPADA by Bhante Punnaji (11-May-2016)

youtube.com/watch?v=eVxEJJwsMuM

bvobp

Sakyamuni taught that there are thousands of gates to Nirvana. Some of them look profoundly different from one-another, but they all ultimately lead to the same extinction.

That's literally the antithesis of Buddhism.

This is correct. Buddhism is very much a religion.

there is no difference between religion and non-religion. in fact, people are not even able to say what society is a not a religion.

Buddhism and Shinto are both pretty based.

I actually really like the polytheistic aspect of Shintoism and the Buddhist theology intwined with it.

>Buddhism gives answers to the questions that other religions dont even bring up.

No it doesn't and that's the sort of claim only a theologically illiterate and ignorant fool would make.

We don't need Buddha to asks these questions. The bible does asks these questions in a way by giving us answers. Sin good and evil. There's only one thing you need to know. God is real. He came to die for us. Repent turn from evil and you will be saved. I'm sure Buddhism gives great advice for asking knowledge and reason questioning and so its good for learning

I'll never understood this died for our sins thing.

God cursed us at the Garden of Eden just by saying so, and has to send a blood sacrifice to earth to remove it?

Yet women still feel the pain of childbirth, and people still die?

Because we are still on Earth and have not died yet. It is because we are still capable of sin here. God did say life wouldn't be easy following him to take up your cross but you will be rewarded

So why send us here at all if the only reason we suffer is because we're here?

You are now aware that this is a Greco-Buddhist sculpture.

Why are christcucks the most ignorant, anti-intellectual trashposters out there? No fucking interest in anything, no curiousity about how other cultures have responded to the human condition, no fucking feeling for nuance or how the world works, how the human mind works (these niggas actually treat easterners like a fucking alien race, and simple, pragmatic advice like "take a step back from your thoughts if they're impacting your quality of life" is treated like fucking bizzaro alien advice from the 5th dimension), what we are and what is best for us, just this fucking pamphlet copy paste bullshit every time.

Fuck you. And the only thing I hate more than Walmart Christians like you are fedoras.

I understand what your saying but not all life is suffering either. Everyone has their difficulties and problems but life is pretty good most are alive and healthy have families that can support themselves and have fun. Along with that also comes hardships. We sent our selves here and now God came here so we can send ourselves up there.

>No it doesn't and that's the sort of claim only a theologically illiterate and ignorant fool would make.

Yes, it does. Buddhism explains why there is inequality in this world, why some people are born in better circumstances and live better lives than others: karma from previous lives. Christianity doesnt explain why thousands of people are born and suffer in Africa and die of aids as babies.

Lolz I said it was great for knowledge and learning. Buddha doesn't claim to be God tho so in that whole part of it it's useless. Relax mang

Because they're non-believers.

Which is a really fucked up reason.

Dont really care for it but it has a great Aesthetic. Can Veeky Forums guide me on entry level antiques and objects to collect.

Much of the Japanese population is atheist and their society is 10x more safer than the "Christain" United States. There is a gaping hole in the Christian philosophy that being a non believer = bad things will happen to you.

Yeah but no one questions why non-christians are happy.

I feel like the Catholic Church (And Christianity as a whole, really) dicked itself into a corner.

The entire religion and any philosophy attached to it (Barring fringe stuff that would get you killed some ~400 years ago, IE Girodano Bruno) is dependent upon the existence of a being that doesn't exist (Or, at least, is easily dismissed as not existing). Without that being, the entire thing becomes hogwash.

Compare this to, say, Buddhism or Confucianism, where the actual existence of the Buddha or Confucius is irrelevant as it outlines a method and philosophy that only involves humans while Christianity outlines a method and philosophy that involves humans and the supernatural. Removing the supernatural from Buddhism leaves behind the methods and philosophy. Removing the supernatural from Christianity leaves nothing.

Christians weren't even able to overthrow Shinto.

Athiesm really began picking up once the printing press came about and people were able to learn about different religions and discover that nonabrahamic people weren't near as barbaric as portrayed.

so guys I still try to get jhanas and still fail.

In the last year, I manage to get 3 pathetic results, lasting for a few seconds
-first was equanimity towards my perception
a few months later
-then it was like the bliss of some jhanas, and where the breath disappears [I had to force the attention to the nostril to see it]
a few months
-last is a bliss in the head, from meta towards a cat

the best experience is the second one. there was not really a duality of self/non self until I had to search for breath [because I wanted the bliss and the bliss was only with breathing in]. it was nice.
also, I always remained conscious.

>-first was equanimity towards my perception
and the perception was a little ball in dark, very far way form me, like would be a planet if I were in space

>Christians weren't even able to overthrow Shinto.

Japan persecuted and anihilited them using violence.

A common Christian view is that we live in a fallen state because of sin. As such the world is an inherently unfair place. However we know that God looks for virtue in men. Christ said that even the smallest virtuous deeds receive a large reward in heaven. Therefore your lot in life is irrelevant, since virtue is the sole aim of life no matter your station.

I don't see how karma can account for this unfairness in every situation. How can a baby who dies soon after it's birth atone for the sins of a past life? Or why do good people then encounter calamity and disaster? And if Karma is a kind of sliding scale from absolute depravity to complete enlightenment, why are there not countless benevolent sages walking the Earth, who are near to reaching the point of transcendence? Again, in Christianity we accept the fallen nature of human existence. Yet we know the Lord is merciful to redeem the lives of his servants from death. The concept of Karma, however, gives no such promises.

This is simply not true. I advise you to stay away from American Evangelical types.

>A common Christian view is that we live in a fallen state because of sin....Again, in Christianity we accept the fallen nature of human existence. Yet we know the Lord is merciful to redeem the lives of his servants from death.

Very nicely put, it clears a few things up. You simply dont hear Christianity described like this in American catholic circles. And I am not denying that Christianity doesnt address the issues I bring up, I am simply trying to challenge the Christians (and buddhists) here on this board to see what they have to say about them. Modern day Christians need to be challenged for their beliefs, they need to learn to think critically.

>How can a baby who dies soon after it's birth atone for the sins of a past life?

Some acts towards humanity are so vile that they require multiple lives of suffering and pain to make up for them. A person can live eons in hell realms, be born into the animal kingdom, and then be born into shitty lives in shitty countries before having all of his bad karma extinguished.

>why are there not countless benevolent sages walking the Earth, who are near to reaching the point of transcendence?

because the one thing that is keeping us bound to karma is the thirst for the fruit of karma itself. We want to live and experience things in the world, so we keep seeking things to do, aka we are still thirsty for the fruit of karma

>The concept of Karma, however, gives no such promises

Karma promises nothing. Karma is what it is: it is a natural fact of life. Even if you know good and well the nature of karma, you cannot transcend from it without mentally and physically experiencing a karmic cleansing aka enlightenment.

Admittedly I suck at jhanas as well. Ive read all of the interpretations, ive practiced countless methods. I dont even know what to do anymore, so I just sit for 30 min and try to observe what happens. I have had some cool experiences but nothing tangible that I can rely on every time I practice.

But how can you have such confidence when it comes to spiritual things? I find with many eastern religions the spiritual realm is described in such detail that it seems almost scientific. I seriously doubt a human would be given such insight into the realm of the spirit.

Christianity makes very few spiritual assertions. We say that there is one supreme benevolent God in three persons, and an evil spiritual force which is at odds with God. We believe in a hell or 'underworld' of some vague description, and a heaven which is equally vague in it's joys. As Christians we don't profess to know so much about the spiritual world and the inner workings of how God operates in the universe. We see these as mysteries to be grappled with and contemplated. I think mystery is a necessary part of it - since we don't fully understand the physical world, I think it's unlikely anyone could have such understanding of the spiritual world.

Eastern religions don't pretend to understand everything, either.

They only understand the soul, the metaphysical that they are tied to. No one understands the end-state that ends incarnations.

Anyone notice how porn stars and the average liberal that holds the potential for degeneracy chooses Buddhism?

I once chose Buddhism for these same reasons, I thought it would allow me to live a free life.

What gave me issues though was I had some out of body experiences that were not pleasant. One in which I was taught by a man, in a white robe, brown hair and beard...it was Christ.

I didn't even believe in God or Christ after that experience. I opted to pursue Buddhism and new age and collected a ton of information. It just never sustained me though. It gave me a lil sense of pride to see things I never saw prior, I guess that's the enlightening aspect of it but it wasn't purposeful. It's like there so much emphasis on posturing, how you sit and talk, taking time to meditate which can be boring and unfulfilling. But I tried it because I thought it would make me feel better.

Then in august of 2015 I was sick of the emptiness, I caved in and finally used my reference points, which were those out of body experiences where I guess I saw God. Began to dive into that and seek even more information.

Now instead of focusing on me, which I'm still guilty of, but I'm aware of others now. More considerate and careful. When Buddhism kind of was just used to make me feel good when I wasn't feeling good. I don't know...Buddhism to me felt like incomplete teachings for some reason.

You were a liberal pornstar?

...

Buddhism is extremely specific, specific to the point of being idiosyncratic. In fact, when buddhism was established it was idiosyncratic, because buddhism holds that there is no soul in rebirth whereas the other eastern religions at the time believed in a permanent soul. This begs the question: where did all of these views come from?

The legend is that the buddha was endowed with knowledge during the week preceding his enlightenment. The first thing he learned was his history of rebirths, and could recount them with ease. After that he continued to meditate and learned even more about the world.

>"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion

>"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#awakening

So by becoming enlightened, one becomes aware of the inner workings of the system of life. And by the time the buddha was on his death bead he had already established a working religion, where he taught the dhamma and cosmology of the spiritual world. It is said that some monks became enlightened just by being around the buddha, because his presence was so strong and the monk's karma had reached it's tipping point of becoming extinguished.

bump

Have you ever noticed that most self described western Buddhist do not take vows and do not strictly follow Buddhist moral models?

I guess its fair to judge all of Buddhism based on them

Christianity is the erasure of a belief system that once addressed what you ask, the various European Pagan faiths. There is much to learn about physics, the origin of all, and the esoteric nature of life if you know where and how to look. Buddhism is part of the greater school of thought known as "Hermeticism," one which was never erased by the Abrahamic cults. To understand the nature of all you must study various faiths, there is much Buddhism has left out through the ages.

There are even aspects of Christianity that can help you come to Knowing. However, it's a very juvenile cultists' depiction of what lies beyond, and most of it is borrowed from the Pagan faiths of other cultures.

what's the name of the Buddhist deity that punishes me for my desires and tortures me in the area around my umbilical scar if I don't consume enough of the proper materials and pass the resulting product through a stinky hole

the renaissance man and his heirs through classical liberalism or new liberalism loves to think that his behavior and his work is not meant to seek pleasures but to improve humanity throughout knowledge of nature and societies. In daily life, the guy remains a total pleb and just crave a life full of pleasures and devoid of pains.
This is the best behavior to adopt:
-you fell like a selfless saint in public in daily life
-you feel like a naughty debased saint in private to get off even more

The best part is that his official goal of improving humanity has the sole literally output of giving people more spare time so that ''they can do what they want thanks to technology, this is real freedom!!!'' [remainder that freedom for this guy is to know the nature= what is not him, or to know the society].

This leads women to be attracted to asian doctrines, because women love to cling to the idea of ''total unconditional compassion''.
Of course, only older women attend the meditative cession, because younger ones are too busy enjoying their life, and the few young women who try to meditate, first they do not have right view, second they always try to seek a comprise of ''dwelling in pleasures, for instance in being with a few lovers, while still (feeling good about myself in) calling my self a buddhist''.
This is why women and older women even more love indo-tibetan buddhism, where you ''fight passions with passions''' or other asian doctrines where non-duality is meant for awakening.

Anyway, I have a video of a westerner old granny ''whore 2.0'' fucking herself on her bed, before the camera for a cam4-like, and with a big picture of buddha on the wall right behind her.
And apparently, she complains (in french?) that her audience does not give her enough money for fucking herself....

yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhh

jhana is just pali pleb corrupt version of dhyana and samadhi

Yourself.

Based Boethius. It's really tragic that Western philosophy was as advanced as it was when Western Rome fell and the Byzanbros had to drop everything to stop the Arabs. Also, fuck Tertullian, that bastard fucked everything up.

I fail to see what a woman fucking on camera in front of a buddha picture has to do with buddhism proper.

You realize there are millions of self described Christians who live in self indulgence?

ok Yourself, when and how are you going to quit that bs

That's the whole point of Buddhism. You meditate to perfect your mind so when you die you can get to a higher plane or be reborn as a creature with a better circumstance (higher caste). Read the bardo thodal. If you freak out when you see the demons that appear after you die your soul could descend and you'll be reborn as a fly with no purpose, which is no chance of reaching nirvana in your life. It's a gradual process upward until you return to Oneness, which requires great understanding, dedication, and self control. All of which you, yourself, are in control of. What does that make you?

>Read the bardo thodal

my favorite part is where you smear a dead guy's feces on a voodoo doll you make of them and bury it so that they go through the right gates like that nintendo 64 superman game

>you meditate to perfect your mind

what's to perfect, You?

>caste

yep buddhism is hindoo garbage

have you tried this

THis is buddhism à la holywood

lionsroar.com/richard-gere-my-journey-as-a-buddhist/

Richard Gere: My Journey as a Buddhist

by Melvin McLeod| June 9, 2016
Richard Gere.

Richard Gere. Photo via Montclair Film Festival.
In this 1999 interview, Richard Gere talks about his many years of Buddhist practice, his devotion to his teacher the Dalai Lama, and his work for Tibetan freedom.

I suppose it’s a sign of our current cynicism that we find it hard to believe celebrities can also be serious people. The recent prominence of “celebrity Buddhists” has brought some snide comments in the press, and even among Buddhists, but personally I am very appreciative of the actors, directors, musicians and other public figures who have brought greater awareness to the cause of Tibetan freedom and the value of Buddhist practice. These are fine artists and thoughtful people, some Buddhists, some not, among them Martin Scorsese, Leonard Cohen, Adam Yauch, Michael Stipe, Patti Smith, and of course, Richard Gere. I met Gere at his office in New York recently, and we talked about his many years of Buddhist practice, his devotion to his teacher the Dalai Lama, and his work on behalf of the dharma and the cause of the Tibetan people.

—Melvin McLeod

Melvin McLeod: What was your first encounter with Buddhism?

Richard Gere: I have two flashes. One, when I actually encountered the written dharma, and two, when I met a teacher. But before that, I was engaged in philosophical pursuit in school. So I came to it through Western philosophers, basically Bishop Berkeley.

Melvin McLeod: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really happen?”

Richard Gere: Yes. Subjective idealism was his thesis—reality is a function of mind. It was basically the “mind only” school that he was preaching. Quite radical, especially for a priest. I was quite taken with him. The existentialists were also interesting to me. I remember carrying around a copy of Being and Nothingness, without knowing quite why I was doing it. Later I realized that “nothingness” was not the appropriate word. “Emptiness” was really what they were searching for—not a nihilistic view but a positive one.

My first encounter with Buddhist dharma would be in my early twenties. I think like most young men I was not particularly happy. I don’t know if I was suicidal, but I was pretty unhappy, and I had questions like, “Why anything?” Realizing I was probably pushing the edges of my own sanity, I was exploring late-night bookshops reading everything I could, in many different directions. Evans-Wentz’s books on Tibetan Buddhism had an enormous impact on me. I just devoured them.

Melvin McLeod: So many of us were inspired by those books. What did you find in them that appealed to you?

Richard Gere: They had all the romance of a good novel, so you could really bury yourself in them, but at the same time, they offered the possibility that you could live here and be free at the same time. I hadn’t even considered that as a possibility—I just wanted out—so the idea that you could be here and be out at the same time—emptiness—was revolutionary.

So the Buddhist path, particularly the Tibetan approach, was obviously drawing me, but the first tradition that I became involved in was Zen. My first teacher was Sasaki Roshi. I remember going out to L.A. for a three day sesshin [Zen meditation program]. I prepared myself by stretching my legs for months and months so I could get through it.

I had a kind of magical experience with Sasaki Roshi, a reality experience. I realized, this is work, this is work. It’s not about flying through the air; it’s not about any of the magic or the romance. It’s serious work on your mind. That was an important part of the path for me.

Sasaki Roshi was incredibly tough and very kind at the same time. I was a total neophyte and didn’t know anything. I was cocky and insecure and fucked up. But within that I was serious about wanting to learn. It got to the point at the end of the sesshin where I wouldn’t even go to the dokusan [interview with the Zen master]. I felt I was so ill-equipped to deal with the koans that they had to drag me in. Finally, it got to where I would just sit there, and I remember him smiling at that point. “Now we can start working,” he said. There was nothing to say—no bullshit, nothing.

bump

Monastics often quit, sometimes after more than a decade. I suspect that even more want to quit, but don't have a backup plan. So I think it's reasonable to finish education before going into monasticism. That's one of the reasons why I haven't seriously considered this lifestyle for myself yet.

Personally, I find monasticism somewhat appealing.
The more time I spent in the real world^tm, the more I notice that most of it just goes on my nerve.

Possession of useless stuff? C'mon.
Owning a large place which I don't need but have to clean? no, thx.
Money which I can use to buy stuff i don't need? well...
Status? Fame? Shiny clothes? Fancy tech gagdets? Leave me alone. Please.
Travelling? saw it on youtube. boring. lol.
Endeavors such as sports, music, science? Lost most of its appeal years ago.

And that's the good stuff, I'm not even mentioning taxes, 9-5s, commuting and all the other nervewracking stuff yet.

So, this gives monasticism some appeal, I find.
Every day I notice: "Meditation? Pretty much the only thing I really care about."
What else is there to do?
The only thing I'm scared of is that monasticism introduces ridiculous overhead.
I don't care about strict rules, I don't care about adherence to tradition, I don't care about useless ceremonies, old texts and whatever else is associated with the monastic lifestyle.

I notice that this is becoming more of a rant than a useful contribution, so I'll stop here.

a good video on arupa jhana
youtube.com/watch?v=qTjN3R8TzaY

Buddhist Mysticism Part 4: Arupa Samadhi