Why Stephen Asma is a Buddhist and a little about the tragedy in Orlando

In a former blog post Asma had a conversation with Robert Wright in a video.

Now I'm reading a book by Asma where he explains why he is a Buddhist. The subtitle goes; "No-Nonsense Buddhism for Modern Living".
Asma is a professor of philosophy at Columbia University in Chicago and author of several books.

In the book he shows us his interpretation of western Buddhism today.

He has lived, for instance, in Cambodia and is familiar with the traditions there. In the video he explains that the traditions in Asia often is mixed with animism. That's why you can find holy Coke blessed by the deities in the temples in Vietnam and other eastern countries. Pure and very original Buddhism only exists in some temples in Sri Lanka, and is only practiced by a few monks, according to Asma.

But he means that you don´t have to believe in karma or reincarnation to be a Buddhist.
Since we have no permanent soul we cannot go on after death. And our actions doesn't seem to come back in a karmic way, since many people who have acted in bad ways seem to anyway have  pretty good lifes...

I think I like that view. Neither I need the belief in karma and reincarnation to practice mindfulness.
Though I'm a supporter of Thich Nath Hans's words on life and death:

 


Here´s Asma's definition o mindfulness;

"Let's remind ourselves of the purpose of mindful training. First it's freedom from unhealthy
attachments to anxieties - simply put, peace of mind. But also, in mindfulness, one begins to realize that the ego (the self) is a habitual fiction - it doesn't really exist, so stop acting in a self-ish manner....you are just a temporary aspect of the flow becoming."

(even if Asma in the video in my former blog post admits that there may be an unpersonal place in the oldest part of the brain that holds us together and lets us act as an agent, But that part we share with all animals and probably all insects...)

Asma even means that one can drink some alcohol if one is not attached to it, anyway if you are a lay Buddhist.

At the end of the book Asma compares Buddhism with music, as he also is a musician:
Both of them needs regular practice.

But he also means music like the one from The Beatles and Bach, would be "dry as dust" if they didn't had put some dissonance in their tunes.
And he think its would be the same for Buddhism.


That is a bit of my view;  Even Buddhism changes as it has no essence, so Buddhism cannot look the same in different cultures.... and that's great. We shouldn't strive for some perfect or absolute mindfulness.
That would be a kind of attachment too, and could lead to anxiety.

Some other music with dissonance in it;





 So Asma is  a Buddhist, because it's hard to live and because things like the one in Orlando  today will happen now and then. We may need some rituals and some kind of "Sangha" to comfort us.

 Also Buddhism needs no God and no answers to the big metaphysical questions. The main goal of Buddhism and of  mindfulness is to let us be a bit happier. And a happy men would never act as the man with the weapons did today....

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more