Critical Difference, Buddhism vs Vedanta

[Iwannaplato]

As stated there is no way one can get rid of one's emotions.

Buddhism encourages one to disidentify with them and cut them off from expression. And since it sees desires as the cause of suffering and decides because of that to end suffering, it also cuts off the expression of desires. It is an anti-life philosophy.

Buddhist do not cut off emotions but rather modulate the emotions to the extent they don't let emotions [which are spontaneous] to control them.

They obviously cut off emotions. Go to any Buddhist community with dedicated practitioners adn you will see a general lack of emotional expression and futher social pressures to not express much emotion at all. The meditative practices require the disidentification from emotions and desires and the cutting off these from expression. This is THE central practice of Buddhism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When studying Buddhism, one must differentiate between the fundamental philosophy, principles and practices of Buddhism-proper from Gautama Buddha and the actual practices by 'Buddhists'.

After his enlightenment, the Buddha introduced the 4NT and 8FP as a life problem-solving technique to deal with the sufferings from cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent existential crisis. Note this;

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

The Buddha explained the details of the fundamental doctrines, principles and practices but unfortunately these were too advanced for the majority of people during his time and even now.

Recognizing the existing psychological states of the people then, the Buddha did not force his teachings down the people's throat.
Rather he let the iterative 4NT-8FP to flow with continuous improvement along with the development of the psychological states of the majority and the minority.
Buddhism recognized there are various psychological states within humanity and each must be led to improve at their own pace.

For example, the Buddha never recommend ascetism, but there are those with strong psychological proclivities to be alone, so they have to live alone while learning Buddhism.

The Buddha never recommend praying to idols with offerings, but such practices are done all over the world in Buddhist temples and at home, yet there is no serious banning of such from the Buddhist 'authorities' [headmonks, etc.].

There are also various schools of Buddhism to cater for people with different spiritual inclinations.

The problem with the above leeway by the Buddhist community is the danger of taking any one of the above approaches as an ideology, which is happening at present.
This is natural because of the evolution default of 'external_ness' which lead them even to cling to 'nothingness' as a subtle-something, when in reality, nothingness itself is empty.

As such, it is critical, one must thoroughly understand the original fundamental philosophies, principles and practices of Buddhism proper by reading extensively with deep reflective thinking.

What I see here is, those who are ignorant of Buddhism-proper are trying to push their views of Buddhism as Buddhism-proper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those who insist on 'cutting of emotions' in Buddhism, see;

• Mindfulness and emotion regulation
  One proposed pathway for the documented psychological effects of mindfulness (cultivating awareness and acceptance of the present moment) has been through its facilitation of adaptive emotion regulation (ER).
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0X15000974

Emotion Regulation or Modulation is not cutting off emotions.

The above one link is a quickie from google.
To understand the above thoroughly one need to do extensive research with deep reflective thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Distinctions can be blended under certain contexts.

The self is a process thus has no constant form as there is continual change. However the continuous nature of there being a process, i.e. one thing is directed to another, is a constant form. Both schools end in paradox.

Obviously, i.e. shades of grey is a reality.

In this OP we are focused on the obvious distinctions, i.e. Black is not White, putting aside greyness.

As to "God": "God" is nothingness as God is beyond being and there is nothing beyond being. God can also be observed as the "highest power" with this highest power being the totality of being itself. This totality of being however is the same as nothingness due to the fact it has no comparison (and comparison is necessary for form) otherwise if it were to have a comparison it would not be 'the total'.

How can you attribute any realness to a God, when you have not verified and justified God is real within a human-based FSK?

You are merely making as ASSUMPTION God exists as real.
You can even assume a square-circle exists for whatever the reason.

[Iwannaplato]

For those who insist on 'cutting of emotions' in Buddhism, see;

• Mindfulness and emotion regulation
  One proposed pathway for the documented psychological effects of mindfulness (cultivating awareness and acceptance of the present moment) has been through its facilitation of adaptive emotion regulation (ER).
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0X15000974

Emotion Regulation or Modulation is not cutting off emotions.

The above one link is a quickie from google.
To understand the above thoroughly one need to do extensive research with deep reflective thinking.

Mindfullness is plucked out of Buddhism and is not Buddhism. That's like saying going and telling one's 'bad' behavior to somone once a week is Catholicism.
In modern society, given it's overload of information, distractions, contact media-connection - doing some kind of meditation is beneficial. So, is spending that exact amount of time in nature.

Buddhism is not these little Western dipping one's toes in meditation. Buddhism includes taking on a philosophy about the self, life, the emotions, thoughts, identity and, in the end, according to the Buddhists, large amounts of meditation, with some guidance. The practices vary with the different parts of Buddhism.

The base state of the modern human is toxic in a way that can benefit from any form of intentional relaxation: Christian contemplation, Hindu meditation or chanting, Sufi whirling and so on. There are studies that support these also.

Buddhism is a complete system, just as the other religions are. And Buddhism is an anti-life system.

Activities that can be beneficial, given toxic norms, can be toxic when done more and also when they are part of a other activites and beliefs, in this case Buddhism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 Fold Paths are central to Buddhism.

• The Noble Eightfold Path
  Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
  Right thought (Samma sankappa)
  Right speech (Samma vaca)
  Right action (Samma kammanta)
  Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
  Right effort (Samma vayama)
  Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
  Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

It is those who are ignorant of Buddhism-proper who insist 'mindfulness' is not fundamental and essential to Buddhism proper.

[Iwannaplato]

The 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 Fold Paths are central to Buddhism.

• The Noble Eightfold Path
  Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
  Right thought (Samma sankappa)
  Right speech (Samma vaca)
  Right action (Samma kammanta)
  Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
  Right effort (Samma vayama)
  Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
  Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

It is those who are ignorant of Buddhism-proper who insist 'mindfulness' is not fundamental and essential to Buddhism proper.

Thank you for supporting the point I was making. No one said that mindfulness is not central to Buddhism. You have precisely supported my post by pointing out that meditation, especially including the dabbler meditation, is just a part of Buddhism.

If you actually delve into Buddhism they see the little meditation practice of modern people (including in the East) as fine, but extremely limited. And in the East that's when the meditator is also a practiciing Buddhist in other aspects of their lives. No, the real work comes when the person can really focus on the practices without the distractions of family, romance, work, and so on. And then the surgical removal of the emotions starts to take place.
and Buddhists realize this....

Sati has slowly but surely been adopted and adapted while making its journey to the West, on the one hand this made it more appealing to a wider audience, but on the other hand in doing so it has lost much of its foundation, the context and depth of the complete Buddhist practice.

The latter is not without consequences. By seeing mindfulness as a separate entity and removing the original framework in which it had its place, there is a limit to the practice. That is to say, at some point you can no longer reach a deeper level in your meditation. It is as if you want to build a house with only one wall, sooner or later you notice that you can’t put up a roof, let alone furnish and inhabit the house.

However, the problem is not only the lack of a foundation. There is a second side to modern mindfulness. Every now and then there are aspects of it that, from a Buddhist perspective, are not only limiting but even counterproductive.

For example, you sometimes read and hear how you can enjoy yourself more by mindfulness, for example by eating mindfully, getting a massage mindfully or walking mindfully. Mindfulness then becomes a kind of ‘carpe diem’, in the sense that it is supposed to help you mindfully get the most out of your life and the world.

That kind of ‘mindfulness’ sometimes even works explicitly by increasing pleasure and thus the underlying desire. This is at odds with the original meaning and purpose of sati as the Buddha taught it.

These inherent limitations of modern mindfulness become clearer and clearer the longer you work with it. It is therefore not strange if a mindfulness-teacher searches for other meditation systems, for example sati according to the Buddha, after practicing it for several years.

https://buddho.org/mindfulness-according-to-the-buddha/

As I said - and which was ignored - given the specific kinds of toxicity in modern society, pulling back from the scattered anxiety driven modern mind, meditation in the dabbler way practiced by most Westerners can have beneficial effects - though there are other ways to achieve this - get rid of your smartphone, walk in nature instead of meditating, start singing. The modern toxic distraction mind is also cut off from the emotions. You are outside of yourself, entranced by websites and constant music in ear buds, disconnected from yourself and your own emotions and desires. So, great you sit quitely and open up to what is going on in yourself.

But that's not Buddhism and what works to counterbalance another toxicity is not healthy when it is part of the Buddhist system.

buddhism hates emotions and desires. If all one does is read about Buddhism and idealizes it and dabbles in the meditation practice, one kind, then this can be missed. They don't openly talk about this hate or realize it is a kind of institutuionalized hatred. Nor do they realize that the goal is to cut off parts of what it is to be human. Desire causes suffering, cut out desire. Emotions leads to imbalance, cut off the expression of emotions and disidentify with them. Just watch them. That's cutting off the limbic system from expression and other parts of the brain.

It's an anti-human set of practices.

And note that your attachment to Buddhism will lead to the exact same defensive reactions you see theists as engaging in when you challenge the existence of God. Notice that anxiety and defensiveness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"You have precisely supported my post by pointing out that meditation, especially including the dabbler meditation, is just a part of Buddhism."
That is a lie.

The other criticisms above of Buddhism are based on short-sighted comprehension, i.e. not in accordance to Buddhism proper.

[Atla]

If we spend our life trying to make life go away, is that life still worth living? (Which is I think also the main critique of Buddhism in the eyes of Advaitans.)

------------

On a side note, I had this theory about SOME long-term meditation practitioners (Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise), where I think these people fall victim to a most ironic illusion/delusion.

They meditate for years, they're dismantling the "I"/ego, also the outside world falls away, also space and time fall away, and eventually they end up in this state of pure awareness. They then think that they've "made it", that state is the state to be. They may think, they reached some kind of ultimate reality, or ultimate experience, or enlightenment.

What I think actually happens, is that though we can shut down many of our mental functions one by one, we can't shut down self-awareness itself, self-awareness doesn't even seem to depend on any specific parts of our brain/mind. So these long-time meditators end up in a state where they are purely wallowing in their own self-awareness.

And that self-awareness is actually from which the "I"/ego is formed, as it takes shape. That rudimentary self-awareness is sort of the true form of the "I"/ego, and it seems to have a rather specific feel, sensation to it.

So these long-time meditators spent years trying to get away from themselves, only to end up in a state where they are only experiencing themselves anymore. Except they mistake this experience for some kind of ultimate reality, or ultimate experience, or enlightenment.

[Iwannaplato]

If we spend our life trying to make life go away, is that life still worth living? (Which is I think also the main critique of Buddhism in the eyes of Advaitans.)

yes, you have become a partial human. Of course it's not just Buddhism that uses really quite effective tools against emotional expression and desire. Many secular belief systems and plain old cultural biases do this (along with many theisms, especially the really judgmental ones like the Abrahamic ones can be). But most practitioners do not have access to the very effective tools. In Buddhism if you have access to a community and masters or 'masters' you can actually start carving. You may be at peace, but the final product is a partial human.

------------

On a side note, I had this theory about SOME long-term meditation practitioners (Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise), where I think these people fall victim to a most ironic illusion/delusion.

They meditate for years, they're dismantling the "I"/ego, also the outside world falls away, also space and time fall away, and eventually they end up in this state of pure awareness. They then think that they've "made it", that state is the state to be. They may think, they reached some kind of ultimate reality, or ultimate experience, or enlightenment.

What I think actually happens, is that though we can shut down many of our mental functions one by one, we can't shut down self-awareness itself, self-awareness doesn't even seem to depend on any specific parts of our brain/mind. So these long-time meditators end up in a state where they are purely wallowing in their own self-awareness.

And that self-awareness is actually from which the "I"/ego is formed, as it takes shape. That rudimentary self-awareness is sort of the true form of the "I"/ego, and it seems to have a rather specific feel, sensation to it.

So these long-time meditators spent years trying to get away from themselves, only to end up in a state where they are only experiencing themselves anymore. Except they mistake this experience for some kind of ultimate reality, or ultimate experience, or enlightenment.

We're sort on the same page, anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

"You have precisely supported my post by pointing out that meditation, especially including the dabbler meditation, is just a part of Buddhism."
That is a lie.

So, not only are you asserting that I was wrong, but also that intentionally asserted something knowing it was false. Hm.

I pointed out that doing some mindfulness- is not Buddhism, it's a piece of Buddhism. And the article you linked us to related to mindfulness meditation is talking about mild Western appropriation of one technique, if a central one, in Buddhism, performed by Westerners with out the other parts of Buddhism that you posted. Your response included this...

The Noble Eightfold Path
Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
Right thought (Samma sankappa)
Right speech (Samma vaca)
Right action (Samma kammanta)
Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
Right effort (Samma vayama)
Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

So, here we see that mindfulness is one eighth of the eightfold path. That supports my assertion that the study of mindfulness was not looking at Buddhism as a whole, but just one part. But wait, there's more. Most Westerners are not making the kind of commitment EVEN to mindfullness that Buddhism suggests is necessary to achieve enlightenment.

They dabble in ONE of the either parts that you listed above. Maybe an hour or two a day of meditation and even that's rare. Then off to their phones and modern life and their meditation is not in the context of the other 8fold paths.

The other criticisms above of Buddhism are based on short-sighted comprehension, i.e. not in accordance to Buddhism proper.

Sorry, but I am talking about first hand knowledge of texts AND of practioners and masters in both the West and the East. Buddhism carries within it a systematic distaste for emotional expression and desire. The latter is open doctrine. The former is built into practice and is obvious in any Buddhist teacher's company or any community. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the disidentification with emotions and desire and the suppression of their expression.

Your response DID support my post and I certainly was not lying. And you have no reason to think I consciously decide to tell what I think is an untruth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• For those who insist on 'cutting of emotions' in Buddhism, see;
  
  • Mindfulness and emotion regulation
    One proposed pathway for the documented psychological effects of mindfulness (cultivating awareness and acceptance of the present moment) has been through its facilitation of adaptive emotion regulation (ER).
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0X15000974
  Emotion Regulation or Modulation is not cutting off emotions.
  
  The above one link is a quickie from google.
  To understand the above thoroughly one need to do extensive research with deep reflective thinking.

The above article [related to mindfulness*] is to demonstrate Buddhism-proper is not about 'cutting of emotions' and as qualified it is a quickie from google to justify the point [not wasting time to present the full context of Buddhism proper].

* As one of the Noble *Fold Path.

It is about the principle related to emotional regulation i.e. not cutting off of emotions.

It is not meant to show what some Westerners are selectively doing or picking pieces of Buddhist practices.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Despite my repetition of the 10th of the 10 bull story;
As reflected in the Ten Bulls;

• Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.
  https://www.deeshan.com/zen.htm

After enlightenment, the Buddhist is expected to mingle with the people of the world and be part of society.

That was what Gautama Buddha did, after his enlightenment, he went back to society to spread his teachings.

Humans and Buddhists [400 million] are represented by a wide range psychological states with different propensities with the good Buddhist at one end and weirdos in the other extreme.

At such, it is very immature to insist the extremes at the other hand, those who inclined to be hermits, those trying to get rid of emotions, deny the ego absolutely, engaging in the fanciful world, are philosophical realists and the likes, are representatives of Buddhism-proper as intended by the Buddha.

[Iwannaplato]

Despite my repetition of the 10th of the 10 bull story;
As reflected in the Ten Bulls;

• Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.
  https://www.deeshan.com/zen.htm

Despite your repetition of the 10th bull story....what?
This doesn't demonstrate anything regarding emotions and desire.

After enlightenment, the Buddhist is expected to mingle with the people of the world and be part of society.

Once they have cut off emotional expression and desires, it really doesn't matter what they do.

That was what Gautama Buddha did, after his enlightenment, he went back to society to spread his teachings.

First off he left his family, including a wife and child, while he went off to get enlightened. He could not manage the processes while with people. Once he gets back he turns them, according to the myth, into disciples. He was out in society, he was a spiritual teacher relating to people all the time in a spiritual context. At least according to the potentially mythological stories around him.

Why would one need to leave ones family - as Buddists monks and nuns do in the East? Because of emotions and desires. Once you have these things cut off and under completely control: suppressed, they you can be around people because you will no longer have the emotions and feelings you had before for them.

Humans and Buddhists [400 million] are represented by a wide range psychological states with different propensities with the good Buddhist at one end and weirdos in the other extreme.

Well, sure, that goes for most categories of humans.

At such, it is very immature to insist the extremes at the other hand, those who inclined to be hermits,

You mean, like someone who would leave his family for quite a long time and sit under a tree for 7 weeks? Weirdos like this? He wandered in a forest for 6 years! But the 49 days of meditation without breaks, there's a sign that a complete severance from the normal self is necessary.

those trying to get rid of emotions, deny the ego absolutely, engaging in the fanciful world, are philosophical realists and the likes, are representatives of Buddhism-proper as intended by the Buddha.

Tell that to all the masters and nuns and monks in Buddhism.

[Iwannaplato]

• For those who insist on 'cutting of emotions' in Buddhism, see;
  
  • Mindfulness and emotion regulation
    One proposed pathway for the documented psychological effects of mindfulness (cultivating awareness and acceptance of the present moment) has been through its facilitation of adaptive emotion regulation (ER).
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0X15000974
  Emotion Regulation or Modulation is not cutting off emotions.

Again, as said before, that's minfulness as practiced in the dabbling way in the West, without the other 8 paths. That's a Western perspective on a the dabblling approach of some Westerners, and where they partake in just one path of Buddhism.

Like if I listen to Nusrat Fait Ali Khan for an hour a day or less I am a Muslim.