This simplistic 'snap out of it' ideology belies and belittles the very real issues of fear, discouragement and depression that underly much of what people berate themselves over as 'laziness'.
What is this Buddhism that you speak of? Put another way, what is Buddha? Given the epoch, it's not even clear that all of the teachings attributed to the Buddha derive from one being (i.e. Buddhism is the evolution of a core teaching that has become an ism).
IIRC, from the Diamond Sutra: a cloud, a flash of lightening, a dew drop, a star...view all created things like this.
If that doesn't divert one's attention from sex, beer, or a pint of Ben & Jerry's, nothing will ;-)
True, Buddhism is no different from Hinduism, Christism, Muhammadism or any other ism in that it cannot escape the additions to the core teachings. Errors in narration, translation and interpretation all contribute to giving one a good reason to take what is passed down with healthy skepticism.
IMHO, the Buddhist recommendation to exercise this type of necessary skepticism is to try it out, to experience it. If your experience confirms what the received wisdom is said to be, you are probably on the right track. Of course, there are lots of other basics, including the most basic of all - get a good teacher. Needless to say, the meaning of "good" in this respect always requires a modicum of circumspection. :)
Yup, there's lots of stuff like those you mentioned to divert your attention. The idea is to give you a reason to get started. In this case I'd say something like Nike's Just Do It as mentioned in some of the other threads is a tad overconfident. The Buddhist way would more likely be Life is Short. Just Get Started.
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here: why the need for a teacher?
Buddha: "No teacher have I"
Jesus: "Know thyself"
I'm not convinced there is a "Buddhist way", but rather ways. I mean, Vipasana is almost entirely technique oriented, apparently following the historical Buddha's extant teaching to the letter. Tibetans do a boatload of visualization, while Zen tends to emphasize open eyed sitting and posture without any focal point.
Same deal in Christianity, Islam, etc., many ways.
And yet, mystics like Ramana Maharshi, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Eckhart Tolle, etc. all say, dispense with practice and teachers, these are extraneous to the fundamental matter. For Tolle it was rock bottom chronic depression; for Maharshi it was some kind of death experience, and for Krishnamurti it was talking a lot (heh, heh, kidding, he was apparently born without the sense of "I").
Again, you are right to say that there are many Buddhist ways, not one. While the goal is enlightenment, most Buddhist texts constantly talk about the different ways it has been achieved.
My view of Buddhism is heavily Mahayana and Vajrayana based, and I know little of Hinayana and the other 'vehicles'. In this context, emphasis is placed on one's teacher mainly because it is believed that it is very, very easy to understand things completely wrongly and to go off on a tangent that is harmful to oneself and others. The teacher is thus your guide, while the work of attaining enlightenment is still very much your own.
This of course is not to say that Buddhahood isn't possible without a teacher; it's just that it is rather more unlikely and difficult.
The practice to awakening odds are pretty poor. If you were to ask your fellow practitioners how many of them felt as if they fully grasped (experienced) the teacher's teaching, I'd be shocked if more than 1 out of 20 said yes.
Add to that the fact that practice in the Buddhist world is almost always an ass kicker of the highest order (hello screwdriver in the knees), then one wonders why take it up in the first place? The whole process seems a bit like the Christian, "yours is not to reason why"; i.e. it will become clear(er) later.
Saying that, I did meet someone who awakened without a teacher. I suggested that he attend a couple of sitting groups that I used to go to. After the Dharma talk/discussion at each group, without having said a word, both teachers came up to him and basically said, how on earth did you do that?
Talking with him later he said he came into this life to awaken; i.e. it wasn't difficult and he was only just scratching the surface.
Pretty rare obviously, but then again, practicing for 5, 10, 20+ years and awakening is also not guaranteed.
Saying that, I did meet someone who awakened without a teacher. I suggested that he attend a couple of sitting groups that I used to go to. After the Dharma talk/discussion at each group, without having said a word, both teachers came up to him and basically said, how on earth did you do that?
That's an awesome story. I'm only scratching at the surface, and something tells me that it's going to take a lot longer than that, if ever, for me.
but then again, practicing for 5, 10, 20+ years and awakening is also not guaranteed.
For most of us, for sure. However, on the positive side, even many lifetimes of trying is but a mere tick on the clock of samsara. :)
"That's an awesome story. I'm only scratching at the surface, and something tells me that it's going to take a lot longer than that, if ever, for me."
Hang on a second, there is no you, how could you not be awakened?
Then why practice? Good question, it must be that delusions are endless; otherwise, we'd be lazy in the most wonderful sense of the word (see Ramana Maharshi for example).
In Buddhism "the very real issues of fear, discouragement and depression", and indeed the entire range of human emotions, are themselves considered fabrications of the mind that are laid bare and exposed as such through the practice of meditation, mindfulness and rejection of ego. To me that pretty much qualifies as being at the heart though I certainly don't claim any solid expertise.
This position takes quite a reactionary view of mental health. If you have PTSD, it doesn't work like that. If you have schizophrenia, it doesn't work like that. If you have BPD, it doesn't work like that. If you have ADDHD, it doesn't work like that.
These are all known mental health issues, with physiological markers, but ultimately they are aspects of human mentality that are present in everyone.
So, to ignore these, and ignore the myriad other mental and environmental issues, and suggest that 'just do it' is actionable advice goes against the grain of much that is valuable in Bhuddism: namely mindfulness and the purposes of meditation. Essentially, it is telling people to achieve presence through force of will, instead of using insight to accommodate their mental situation: only the unencumbered can succeed.
Time to step back a bit and consider how we reached this stage of the discussion in the first place. The OP essentially quoted Matthieu Ricard's book, "The Monk and the Philosopher". It was all about Buddhism and without anything close to a "'snap out of it' ideology". Your initial comment thus came across more as Buddhism is a simplistic 'snap out of it' ideology, which is the point I sought to refute. I'm certainly not saying 'snap out of it' is the essence of Buddhism. So in a roundabout way, we agree more than we appear to. :)
Returning to your points on PTSD, schizophrenia, BPD and ADDHD, I can state quite positively that I've read no Buddhist texts so far that discuss these disorders, let alone prescribe Buddhism as the cure. So again, we are more in agreement than not, unless of course you believe that all fear, discouragement and depression amount to PTSD, schizophrenia, BPD and ADDHD (in which case I would have to level the round trip fallacy charge at you!).
However, personally I believe modern medicine is far from understanding properly any of these disorders, and the treatment for them - mainly drugs - is an unhappy one even if that's all we have.
At the same time I also believe that there is a tendency to find the quick fix (what better than a drug) or a solution outside of ourselves (psychotherapy). Not every condition requires this sort of intervention, but there is a very strong trend and tendency to provide it and that's a pity.
Are there times when it's helpful to say "stop being such a crybaby"? You betcha! That's the only way to move away from over indulgence in our selves, a decidedly big problem in this day and age.
Is anyone saying "stop being such a crybaby" is the solution for all problems? No way. And certainly not the Buddhist way.
You can't reject your ego, you can only detach from it. Egolessness and egofullness are two sides of the same coin. And fabrications of the mind, if you will, are all that there is. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Reality and illusion are the same thing. Buddhism is really trying to teach you to honor and understand your thoughts, emotions, and ego as fundamental parts of the human body you live in, not to destroy or be impervious to them. It's not about escaping from your life but living more fully within it. If somewhat is afraid, ask why? How does the experience of fear feel? Is it connected to other emotions? What thoughts accompany it? What experiences from childhood are connected?
What are loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity if not emotion?
My choice of words is intended to convey their meaning in everyday parlance. If I seek egolessness over egofullness, is that not a rejection of the latter over the former in everyday parlance?
As you have correctly stated, Buddhism is not about escaping from life but meeting it head on. I don't think I've said anything that would suggest I'm for escaping.
Things which are polar opposites are actually identical, in this case 0% ego and 100% ego, because 0% ego is all about how spiritually pure you are, a.k.a. 100% ego. I'm sure you've met some of the seemingly enlightened meditators I'm talking about. Buddhism teaches you to deal with this paradox or duality and others like it by seeking the middle road. Some ego is good, not too much, not too little. That's all I was reacting to, I probably could've been nicer about it.
"That's all I was reacting to, I probably could've been nicer about it." Not at all, you were nice enough. :)
Yes going beyond the everyday meaning of the words we use, I agree with you fully. I'm just a beginner on the path, full of the fabrications and paradoxes we all live with, and I'm really looking forward to having them all blown away, or more likely - dissolved - as I dive deeper into it. Ah, aspiration!
But "snap out of it" is exactly it. The person must make the choice to do, regardless of any array of fears, disabilities, circumstances, or excuses. No matter how real the issues, it still is a matter of choice. Skirting death can clarify this.
Something about this stance has always bothered me. I don't know if it's just me, but I have always just seen this as condescending because 'having a choice' has always been blatantly obvious to me. I will immediately take that back and apologize if a majority of people really don't realize this, but so far it has always seemed like most people give rather 'meh' reactions to these sorts of responses because you're not providing them with any new information -- which is exactly my gripe. In my opinion, saying "Hey! it's all about making a choice, so just make it already!" is not a valid solution strategy imo; it is barely a rosy incomplete pseudocode algorithm -- not something actionable/reproducible. I really strongly feel that anything that is going to be conveyed with a tone of "Hey, I just gave you a solution!" should be backed up with an actionable mechanism/solution. But that's probably just me...
"Just do it"/"Snap out of it" is exactly the key that I've used to get going whenever I've stalled in life. Heck, it's the key I used back in Jr. High when I was an average runner and decided that today I wanted to win the race (literally, mid-race, I started running faster, actually pushing off the ground and propelling myself forward rather than going through the running motions as I had previously in my life—obviously there are physical limits to how fast one can run, but it was a revelation to me that I could run about twice as fast as I ever had if I just decided to try). Recently I've been in a rut, feeling malaise, and this morning I told myself that I was done and I just needed to snap out of it and do something about it and I've had the most productive day I've had in a couple years. So, sure, maybe it's not universal. And maybe the advice itself isn't so useful because it's not hearing the obvious advice that you need, it's a decision you simply have to make (and nobody need tell you to make it). But it's still truth. And there's never harm in espousing truths like that one (IMO).
If you're trying to learn how to walk, what's more helpful: learning the mechanics of how you walk & why we're physically capable of doing it or telling you to just start putting one foot in front of the other.
If you want to do something (anything), you can break down actionable mechanisms all you want, but at some point it has to move from theoretical into action.
It's tougher with this stuff (lazyness) because it's all in your head - it's less physical - so it seems like you could hypothetically break something down into a million actionable steps - so people do and keep wondering why it never leads to action. That's the very trap you have to escape in order to DO something.
I can tell you all the mechanics in the world on how you're supposed to walk, but until you put one foot in front of the other, you'll never be able to learn. That's not condescending at all - it's just the process of learning. All the knowledge in the world won't help someone who's not willing to take that step.
This is true, but I feel we need to try harder before reaching this conclusion that "oh, it's inherently too theoretical/has too many solutions, so you're just going to have to figure it out by yourself". Because even in the scenario that it did have too many possible solutions, wouldn't it be more helpful to provide at least one in addition to the theory? I think it would, as long as you make it clear that there are other possibilities out there and that this particular solution might not work for you.
The crux of the issue for me, is that intelligence research (to my rather limited knowledge) seems to be converging on the idea that people have different inherent [genetic?] constraints on learning ability. Not learning capacity mind you, just that it might be more challenging for certain subsets of people to understand quantum physics (for example) than others, and that that could be traced back to how much 'actionable' material they are exposed to -- if they're not exposed to enough, then they could easily be left behind and be blamed for not 'choosing' to get it. This is what bothers me. Especially since I know I often find myself struggling for ages with things that other people seem to grasp with significantly less information than I needed to 'get it'.
You can break it down ad infinitum, but if the real reason you can't do something is that you are afraid to, or you don't actually believe it's possible, then no amount of Nike slogans will make a difference. And furthermore, the implication is that, if they don't get up off their ass, it's their fault, and not something in their environment (including their internal one) that can be changed, and is what they should be actually focusing on.
The "choice to do" is located in the brain. If the brain is malfunctioning this choice can be very difficult. People with severe depression, anxiety, OCD often have malfunctioning brains.
In my case depression usually manifests as extreme fatigue coupled with disinterest in everything. Choosing to do anything is very difficult if nothing has meaning.
I've tried various medications over the years. The best one for me was Zoloft, which also helped my sister.
More recently I've been taking a nutrition based approach. I went off Zoloft in January, had an episode in late March/early April, then went to see a nutritional therapist. It seems to be working so far.
In my case, though, I was also diagnosed with adrenal fatigue a couple years ago and have been taking supplements to help with that.
Adrenal fatigue is a controversial diagnosis (some people think it's a made-up "disease") but a saliva test indicated I had low cortisol in the morning, which made it very difficult for me to get going before noon. The supplements helped with that even after I weened myself off caffeine.
