We modern Westerners can have but very little understanding of Buddhism in its original significance. We habitually project upon it elements of our own world-picture that alter, indeed transvaluate, its essential structure. Despite the many stories that have been told about Siddhartha Gautama, he was not a messianic figure or a saint, but an intellectual. His philosophy was actually quite atheistic and materialistic in itself, and made its appeal to the urban intellect rather than the inner vision. He stands in the same regard towards his Vedic civilization as men like Socrates and the sophists stand toward the Classical, and men like Rousseau and Marx stand towards the Western. They were all of them brain-men and schoolmen, and all of them were of the opinion that genuine “religion” (meaning here the actual belief in something metaphysical) was indispensible only to the uneducated. The original Buddhist monks were the Vedic equivalents of Parisian salon-thinkers and Alexandrian marketplace-loungers, not pious brotherhoods of believers. It was only after some centuries had passed that this refined and worldly philosophy was re-prepared into a religion for normal people by reaching quite far back to the long-stiffened Brahmanic theology, and further back still to very ancient popular cults, at which point it began (for the first time) to be systematically recorded.

These records comprise the totality of the “Buddhism” we know today. Even of this, we understand very little of the inner structure. The genuine Buddhist peasant in Okinawa has a mind rather unlike that of the modern American. He actually believes in his harvest-spirits and weather-gods, and he sees Buddha as the transcendent and smiling protector who bestows blessings on the humble and comforts the afflicted. On the contrary, much Westernized Buddhism is a sort of cathartic relativism wherewith the practitioner is enabled to better season the intellectual delights of liberal program-politics and airy quantum-mechanical speculations on the nature of “reality”. This sort of literary pretentiousness is as far away from folk-Buddhism as it is possible to be, and yet ironically it has much in common with the intellectual and atheistic Siddhartha.

To sum up, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, Blakeslee. I just think it has been given the wrong name.

Without “stress,” humanity would still be etching pictures on cave walls. The response motivates us to make positive changes.

Unfortunately, many of us react to “stress’in a totally negative manner (allowing a feeling of hopelessness or being overwhelmed..) when, in actuality, the mechanism is simply our mind’s method of telling us to take a form of action (the old fight or flee thing).

Stress, in itself, isn’t the big problem… it’s how we REACT to the stimulus that can cause problems.

Good luck

Buddhists believe that life, in all it’s form and splendor, is ever changing. Everything is constantly dying, and being born again. This brings in several key points. A)Buddhists believe in reincarnation. And that attachment to a past life, is in fact counter productive. B) Buddhists know (I say KNOW cause this is fact) that “Nothing is permanent.” Words from Siddhartha Gautama himself. Everything has a time to enter, and to leave this plane of existnece. Everything, be it a brick, a person, the earth itself. Therefore, to “attach” yourself to anything, is to cause yourself suffering. Life, for a Buddhist, is full of things that matter to us. In a different way. I don’t see my dining set as something that defines my happiness, but I am glad that our existence could co-incide (bad example) I also love my mother, as I am sure many Budists due, I am attached to her, and that will cause me pain. If I could love her, and know that she will be gone someday, and have let go before that day, it would cause me less pain. I think the difference between the two beliefs, is one of, for lack of a better word, maturity.

The materialist defines who he is, by what he has, and that value is multiplied by how nice the things he has are. The Buddhist views his life, as a river of ever flowing energy. He appricates the energy around him, in any form, and allows it to stay, or pass him as it pleases. As opposed to a materialist, that is going to grab said energy(things, people, situations), and hold on to it for dear life, especially good ones. This will cause the person pain when the flow of life tears these things a materialist holds dear away, as it will for every person, everywhere. Whereas the buddhist has learned to let go, and let things flow as they naturally would. Life, things, etc.

Example:

Materialst: I have x amount of things, they are all very nice things. I want to keep these things. My youth, my possesions, my status in society, I do not want these things to change. I also have x amount of years before I die, so I must mass as much as I can, in said amount of years.

Buddhist: I have x amount of years before things change. The things around me are beautiful, and I love the gifts nature, life, etc. give me as I walk along my path. I appreciate what I have, but am not lost without it. For I too will change, and nothing around me will be the same someday. Be it the day I die, or loose an arm, I am ready to accept the change, and have already let go of the things that will change.

There is a Buddhist saying that I think fits this perfectly, so I’ll end with it. I hope I shed some light on the Budhist perspective, and I hope I didn’t make any mistakes. Been a while since I was in philosphy class, or debated religion with someone. Either way:

“In the end, these things matter most: How well did you love? How fully did you love? How deeply did you learn to let go?” -Siddhartha Gautama “Buddha”

Explaining the basis of the Buddhist belief would be a long and winding, yellow brick road; but, it might be simplified by reasoning that anything we ‘care about’ becomes an extention of our own ego. If the target of our affection does not meet our expectations, our mind may view that as a personal failure … “this would not happen if I were taller, shorter, better looking (fill in the blanks).” It isn’t that Buddhists have anything against caring… it’s just that detachment exempts them from expectations… with the ultimate goal being to love/care without expecting anything in return.

And, in a way, Frankfurt shares that school of thought but he advocates a more proactive method of personal interaction. And, he’s right; concentrating on the needs of others makes us focus less on our own silly desires. Any person who spends any time at all concentrating, solely on him/herself soon finds that every ache in the back becomes an inoperatable tumor, every twitch behind the eye is an impending stroke….

And the ’somewhat wrong’ part: A Buddhist monk may have the time and tools to reach enlightenment but, chances are, the average soul on the street does not have that ‘luxury;’ wish we did but we don’t. And so, we love, we lose, we get kicked in the pants, we suffer, we pickup the pieces, we move on - we learn. We grow.

Frankfurt’s folley; we’re human and we’re defective. There has to be a balance between total subjection to the needs of others and the custodial responsibility of caring for our own needs. That’s why, when traveling on an airplane, it would be prudent to put the oxegyn mask on your own face before atempting to help anyone else…..