Life has made it impossible to maintain a routine of posting here, I've prioritized work with more immediate pay and this has ended up taking me away from more experimental systems like Hive, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean I've given up or that I'm forgetting about this comfortable and pleasant space. So much so that here I am at two in the morning, making an effort to write a few but sincere words while I wait for my medicine to kick in and go to bed. And I'm going to use this short space of time to tell you about my most recent foray into the study of Buddhism. I remember that back when I was a teenager, Buddhism seemed like the perfect strategy to get away from Christianity (which I never liked, ever), it was obvious that it was a mouthful and I didn't even do anything to transform that label into a culture of life, a real change in my perceptions and paradigms, but I always had a special affection for this philosophy (which today I can understand better, it wasn't a religion, it never was).
Since then, I've changed my "religion" and spiritual perception more than 15 times and have ultimately accepted myself as a skeptic. Skepticism was undoubtedly the best and most lucid path I've taken and it's been permeating my personal universe for years and will probably continue to do so until the end of time and, although it may seem a little out of step, the only philosophy of life (with one foot in religion) that could follow me on this journey is Buddhism. But not just any, apparently only that path expressed and taught by the Buddha himself, the Theravada. Contrary to what people automatically think, Buddhism is not one and does not always follow the same logic and perhaps what kept me away from this line of thought was that despite its very advanced philosophical position, the Buddhism I knew tended to fall into the same holes as other religions: the worship of "power" figures, chanting in favor of these figures, a whole "lore" about the religion's mythology and a line of "characters" that needs to be respected. All of this honestly put me off too much and seemed to spoil such a sincere and profound proposal built by Siddhartha Gautama.
But that's when I asked myself about the true origin of Buddah and his teachings, and ended up confirming things I already suspected: Buddah taught countless things, but none (or most) of these things don't follow the structures so often seen in famous and popular Buddhist traditions. In Buddhism at its roots (Theravada) there is no worship of sacred figures, there are no chants and mantras to Siddhartha who transcended matter, there is no yearning for ascended masters because there are no masters. Buddha, unlike other lines of thought (such as Tibetan or Zen), believed that there is no reason to extend your knowledge beyond what is here and tangible. There is no god, just as there is no spirit/soul. It's practically objective materialism, only deeper than that of purely philosophical contexts. I don't think I'll have time to dive into each of these details right now, unfortunately, but let them serve as points to be analyzed in future articles focusing on each one on the basis of some of Buddah's points (such as the noble truths).
That's all I can write at the moment in the face of my deep sleep, but I'll organize myself to delve deeper into these themes.
Images obtained with free license from - Unsplash
Thanks for reading! Thomas Blum.
Português
A vida tem tornado impossível manter uma rotina de postagens por aqui, tenho priorizado o trabalho com remuneração mais imediata e isso acaba me afastando de sistemas mais experimentais como o Hive, infelizmente. Mas isso não quer dizer que eu desisti ou que eu esqueço dessa espaço confortável e agradável. Tanto é que cá estou às duas da manhã, fazendo um esforço para escrever umas poucas mas sinceras palavras enquanto espero o meu medicamento "bater" e ir pra cama. E vou utilizar esse pequeno espaço de tempo para contar minha mais recente incursão nos estudos do Budismo. Lembro que lá atrás quando adolescente, o Budismo me pareceu a estratégia perfeita para sair do cristianismo (que jamais me agradou, jamais), era óbvio que era da boca pra fora e nem realizei nada para transformar aquele rótulo em uma cultura de vida, uma mudança real em minhas percepções e paradigmas, mas sempre guardei um carinho especial por essa filosofia (que hoje consigo compreender melhor, não era uma religião, nunca foi).
De lá pra cá mudei de "religião" e percepção espiritual mais de umas 15 vezes e aceitei-me no final das contas como cético. O ceticismo foi sem dúvidas o melhor e mais lúcido caminho que trilhei e é ele que permeia meu universo pessoal há anos e provavelmente assim seguirá até o fim dos tempos e por mais que pareça meio descompassado, a única filosofia de vida (com um pé na religião) que poderia seguir junto a mim nessa jornada é exatamente o Budismo. Mas não qualquer um, aparentemente só mesmo aquele caminho expresso e ensinado pelo próprio Buddah, o Theravada. Diferente do que se pensa no automático, o budismo não é um só e não segue sempre a mesma lógica e talvez o que sempre me manteve mais afastado dessa linha é que apesar de seu posicionamento avançadíssimo em termos filosóficos, o budismo que eu conhecia tendia a cair nos mesmos buracos que outras religiões: a adoração de figuras de "poder", cânticos em prol dessas figuras, uma "lore" toda sobre a mitologia da religião e uma linha de "personagens" que precisa ser respeitada. Tudo isso sinceramente me desmotivava demais e parecia estragar uma proposta tão sincera e profunda construída por Sidarta Gautama.
Mas foi aí que eu me questionando sobre a origem verdadeira de Buddah e seus ensinamentos, acabei confirmando coisas que já desconfiava: Buddah ensinou inúmeras coisas, mas nenhuma (ou a maioria dessas coisas) não seguem as estruturas tão vistas nas tradições budistas famosas e populares. No budismo de raíz (o Theravada) não há adoração a figuras sagradas, não há cânticos e mantras para Sidarta que transcendeu a matéria, não existe um anseio pelos mestres ascencionados por que não existem mestres. Buddah diferente das outras linhas (como a tibetana ou a zen) acreditavam que não há motivos para extender seu conhecimento além do que se está aqui e é palpável. Não há deus, tal qual não há espírito/alma. É praticamente o materialismo objetivo apenas mais profundo do que o de contextos únicamente filosóficos. Eu acho que não terei tempo de mergulhar em cada um desses detalhes agora, infelizmente, mas que sirvam então como pontos a serem analisádos futuramente em artigos focando cada um em uma base em alguns dos pontos de Buddah (como as nobres verdades).
É tudo que consigo escrever por hora diante do meu sono profundo, mas vou me organizar para aprofundar nessa temáticas.
*Imagens obtidas com licença livre pelo:
Obrigado pea leitura!
Thomas Blum.
Thank you for sharing this. Buddhism has probably been the one "religion" (I feel like it is unfair to call it that) - containing a world view that somewhat agrees with I observe in objective reality - but it is a topic that I am not very widely read on. It's always been a nagging through in the back of my mind. I look forward to reading more from you on the topic once you've slept.
It is a thing, that afterall, comes increasingly rarely, so best to respond to its call when it whispers out :)
As far as I've been able to tell (and from what I've seen, it's only the surface), "original" Buddhism has a vision very similar to that of a materialist (in a good way), it doesn't aim for the "beyond", the future moment of your "soul", because it doesn't believe in a soul, it only believes in a re-organization of structures that can end up generating a succession of existences, it's complex and I'd better leave that for later when I study the subject more deeply haha.
Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting! I'll try to keep talking about it!
I've also been the one to raised eyebrows on the lore around mythical figures that we ought to hold in high reverence but their behaviours are seemingly just like any human with lots of flaws trying to navigate through a maze. I've not read much and deeply about Buddhism, but have admired its philosophy from a far, especially this aspect of non-attachment and the seemingly illusionary aspect of physical reality.
And it seems so paradoxical to me that one of Buddha's main teachings was precisely that there is no "I", there is no who you aim at or devote yourself to, the experience is purely of you with the world. There were no chants and mantras for the great master X or Y, and all of this simply seems to have been ignored in much of modern Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism itself, which is very famous, nowadays I see almost as Christianity in disguise when you think about the amount of icons, power figures and "prayers", mantras that you have to repeat a specific number of times. As if it were a bunch of subterfuges to achieve something that originally needs nothing.
Theravada seems to me to be the opposite of all this.
Thanks for commenting and reading!
Yes right. There's no concept of I, only the Self, which is impersonal.
Well pointed out over here, also had a similar conclusion. I sometimes frame it as beginners needing techniques to get to a place that they never left LOL.
You're most welcome, enjoyed reading it :)