Buddhism vs Dr.Phil

[David Jamieson]

Answers to lifes problems:

"Help me out, I’m trapped!"

"Get out!"


"I’m disorganized. What can I do to stop being so?"

"Get organized."


"I can’t concentrate. What do I do?"

"Concentrate!"


"I have no courage."

"Be courageous!"


"I’m weak."

"Be strong!"


"I have no faith."

"Believe. Seek it out, little by little, inch by inch, and find it!"

[Merryprankster]

what's your point?

enlighten us, o exalted one

[MasterKiller]

what's your point? That your salvation rests in your very own hands. Take responsibility for yourself.

Amitabha.

[dwid]

Yeah, what the hell are you getting at?

Dr. Phil is a tool.

[dwid]

That your salvation rests in your very own hands. Take responsibility for yourself.

I'm not sure Dr. Phil's admonitions qualify as transmission of any wisdom, regardless of how simple that wisdom may be.

[Merryprankster]

actually dr. phil hits the nail on the head.

are you unhappy? start making decisions that make you happy.

not successful? start making decisions that improve your success.

it's pretty simple: stop ****ing whining, stop acting like everybody but you is lucky and DO something.

[dwid]

The point is that he couples obvious observations with an overbearing personality and people eat the stuff up. He irritates me in the same way all self-help people irritate me.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
actually dr. phil hits the nail on the head.

are you unhappy? start making decisions that make you happy.

not successful? start making decisions that improve your success.

it's pretty simple: stop ****ing whining, stop acting linker everybody but you is lucky and DO something. That's Buddhism, in a nutshell.

[dwid]

It's a pretty vague nutshell, a nutshell likely containing the majority of philosophies and religions of the world to one degree or another.


are you unhappy? start making decisions that make you happy.

How does one go about this? How does one trust that his or her perceptions of what will make him or her happy are valid? Different schools of Buddhism would disagree on these points/approach these questions in different ways.

not successful? start making decisions that improve your success.

How do you define success? Is your definition realistic? Do you have the necessary tools to make decisions that improve your success?

it's pretty simple: stop ****ing whining, stop acting linker everybody but you is lucky and DO something.

Yes, do something. But what?


The point is that admonitions like this are ultimately empty and are really the precursors to pursuing change rather than useful means to improving oneself. They are the basis for the truth of suffering of Buddhism but offer little in the way of Cause of suffering, Cessation of suffering, or Path. Thus, this is no more Buddhism in a nutshell than it is Christianity in a nutshell or Islam in a nutshell, etc...

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by dwid
[B]It's a pretty vague nutshell, a nutshell likely containing the majority of philosophies and religions of the world to one degree or another. The difference being the onus of salvation is your responsiblity, not the act of another divinely sanctioned authority.

It's easy to say, "My life sucks because it's God's plan."

It's harder to say, "My life sucks because I make poor choices."

[dwid]

It's easy to say, "My life sucks because it's God's plan."

Christianity doesn't teach this belief any more than Buddhism does. If someone believes this, it is a misunderstanding of teachings or more likely the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the teacher, priest, or whatever.


It's harder to say, "My life sucks because I make poor choices."

True, but this is hardly unique to Buddhism. Further, this is not a universal belief by all practitioners of Buddhism. Karma is often treated by Buddhists the way God's divine plan is treated by some Christians.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Who is Dr Phil???????

[Merryprankster]

bull****.

the admonitions are not empty.

They directly indicate that the course of your life is your responsibility, not somebody elses, and that there is NOTHING you can't do, you just have to live with the consequences.

life is that simple.

you're desperately overpontificating. you pick a goal you want and go for it. if it's the wrong thing maybe you pick a different goal.

it doesn't mean that there might not be many steps to getting there.

or, you can stand around and whine that you can't fix your engine because you need a wrench, but you don't have the tools for the job.

[Xebsball]

Im with the Not-attractive Monkey, whos this Dr. dude?
I like Phil Anselmo better, in fact im listening to The Great Southern Trendkill as we speak.

its very cute the solve you problems thing blah blah, but a lot of stuff just really is very focking technically hard

Id like to add a quote to the thread also too you know:
"Don't hit me with that positive ****, I know you lyin
You really wanna stop niggaz from dyin? Stop niggaz from tryin"
- DMX

[Merryprankster]

"but a lot of stuff just really is very focking technically hard"

so you deal with it.

self-limiting prophecies are self-fulfilling.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
It's easy to say, "My life sucks because it's God's plan."


Thats a very common very very common misunderstading/pathetic stupidity i see a lot christians doing all the time
The other one they do is the "Thank you god this" "Thank you god that"
I mean... a doctor works very hard to save some fockers ass, and then the fockers goes... "And most of all id like to thank god"
The doctor oughta/shoulda think, wtf this motherfocking focker thanks god, it was me who did all the work after years and years studying my ass out on uni and stuff now this focker thinks its focking god who save his focking ass

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by dwid
True, but this is hardly unique to Buddhism. Further, this is not a universal belief by all practitioners of Buddhism. Karma is often treated by Buddhists the way God's divine plan is treated by some Christians. Karma is still a product of YOUR actions (or inaction), not someone else's.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Karma is still a product of YOUR actions (or inaction), not someone else's.

Its everyones action, there is indeed Collective Karma
Wich prevails over yourself is Personal, but you cant deny the existance of the collective

[dwid]

Karma is still a product of YOUR actions (or inaction), not someone else's.

Often your actions in a past life. (note: I do not personally subscribe to this belief, but it is a belief that is common in many sects of Buddhism) The point is, they are extrapolated from your current circumstances which ultimately makes them pretty **** similar to fate or a divine plan.

I honestly didn't expect this whole argument to blow up so big. I generally agree with what you and MP are saying - it is good to look at yourself as responsible for your lot in life and improving it.

But I still think Dr. Phil is a big tool.:)

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
"but a lot of stuff just really is very focking technically hard"

so you deal with it.

self-limiting prophecies are self-fulfilling.

but how are you defined without limiting? where do others end and you begin? where do others begin and you end? are you what you define yourself?
but if you change, are you still you? or some other you?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Xebsball
Its everyones action, there is indeed Collective Karma
Wich prevails over yourself is Personal, but you cant deny the existance of the collective I can deny it all day long because I don't subscribe to the concept in the first place.

[Merryprankster]

"But I still think Dr. Phil is a big tool."

he's got the right message. that's all that matters.


"but how are you defined without limiting? where do others end and you begin? where do others begin and you and? are you what you define yourself?
but if you change, are you still you? or some other you?"

look! an unrelared tangent!! catch it quck before it runs away.

[Xebsball]

sure ok

what im syaing is there is indeed on buddhism a thing called collective karma or something like that. i recall asking about it and reading about it when i studied some buddhsim, dude. not sure if on all types of buddhism though.
i myself aint buddhist, christian or anything, so i dont subscribe to anything too

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
look! an unrelared tangent!! catch it quck before it runs away.

:confused: ??

in times like this Rurouni Kenshin would say: "Oro??"

[dwid]

he's got the right message. that's all that matters.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. I have an extensive background in psychology and some writing experience. I should just join the guy on the gravy train and start writing self-help books.;)

[MasterKiller]

Or, you could be like Dr. Phil and write diet books even though he has no dietary training at all.

[dwid]

Well sure, why limit myself to writing books on a topic on which I have some knowledge/training.

I think I'll write books on the history of Chinese martial arts as well and maybe some pseudoscientific books on exercise physiology. :D

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

dwid ...
The point is that admonitions like this are ultimately empty and are really the precursors to pursuing change rather than useful means to improving oneself. They are the basis for the truth of suffering of Buddhism but offer little in the way of Cause of suffering, Cessation of suffering, or Path.

i agree with dwid here. answers like this are for philosophy books that can't help but be vague. they have their place, and they are certainly valid, but they aren't the end complete. if a real live teacher had nothing more to offer than these types of answers, i would likely think he was no better off than i and liked to use circular logic to convince me otherwise. just like dr. tool.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Destiny, the place you choose to go (and you can choose again and again).. Fate, that which interupts your journey to the place of your choosing.. Ritual, some contrived notion that attempts to blend destiny and fate.. Human, the poor schmuck that has to figure it all out.. Enlightened, the human that attends to the present situation and sees destiny and fate as distractions... Martial artists, no one's figured them out yet, but.. sado-masochistic philosophers with a penchant for abusing internet priviliges comes to mind...

JK.. be well.....

PS: suffering is an illusion that we choose.. it serves our self-pity appetite.. you say you suffer, i say you whine..

[dwid]

PS: suffering is an illusion that we choose.. it serves our self-pity appetite.. you say you suffer, i say you whine..

I've never taken the "suffering" in a Buddhist context to be the same as literal suffering. I think you're taking some liberties to make a point. Anyway, if suffering is just a descriptor for where you begin your path, it's basis is more as a motivator than as an excuse for self-pity.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Sorry, i was just playing around a bit.. but, i do tire of so many Buddhists using the excuse of suffering to validate their condition.. the moment we give away our inherent ability to create our own destiny, we abandon our true nature and become slaves to the "doctrine du jour"..

Be well..

[dwid]

I understand. I get tired of people of any faith who use their religion to subsidize their laziness.

I kind of thought you might be joking. For some reason it just didn't sound like you...

:)

[David Jamieson]

kaboom!

the best bombs are made with Horse sh.it and gasoline!

lol

Many times when some flunky would walk up to a master and ask " Master, what is enlightenment" they would be promptly caned.

why?

because they in that instant of pain became enlightened. That moment of short sharp shock smacked them into the true reality vis a vis the abrupt pain.

The pain, the suffering is at that point the enlightment as it simply represents "the moment", everything that is to come hasn't and everything that was, is gone.

also, as an addendum, there is more of course, but then, the tao that can be spoken of is not the real tao.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Sorry, i was just playing around a bit.. but, i do tire of so many Buddhists using the excuse of suffering to validate their condition.. the moment we give away our inherent ability to create our own destiny, we abandon our true nature and become slaves to the "doctrine du jour"..

i think this is why nietzsche saw buddhism as passive nihilism

[rubthebuddha]

isn't nihilism passive enough in its own right?

click (http://www.plif.com/archive/wc192.gif)

[David Jamieson]

read on a bathroom wall
~nietzsche is dead - signed GOD

[Nick Forrer]

An imagined (annotated) dialogue by Bertrand Russell written during the second world war.


The question is: if Buddha and Nieztche were confronted could either produce an argument that would appeal to an impartial listener?

Buddha would open the argument by speaking of the lepers outcast and miserable; the poor toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle dying in slow agony...from all this load of sorrow he would say a way of salvation must be found and salvation can only come trough love.

Nieztche would (when his turn came) burst out: good heavens man. You must learn to be of tougher fibre. why go about snivelling because trivial people suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be lamented, because they are noble.....your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can only be completley secured by non existence. I on the other hand have positive ideals - for the sake of great men (like Napoleon) any suffering is worthwhile.


For my part I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. Nietzche despises universal love; i feel that it is the motive power to all I desire with regards to the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is rapidly coming to an end.

[Merryprankster]

rbt,

nietzsche makes a distinction between active and passive nihilism.

in his view, buddhism just let stuff happen, where-as christianity actively sought to reduce life to meaninglessness.

kl,

that phrase is impossibly overused, in response to thus spake zarathustra... "...have not you heard? God is dead!"

THZ is an allegorical book, and the meaning of "god is dead," is quite clear when taken in context: nietzsche's point was that values, virtues, life's meaning, are man-made; as is god - if man does not need god conceptually to create/enforce/dictate value and virtue, then for all intents and purposes "god is dead."

nf,

i think BR doesn't do nietzsche's primary concern -questioning what a "right" value or virtue is- justice. there are very few of nietzsche's personal values that i think are particularly useful...which is BR's (quite valid) point, but his concept of questioning value/virtue itself is quite valuable (no pun intended).

nietzsche is usually brought up by wanna be rebel/independent thinkers who desperately want to look non-conformist (not you, nf or kl....or me, IMO), based on what amounts to his rather sociopathic value system. many consider him nihilistic, which i believe to terribly inaccurate. he was anything but. he chose to affirm life and defined that for himself. it takes a tremendous amount of brilliance, confidence, independance, and perhaps, the madness of tertiary syphilis to free yourself to create a value system.

quite frankly to some extent we're all his followers. nietzsche had a profound influence on (IMO was the first) moral relativists/humanists. to a large degree, we view personal moral frameworks, and engage in relative moral judgments because of his work. it's practically existential morality. it had a profound and lasting effect on our approach to life.

[Nick Forrer]

MP

(apologies for brevity)

Nieztche's penetrating critique of orthodox christian morality was timely and long overdue IMO. The subordination of the great by the mediocre through the mediocres strategy of strength in numbers (the medicore by definition always outnumbering the great) is an important insight and one that should not be overlooked. It also echoes some of Rousseaus earlier views on the nature of society, the laws that it (society) lays down and in particular those that concern property rights (perhaps the most ill defined and hardest to justify of all so called natural rights unless you subscribe to the view that what you own is whatever you can stop others from taking)

That said Nietzches philosophy did (however inadvertantly) pave the way for a later strand of social darwinism that took many forms, the most extreme of which reached its logical conclusion in Belson, Dachau, and Auschwitz.

Of course there are many ethical questions which aren't easy to settle and which only add fuel to the moral relativists fire- abortion is one that springs to mind. Another is the one for ten problem i.e. should you kill one healthy person for their organs in order to save ten terminally ill people wo would otherwise die without the transplant (Nietzche would probably say it depends entirely on the relative merits of the individuals concerned- indeed 10 healthy mediocre men should die to save one unhealthy great man)

Kants maxim- act as if the object of your actions were to be a general rule (i.e. what would happen if every one did what I was doing) makes life easier IMO but was loathed by Nietzche who described him as a moral spider.

Anyway too heavy for KFO so ill stop there.

[Christopher M]

Nieztche's thought is fundamentally undermined by a number of perversions he held axiomatically; making his religious and social critiques vacuous to all but those who share his perversions.

Most notable - his 'will to power' - presumes a mercantilist or neo-feudalist ethic as the essential character of human subjectivity. That this simply isn't the case destroys his perspective. That he lived in an age where philosophy had already evolved past this failing, yet failed to follow suit himself, tells us much of his character. That his thought went on to inspire so many repugnant ideologies is then unsurprising.

But if there is anyone more immanently useless than Nieztche, it is surely Rousseau, so the comparison is apt.

[Merryprankster]

"That said Nieztches philosophy did (however inadvertantly) pave the way for a later strand of social darwinism that took many forms, the most extreme of which reached its logical conclusion in Belson, Dachau, and Auschwitz."

hardly too heavy for kfo. practically all that keeps me coming back!

do you really think it paved the way for this? social darwinism was prevalent already in the late 1800's, and nietzsche's highly publicized "hatred of jews and lauding of german culture," have more or less been discounted as faux history.

more precisely, is it appropriate to blame the concept of "What is right? What does that really mean?" for Nazi Germany? I'm not sure it is. to me, they are too far removed.

sure, the idea of ubermensch was probably raped from nietzsche, but given the wildly different MEANING these guys attached to that word...

my point is, i understand the links, but to me, it's rather like blaming islam, vice 19 hijackers and a specific terrorist network, for 9/11. you can see how an extreme form of islam shaped their morality, but can't really equate the average muslim, or average interpretations w/ that.

[Merryprankster]

But if there is anyone more immanently useless than Nieztche, it is surely Rousseau, so the comparison is apt.

LOL.

I agree that his value SYSTEM is certainly useless, unless you really like sociopaths... BUT, were the questions themselves worthwhile?

I would argue that they were both compelling, worthwhile, and original enough to merit genuine interest and um, value.

I don't know that philosophy had evolved beyond feudalist/mercantilist ideas. implimented philosophy had not. society certainly hadn't.

[Nick Forrer]

Hi Chris

I generally find Philosophy useful for the questions it poses- not the answers it gives. Of course it depends on how interelated you think the answers are with the questions. The question 'in virtue of what can I properly call something mine' is to me an important question even if I may disagree with some of the answers people give to to it - exhibit A: Zionism.

[Christopher M]

Yes; similar to Merry's remark about us all being Nieztche's followers, his (and Rousseau's) questions are certainly laudable.

But I'm not sure we need either one of them to help us ask those questions, and I am sure that a significant proportion of people reify paradigms* such that questions become intractable with answers (ie. a given answer is required in order for the person to concieve of the question).

* bwahahaha

[Nick Forrer]

Hi MP

'nietzsche's highly publicized "hatred of jews and lauding of german culture," have more or less been discounted as faux history.'

I think people have a tendency to confuse Nieztche with Wagner on this one. The Nazis retrospective appropriation of Nieztche has, you are right, little bearing on the merit of his ethical questions. Another example would be their appropriation of the Schwaztika (sp?) which If i recall correctly is a hindu symbol for peace.

[David Jamieson]

Merry, you are the pale criminal.

as an aside, while Freddy's brain was rotting from the syph, his sister was capitalizing on his good name and writing up some nazi diatribes with gusto!

this led to the first geman colonies in south america which because of the purist views have deteriorated into some of the highest rates of mental retardation ever!

and so, the curtain drops on the superman, wandering through the venezuelan jungles, hungry, alone and no hockey helmets in site!

bummer.

I know i'm an arse hole for saying that, but hey, it's my karma and I can drive it as fast as I want!

[norther practitioner]

Schwaztika (sp?)

Has been discussed a few times around here or maybe it was over on russbo, can't remember....

Has ties to Germanic tribes, hinduism, buddhism, among others.. there are different directions, angles, etc... if I remember correctly...

not to get off topic, lol.:D

[Merryprankster]

sorry guys, it's been fun, but i'm going out to dinner!

[David Jamieson]

Try the veal and tip your waiter!

[Nick Forrer]

but whatever you do for gods sake avoid the cream of mushroom soup

[Vash]

Buddha would own all over Dr. Phil's non-exercising @$$.

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Karma is still a product of YOUR actions (or inaction), not someone else's.

no-one really clarified on this one, so I'm gon address it myself


5 FACTORS OF DESTINY

1. karma ( or tendancies of particular soul)

2. family environment in which you are brought up

3. social environment of the particulr era you are born into

4. effort

5.assistance of others

so it can be said to a certain extent your destiny is already determined to a certain extent (factors 1-3) but is changeable to a degree relating to the last 2

taken from "The Essence of Buddha. The Path to Enlightenlightenment"

Ryuho Okawa

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
THZ is an allegorical book, and the meaning of "god is dead," is quite clear when taken in context: nietzsche's point was that values, virtues, life's meaning, are man-made; as is god - if man does not need god conceptually to create/enforce/dictate value and virtue, then for all intents and purposes "god is dead."


Heh you see that right there. I had thought the same. Man-made and all, though i had never read any of that N-guy.
I probably am some kinda inteligent being afterall you know. Most people think im crazy, specially those who chat with me sometimes. But all the genius are... kinda...
I should probably write a book with my stuff, it would be at the same level that Neitschxshdsht (however you spell) dude. It would be good stuff, the world should listen to me.

[YinYangDagger]

:confused:


anyone here practice kung fu?




just curious :cool:

[Vash]

I practice Okinawan Isshinryu Karate. Same thing. ;)

[YinYangDagger]

Isshinryu is cool, I loved Naihanchi kata, and I actually used the 15 Upper Body Basics in a real fight back in the day :D

[YinYangDagger]

AND I can't stand to throw a corkscrew-type revers punch anymore :mad:

that vertical fist was deeply ingrained into my psyche