Does Buddhism Advocate An Escape From Reality?

[Asianbloke]

Buddhism is an integral part of Thai society and one often comes across images from Thailand wherein the monks with bowls in their hands are being treated with great reverence by Thais.

There are a few questions that have been bothering me about Buddhism for quite some time now. These questions might seem controversial but I have no intention of causing any offence.

I do like some Buddhist principles but I find it difficult to fathom that Gautam Buddha ran away from the palace in the middle of the night in search of enlightenment without even informing his parents (which was in strict violation of the Asian filial virtue & could be seen as an act of great disservice to his parents) & his wife.

His aggrieved wife (as per the tale) claimed to have been heart-broken because her husband didn't even the need to inform her before taking such a huge decision of abandoning her though she joined him after many years as his disciple.

Was it proper to leave one's one kith & kin (that too uninformed) in search of the eternal truth? Isn't an individual's first responsibility supposed to be toward's his/her family? Didn't he fail miserably in performing his duties towards his family which also included his son, a young boy at that time?

The practice of being ordained as a monk for a brief time might be a fine practice but spending an entire lifetime receiving charity and living on other people's assistance is certainly questionable (even if bestowers of such acts of kindness indulge in alms-giving out of respect & to make merit). I do know that these monks do life devoid of luxuries but where is the self esteem in such an existence.

Is it a practical way of living or mere escape from the harsh realities of life? (even if we take that their life in monasteries is difficult)

Can't one one devote himself to God while discharging his daily worldly duties?

No hate messages please! Buddha was a Hindu prince and Buddhism did originate in my country, India. I am just raising questions that I have been seeking answers for quite a long time now,

[leolibby]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby

[endure]

Buddhists don't devote themselves to God. There is no God in Buddhism.

[Asianbloke]

Buddhists don't devote themselves to God. There is no God in Buddhism.

Sorry but then they are devoted to Buddha and surely do worship him.

[leolibby]

Buddhists don't devote themselves to God. There is no God in Buddhism.

Although you can be a buddhist who believes in God. Buddha believed in gods.

But in Buddhism, God has nothing to do with enlightenment; it's all up to you. Buddha is NOT worshiped, despite what some Buddhists think. And also despite the fat jolly chinese buddha whose tummy you rub for good luck.

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby

[Asianbloke]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

If the events of his early life would be considered as tales, then incidents from his later life too can also be considered as a myth.

He did leave his family without informing them in his quest for the ultimate truth and that is a known fact.

That is why later the Buddhist filial piety sutra was later incorporated into Buddhist teachings as its followers and preachers brought the word of Buddha to Confuscist China.

They knew that it would be impossible to spread Buddhism to China and other East Asian nations which considered 'filial piety' (devotion, obedience & love one's parents) to be a supreme virtue without a similar concept in their Buddhist philosophy.

Living as a Buddhist monk meant giving up a life that was meant for serving one's parents & was strictly against the Confuscian ethics of China.

[Asianbloke]

Buddhists don't devote themselves to God. There is no God in Buddhism.

Although you can be a buddhist who believes in God. Buddha believed in gods.

But in Buddhism, God has nothing to do with enlightenment; it's all up to you. Buddha is NOT worshiped, despite what some Buddhists think. And also despite the fat jolly chinese buddha whose tummy you rub for good luck.

I am not associating Buddhist enlightenment with God. And, they do revere Lord Buddha, burn joss sticks before his statue, perform ablutions, washing the statues of Buddha in the temples for instance on the day of Songkran even if they don't consider him as a God.

They may not directly address him as God but consider him to be their philosopher & guide very much like Sikhism (a religion) in India.

[leolibby]

I just think that story of him not knnowing about sickness or death until he was like 30.... well it's obviously a myth.

[leolibby]

Buddhists don't devote themselves to God. There is no God in Buddhism.

Although you can be a buddhist who believes in God. Buddha believed in gods.

But in Buddhism, God has nothing to do with enlightenment; it's all up to you. Buddha is NOT worshiped, despite what some Buddhists think. And also despite the fat jolly chinese buddha whose tummy you rub for good luck.

I am not associating Buddhist enlightenment with God. And, they do revere Lord Buddha, burn joss sticks before his statue, perform ablutions, washing the statues of Buddha in the temples for instance on the day of Songkran even if they don't consider him as a God.

They may not directly address him as God but consider him to be their philosopher & guide very much like Sikhism (a religion) in India.

Some Thais do think he's God... but the rituals you described are misguided... maybe they cansider him God on a subconscious level.. I believe what you say.

[Asianbloke]

I just think that story of him not knnowing about sickness or death until he was like 30.... well it's obviously a myth.

No, I don't think it's a myth. He was kept away from all such sorrows of life and a led a closely guarded life within the confines of the palace/city walls on the order of his parents who were deeply concerned about his well-being (since they were told by an astrologer many years ago that he will certainly renounce his wordly life if he encountered the harsh realities of his life)

His parents (the king & queen) ordered that only a happy facade should staged before the eyes of their son within the city walls until that one fateful day....

I think this is quite believable since are no such miracles in this story.

It's very different from how Jesus was miraculously conceived by Virgin Mary or Jesus walking on water etc.

[Several]

Is it likely that Gautama knew any argument he could put to his family would be ignored? Also leaving wife and child though harsh is leaving the strongest of attachments behind. He had no problem ordaining Rahula later in life (to his fathers disappointment, losing another heir to the robes). The chance of liberation was perhaps stronger than anything samsara could offer.

[leolibby]

I just think that story of him not knnowing about sickness or death until he was like 30.... well it's obviously a myth.

No, I don't think it's a myth. He was kept away from all such sorrows of life and a led a closely guarded life within the confines of the palace/city walls on the order of his parents who were deeply concerned about his well-being (since they were told by an astrologer many years ago that he will certainly renounce his wordly life if he encountered the harsh realities of his life)

His parents (the king & queen) ordered that only a happy facade should staged before the eyes of their son within the city walls until that one fateful day....

I think this is quite believable since are no such miracles in this story.

It's very different from how Jesus was miraculously conceived by Virgin Mary or Jesus walking on water etc.

He never got sick?

He must have noticed age... he aged, his parents aged... If he believed people are immortal, how did he explain the fact that everyone he saw was relatively young?

Did he have a low IQ? I knew santa was a myth when i was 7... and no one told me.. i just saw the logical flaw in believing one man can visit millions of houses in one night.

If he did leave his wife and child on impuse, that shows that he probably could not be confined. He would have snuck out to get one of those questions answered before.

astrology is myth... the story is meant to endear Buddah to us.. this is the last reply you'll get from me

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

Back on topic, I believe that the opposite is true. To remain in the world outside the search for truth, samsara, is to live in a kind of complexified game. Money is a ridiculous concept yet it now defines the value of everything. Governments and business are run by greedy clowns who want nothing more than more money and power. War is waged against invisible enemies for paper thin reasons. Sex dominates everything from advertising, the internet and all media to peoples minds and by extension defines many lives. Drugs and alcohol, legal or not, provide a vast percentage of the population with the respite they need from the constant pressure to fulfil some imaginary role in this absurd mechanism. Not many years ago, when it all got too much, the doctor would advise you go on holiday and do nothing. The cure for the stress it causes was to ignore it. Now they give you prozac. Hooray. "one great big festering neon distraction." Aenima. Tool.

No, I think to follow the Buddhist path is to take the bull by the horns and seek the truth in the only place you'll ever find it. Yourself.

[leolibby]

Back on topic, I believe that the opposite is true. To remain in the world outside the search for truth, samsara, is to live in a kind of complexified game. Money is a ridiculous concept yet it now defines the value of everything. Governments and business are run by greedy clowns who want nothing more than more money and power. War is waged against invisible enemies for paper thin reasons. Sex dominates everything from advertising, the internet and all media to peoples minds and by extension defines many lives. Drugs and alcohol, legal or not, provide a vast percentage of the population with the respite they need from the constant pressure to fulfil some imaginary role in this absurd mechanism. Not many years ago, when it all got too much, the doctor would advise you go on holiday and do nothing. The cure for the stress it causes was to ignore it. Now they give you prozac. Hooray. "one great big festering neon distraction." Aenima. Tool.

No, I think to follow the Buddhist path is to take the bull by the horns and seek the truth in the only place you'll ever find it. Yourself.

I'll be sure not to ever meet you. You dont see anything good in life or people. It seems you hate life, which is opposite of buddist teachings; You mention prozac... obviously you have been on that.

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

@Leolibby; "did he have a low iq?"

Are you serious? Are you comparing discovering the path to enlightenment with realising santa isn't real? Could you be a bit more respectful please.

[Several]

Lol. Not prozac. But just about everything else I could lay my hands on. Escaping reality. I became a monk to face it, without chemical aid.

[leolibby]

@Leolibby; "did he have a low iq?"

Are you serious? Are you comparing discovering the path to enlightenment with realising santa isn't real? Could you be a bit more respectful please.

No, I can't. If an adult believes humans are immortal, and never get sick or injured, something is wrong with them.

[leolibby]

Lol. Not prozac. But just about everything else I could lay my hands on. Escaping reality. I became a monk to face it, without chemical aid.

I admire you for being honest and not defensive. I have never been depressed since I was 17.. I never have nightmares, i never get grumpy, or angry (except on internet forums). Plus, im termanilly ill, but i see life as positive and beautiful.. I love talking to people, smiling and singing.

I also don't drink or smoke

I'm sure if you follow your path, youll be successful

Edited July 28, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

Hey, I'm not here to argue my friend. I'm sorry about your condition. I know that the reality of deayh makes you look a little harder at the world. Another thing that samsara spends too much time ignoring. I've drowned twice in my life and had various other near scrapes with death, so like you I know its coming.

Personally I think Gotama knew about old age and sickness, but perhaps not death. Either way, when he found out that the 'clock was ticking' he went and sought more. The story has been dramatised and I'm willing to bet his education played a larger role in his decision than his chauffer.

The point of it is that pain and suffering are caused by delusion and desire. These are properties of the 'real' world. They still exist in the Sangha, but it gives more opportunity to go beyond.

All the best Leolibby. I like your posts. Mostly.

[Asianbloke]

I just think that story of him not knnowing about sickness or death until he was like 30.... well it's obviously a myth.

No, I don't think it's a myth. He was kept away from all such sorrows of life and a led a closely guarded life within the confines of the palace/city walls on the order of his parents who were deeply concerned about his well-being (since they were told by an astrologer many years ago that he will certainly renounce his wordly life if he encountered the harsh realities of his life)

His parents (the king & queen) ordered that only a happy facade should staged before the eyes of their son within the city walls until that one fateful day....

I think this is quite believable since are no such miracles in this story.

It's very different from how Jesus was miraculously conceived by Virgin Mary or Jesus walking on water etc.

He never got sick?

He must have noticed age... he aged, his parents aged... If he believed people are immortal, how did he explain the fact that everyone he saw was relatively young?

Did he have a low IQ? I knew santa was a myth when i was 7... and no one told me.. i just saw the logical flaw in believing one man can visit millions of houses in one night.

If he did leave his wife and child on impuse, that shows that he probably could not be confined. He would have snuck out to get one of those questions answered before.

astrology is myth... the story is meant to endear Buddah to us.. this is the last reply you'll get from me

Well, he surely must have got sick but the severity of his sickness was nothing as compared to the sickness of the man he observed outside the city walls. A mild fever, cough & cold that he experienced was very different from what he observed.

Well, he was 30 so his parents might not have been beyond 50/55 (at the most) given the concept of early marriages popular then in the Indian subcontinent. Their condition was very different from a very old man he watched on the street (the conditions of aging vary from person to person even if they all are of the same age)

It wasn't low IQ level that made him believe such things but the intentionally created atmosphere meant to safeguard him from the vagaries of life. Much of the human behaviour is a product of his learning.

We can't say he had low IQ level because he/someone else couldn't/can't even in his wildest imagination guess there is something like old age and beyond since he never saw it around him.

There are many things that children don't know that adults do because they are shielded away from such things which are considered to be appropriate only for adults. Their inability to imagine such things/ignorance cannot owed to their lack of grey matter.

We can't selectively weed out the his entire child and early adulthood & label it as a myth while term the later stages of life as reality. One should consider the life of Buddha to be either a myth or a reality but let's not divide it into parts as per our convenience.

And if I accept your arguement for a minute that the his early life as mentioned in the scriptures is a myth devised by his early followers to entice and attract the masses or whatever reason they intended that fabricated tale would serve, even then doesn't reflect a bit poorly on Buddhist teachings since it portrays Buddha as a person who abandoned his family and did evade from his filial duties & responsibilies. (not to mention the ones towards his subjects, the people of his kingdom in addition to his filial obigations)

On a lighter note, we all know as adults that Santa was created as fantasy everytime image of Santa driving across the moon in his reindeer-driven sleigh comes to our mind. It's quite obvious you see...

[leolibby]

Personally I think Gotama knew about old age and sickness, but perhaps not death. Either way, when he found out that the 'clock was ticking' he went and sought more. The story has been dramatised and I'm willing to bet his education played a larger role in his decision than his chauffer.

Yeah. He probably received a Hindu education.. and I'm not sure if it's possible to be a hindu and not know about death.. maybe he just thought humans have llike 1000 years to live. No one knows if my condition is terminal .. it is a genetic mutation that causes part of my brain to slowly degenerate. sounds fun huh? the mutation is not known, that's why they dont know. But luckily there is no pain or mental decline

[Asianbloke]

I just think that story of him not knnowing about sickness or death until he was like 30.... well it's obviously a myth.

No, I don't think it's a myth. He was kept away from all such sorrows of life and a led a closely guarded life within the confines of the palace/city walls on the order of his parents who were deeply concerned about his well-being (since they were told by an astrologer many years ago that he will certainly renounce his wordly life if he encountered the harsh realities of his life)

His parents (the king & queen) ordered that only a happy facade should staged before the eyes of their son within the city walls until that one fateful day....

I think this is quite believable since are no such miracles in this story.

It's very different from how Jesus was miraculously conceived by Virgin Mary or Jesus walking on water etc.

He never got sick?

He must have noticed age... he aged, his parents aged... If he believed people are immortal, how did he explain the fact that everyone he saw was relatively young?

Did he have a low IQ? I knew santa was a myth when i was 7... and no one told me.. i just saw the logical flaw in believing one man can visit millions of houses in one night.

If he did leave his wife and child on impuse, that shows that he probably could not be confined. He would have snuck out to get one of those questions answered before.

astrology is myth... the story is meant to endear Buddah to us.. this is the last reply you'll get from me

Well, he surely must have got sick but the severity of his sickness was nothing as compared to the sickness of the man he observed outside the city walls. A mild fever, cough & cold that he experienced was very different from what he observed.

Well, he was 30 so his parents might not have been beyond 50/55 (at the most) given the concept of early marriages popular then in the Indian subcontinent. Their condition was very different from a very old man he watched on the street (the conditions of aging vary from person to person even if they all are of the same age)

It wasn't low IQ level that made him believe such things but the intentionally created atmosphere meant to safeguard him from the vagaries of life. Much of the human behaviour is a product of his learning.

We can't say he had low IQ level because he/someone else couldn't/can't even in his wildest imagination guess there is something like old age and beyond since he never saw it around him.

There are many things that children don't know that adults do because they are shielded away from such things which are considered to be appropriate only for adults. Their inability to imagine such things/ignorance cannot owed to their lack of grey matter.

We can't selectively weed out the his entire child and early adulthood & label it as a myth while term the later stages of life as reality. One should consider the life of Buddha to be either a myth or a reality but let's not divide it into parts as per our convenience.

And if I accept your arguement for a minute that the his early life as mentioned in the scriptures is a myth devised by his early followers to entice and attract the masses or whatever reason they intended that fabricated tale would serve, even then doesn't reflect a bit poorly on Buddhist teachings since it portrays Buddha as a person who abandoned his family and did evade from his filial duties & responsibilies. (not to mention the ones towards his subjects, the people of his kingdom in addition to his filial obigations)

On a lighter note, we all know as adults that Santa was created as fantasy everytime image of Santa driving across the moon in his reindeer-driven sleigh comes to our mind. It's quite obvious you see...

Correction:

doesn't it reflect a bit poorly on Buddhist teachings since it portrays Buddha as a person who abandoned his family and did evade his filial duties & responsibilies?

[Several]

Well it would if he'd run off for lesser reasons, but surely his being the Buddha opened the way for many to avoid rebirth. His concern became all sentient beings. Not just family or country or race. When his wife caught up with him she asked to become a nun and their son a monk. So for us average joes, yes its immoral. But because of his teachings we have a shot at the highest realisation. I guess he rebelled against culture and religion and duty, I reckon he did the right thing.

[Asianbloke]

Well it would if he'd run off for lesser reasons, but surely his being the Buddha opened the way for many to avoid rebirth. His concern became all sentient beings. Not just family or country or race. When his wife caught up with him she asked to become a nun and their son a monk. So for us average joes, yes its immoral. But because of his teachings we have a shot at the highest realisation. I guess he rebelled against culture and religion and duty, I reckon he did the right thing.

But he did leave in the dark of the night and sneaked out of the palace gates without even bidding adieu to his family members. He didn't consider it important to intimate his own family of his plans to leave, even if we consider it to be a spur-of the moment decision/choice.

Even if he was convinced that his arguements to leave in search for enlightenment would fall on deaf ears, he still should have chosen to atleast inform them with details of his plan rather than leaving them wondering in misery caused by sudden shock about his whereabouts.

Can we consider it as an act of courage & rebellion or should we label it an act of cowardice? His quest for enlightenment as he embarked on this long journey began in this manner; he couldn't even muster enough courage to face his own family? How could he preach the masses when he didn't fulfill his most basic duties & responsibilities?

He left his father too along with his wife & kids, something which surely would have been considered a reprehensible & heartless act at that time as even today's Indian society (though the values are changing fast but we must remember that we are referring to Asian societies here), the love, respect & obligation towards one's parents is same/exceeds that for one's wife and kids among many.

The fact that he left his wife alone with their kid (please note that it was 'their' kid & not 'her' kid alone) for a holy/greater cause (& yes, not for another woman) does lessen the intensity of the wrong deed by only a small measure.

His wife joined him later as his disciple reflects on the magnanimity of her character than on Buddha's greatness & she emerges as a true heroine in my eyes who forgave her husband & embraced him despite his choice to sneak away uninformed leaving her alone with their son.

Moreover, I believe that performing ones' daily duties sincerely & with honesty is one of the greatest prayers and one doesn't need to renounce one's wordly duties/tasks to be devoted to God.

So, if every guy turned into monk in order to achieve absolute wisdom as per the Buddhist philosophy, how would the society progress and the world would come to a halt.

Buddha should have advocated a practical way of life wherein one can balance the two because performing the wordly duties is also of utmost significance.

Roaming around with a begging bowl and expecting to live a life on the mercy of others for something as two basic meals a day, no matter how difficult it may be does strip an individual of self-esteem & dignity. One should be able to 'earn' his own bread & butter because a life of penace & meditation alone isn't enough.

What kind of detachment is this, if every person started following it, then I wonder what would become of this world.

And, there's an event when Buddha says that there is no father/mother/any relation, then why did his followers introduce the concept of filial piety to Buddhism just to make it more appealing to the Asian societies that valued it and spread it's influence. They should have allowed it to remain true to it's original form, the way it was intended to be.

[Several]

But wouldn't it have been cowardice to stay? Not to go against the social obligations and just do as you're told? King Bimbasara had gone to great lengths to keep Gotama in the palace and if he'd been asked politely whether the heir to the throne could leave he'd have found himself under armed guard. He agonised over leaving his wife and child, but the reality of suffering is clinging. After he had left a life of luxury for abject poverty he did not avoid his family. It wasn't like he was running off with the circus. He was seeking something. Giving alms to those in the homeless life makes merit. It is better to give than to recieve. Living day to day with the uncertainty of getting enough food is quite brave.

Time for breakfast. More soon...

[simple1]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Within the Hindu faith the state of enlightenment is named "Sahaja Samadhi" and is similar in concept to "Nibbana". Accordingly I believe you are mistaken in your comment regarding loss of identity from a Hindu viewpoint (i.e. Vedanta) From my intellectual understanding both Hinduism and Buddhism have the discipline of transforming the individual Ego (self) to conscious union with the Absolute (Brahman). it is not a matter of denying the ego, but of transformation. As said in the Upanishads, Om Tat Sat - Thou art That.

Edited July 29, 2012 by simple1

[leolibby]

Sounds to me like he was just running out on responsibility. How can a sheltered child develop any responsibility? if a man abandons his wife and child now, there is no excuse. See it for what it is-- why does he wait until he has a child to leave?

[leolibby]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Within the Hindu faith the state of enlightenment is named "Sahaja Samadhi" and is similar in concept to "Nibbana". Accordingly I believe you are mistaken in your comment regarding loss of identity from a Hindu viewpoint (i.e. Vedanta) From my intellectual understanding both Hinduism and Buddhism have the discipline of transforming the individual Ego (self) to conscious union with the Absolute (Brahman). it is not a matter of denying the ego, but of transformation. As said in the Upanishads, Om Tat Sat - Thou art That.

maybe. I'm just saying what I've heard... and the brand of vaishnavism I followed values devotion (bhakti yoga). It's been years since I studied this though

[simple1]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Within the Hindu faith the state of enlightenment is named "Sahaja Samadhi" and is similar in concept to "Nibbana". Accordingly I believe you are mistaken in your comment regarding loss of identity from a Hindu viewpoint (i.e. Vedanta) From my intellectual understanding both Hinduism and Buddhism have the discipline of transforming the individual Ego (self) to conscious union with the Absolute (Brahman). it is not a matter of denying the ego, but of transformation. As said in the Upanishads, Om Tat Sat - Thou art That.

maybe. I'm just saying what I've heard... and the brand of vaishnavism I followed values devotion (bhakti yoga). It's been years since I studied this though

Me too, practised Bhakti Yoga for about five years, with the discipline of no meat, fish, no "external" stimulants such as drugs, tobacco, coffee etc I was working full time professional role in London. Eventually walked away as didn't have sufficient will to transform the sex drive and didn't want to waste my time dancing around the edges. Before I die want revisit and go down the path of a Brahmacharya

Edited July 29, 2012 by simple1

[leolibby]

I was in the Army when I got into it; at first I read one of Srila Prabhupada's books and rejected it and him... he was vendcative... but I came back to it. I rejected it again when I sought initiation, and was told I would be expected to enter an arranged marriage.. (a sexless marriage of course). I can't do the Hare Krishna chant either... not even silently.