Religion as Practice: No pain, no gain?

[Pineal]

No, it doesn't, but in times of hardship, it seems this is precisely what people are inclined to do.

OK.

Some Western Buddhist teachers point out that many Westerners take up Eastern beliefs and practices in this spirit: to reinforce their negative self-image.
These people perceive those Eastern beliefs and practices as proof that what they believed about themselves all along, is true. But they couldn't be further from the truth!

Some Western Buddhist teachers even maintain that spiritual practice cannot begin until the self-hatred stops.

Sure, though, in the end, I cannot separate out Buddhist practice from a kind of self-hatred. Not the specific kind, the biographical kind or character evaluating kind - I am lazy, I should have been a better daughter, I never try hard enough - but something nearly metaphysical rather than individual. And have these Western buddhists really given up the no pain, no gain philosophy in meditation practice? If so, great.

 

[wynn]

It presumes a real (portion of) the self that will always be a burden or potential reprobate for the good portions of the self. Setting aside whether this is correct or must be correct or is the best approach to this issue.....
it seems much of the world presumes one has a kind of double nature, or two selves, one making sure the other is not taking over and being bad.

Not just two, but many - a whole committee.

 

[wynn]

Sure, though, in the end, I cannot separate out Buddhist practice from a kind of self-hatred. Not the specific kind, the biographical kind or character evaluating kind - I am lazy, I should have been a better daughter, I never try hard enough - but something nearly metaphysical rather than individual. And have these Western buddhists really given up the no pain, no gain philosophy in meditation practice? If so, great.

Buddhism isn't for everyone, and everyone isn't for Buddhism.

One of the basic Buddhist teachings is that that which is inconstant, is not the self and is stressful.

Identifying with things that are inconstant (thoughts, emotions, body, possessions) leads to suffering. Buddhists aspire to make an end to suffering.

 

[Pineal]

Not just two, but many - a whole committee.

Well, I think most systems set up a good superego 'I' which is then in charge of the others. And these others tend to get lumped together. I don't think most religions suggest the setting up of committees.

Makes me think of Gurdieff and all the 'I's.

 

[Pineal]

Buddhism isn't for everyone, and everyone isn't for Buddhism.

One of the basic Buddhist teachings is that that which is inconstant, is not the self and is stressful.

Identifying with things that are inconstant (thoughts, emotions, body, possessions) leads to suffering. Buddhists aspire to make an end to suffering.

yes, though if it is not right for you, and you correctly, for yourself, identify with one of these, then Buddhist practice can become self-hate. Not one specific to you as an individual. I, Steve, am bad. But rather in the act of disidentifying, one is attacking that portion of the self.

 

[wynn]

yes, though if it is not right for you, and you correctly, for yourself, identify with one of these, then Buddhist practice can become self-hate. Not one specific to you as an individual. I, Steve, am bad. But rather in the act of disidentifying, one is attacking that portion of the self.

Sure.

 

[Pineal]

Sure.

I realized also that the idea that it is not for everyone is not necessarily a Buddhist idea. Some Buddhists believe this, but many, if not most, believe that it may not be the right time now, because you have not had enough incarnations or learned sufficiently from them, but still, the problem as understood in Buddhism is also your problem - you just don't know it yet - and later you will have to get around to being a good Buddhist or you will still have that core problem. IOW it is geneally universalized, however much more nicely than some theisms.

And after that realized, that while the goal is the end of suffering, the process may not be that - Zen Masters hitting people with sticks for not sitting up straight enough is a kind of easy to see example where short term suffering is a tool against, hopefullly, long term suffering. I think there are more subtle versions. I also think that even very extreme ascetics, self-flagellants and others who suffer in religious practice, might have as part of their goal the ending of suffering.

 

[wynn]

I realized also that the idea that it is not for everyone is not necessarily a Buddhist idea. Some Buddhists believe this, but many, if not most, believe that it may not be the right time now, because you have not had enough incarnations or learned sufficiently from them, but still, the problem as understood in Buddhism is also your problem - you just don't know it yet - and later you will have to get around to being a good Buddhist or you will still have that core problem. IOW it is geneally universalized, however much more nicely than some theisms.

What exactly is your problem with Buddhism?

And after that realized, that while the goal is the end of suffering, the process may not be that - Zen Masters hitting people with sticks for not sitting up straight enough is a kind of easy to see example where short term suffering is a tool against, hopefullly, long term suffering.

That is agreed upon. The teacher will not use the stick on anyone who hasn't previously agreed to this approach.

You might get quite forcibly pushed down at a Hindu temple if you don't bow at the right time, or have stones thrown at you if you walk around on a Sunday in a certain part of Israel.

 

[Pineal]

What exactly is your problem with Buddhism?

I think it has no pain no gain - to put it in context of the thread. There are other ways it is not for me, but those extend outside the thread.

That is agreed upon. The teacher will not use the stick on anyone who hasn't previously agreed to this approach.

Sure. But it is pain.

You might get quite forcibly pushed down at a Hindu temple if you don't bow at the right time, or have stones thrown at you if you walk around on a Sunday in a certain part of Israel.

Sure.

 

[wynn]

Strictly speaking, is there any gain to be made without requiring some pain?

 

[Pineal]

Strictly speaking, is there any gain to be made without requiring some pain?

I've made gains without pain. From there, there are diffrerences iin degree and prioritization. Also there are often reactions like one should not have a problem with the pain, if not even more positive views of the pain - in self-flagellation, which may not, in my opinion, be one of the more extreme versions of no pain, no gain, but it is out in the open and hard to deny.

 

[wynn]

I've made gains without pain.

For example?

 

[Pineal]

For example?

I once read an essay about a particular parent-child dynamic that the author's felt often set up damaging patterns in the child. I recognized myself in this and felt this wonderful feeling of insight. The main insight was that I had been having a bad time. I had thought that this bad time was merely neutral. Suddenly realizing that what had seemed neutral was actually not neutral - and also that my reactions were potentially normal to the pattern itself - gave me a wonderful sense of optimism, self-understanding and freedom.

I've had similar experiences with psychodrama and other therapeutic modalities, meditation-like explorations, discussions with friends and mulling over experiences and finding catharsis related to what I did not express there.

I think the issue around pain can be complicated - sometimes I have noticed ways I was suffering, but had tried and even succeeded in not noticing up until then. This can feel very similar to no pain, no gain, but ultimately it does not feel the same to me because I can feel that it was always there. Here the primary feeling is relief. I think this is an important issue when I look over the whole of my process so far.

But without going into that I can see many instances and even periods where explorations, some organized, some not, led to gains without pain.

 

[wynn]

But without going into that I can see many instances and even periods where explorations, some organized, some not, led to gains without pain.

What to you may have been gains without pain, to someone else may be gains with a lot of pain - even more pain than the gain may be worth.

 

[Yazata]

Religions offer a set of practices that are supposed to lead to outccomes.

Should these appeal to us as individuals?

The outcomes or the practices?

Presumably somebody who is attracted to the religion has some attraction to the outcomes it promises. Salvation, release, the end of suffering, ultimate gnosis. Even worldly success and prosperity in some religions.

I guess that the practices are typically means to those ends. People sacifice to the gods in order to enjoy a good harvest.

Should we, rather, adapt to them, even if they do not feel good (or right?)?

That's a difficult question.

My own view is that there are multiple "voices" inside most of us. We have our desires, often rather pointless and sometimes even base and immoral. And we have our voice of reason and conscience too, most of us, more or less. So in evaluating how a practice feels we kind of need to be aware of what inner audience it's playing to.

How does on evaluate how well practice is working?

Does it do violence to my reason or my conscience? If so, it might not be the path for me.

More pragmatically, does it work? Does it produce results that, even if they are only small initial ones, suggest that there might be something more there?

In the forms of Buddhism that emphasize meditation, for example, does that meditation have positive benefits in our lives? Does it change us in positive ways? That would make it worth pursuing, even if we can't be sure about the transcendental Jnanas, Nibbana or Satori that supposedly lie further down the path (in this or a future lifetime). Nice to think that they are there, but the meditation practice comes to have its own meaning and justification in our lives, even without the promised payoff.

 

[Pineal]

The outcomes or the practices?

I was definitely thinking of the means, rather than the ends. If they tell you what the practice will lead to and it sounds bad to you, you are very strange if you continue with the practices - though I suppose it could be so pleasurable like heroin, but I am sure you get what I mean.

Presumably somebody who is attracted to the religion has some attraction to the outcomes it promises. Salvation, release, the end of suffering, ultimate gnosis. Even worldly success and prosperity in some religions.

Sure, I participated a number of times in a very odd form of Buddhism that was ALL about material success. I mean they mentioned spiritual stuff and ethics, but man they prayed for getting material stuff and there were regular sharing sessions about all the stuff they were getting. I was rather jealous. Very attractive adherents also.

I guess that the practices are typically means to those ends. People sacifice to the gods in order to enjoy a good harvest.

Yes, that is one form. Though I was thinking more of day to day practices.

That's a difficult question.

My own view is that there are multiple "voices" inside most of us. We have our desires, often rather pointless and sometimes even base and immoral. And we have our voice of reason and conscience too, most of us, more or less. So in evaluating how a practice feels we kind of need to be aware of what inner audience it's playing to.

Yes.

Does it do violence to my reason or my conscience? If so, it might not be the path for me.

I would say that most religious practice does metaphorical violence to reason, some also to conscience potentially.

More pragmatically, does it work? Does it produce results that, even if they are only small initial ones, suggest that there might be something more there?

That is definitely an issue. And oddly one of my first experiences with a religion that worked - iow I had some positive experiences that seemed magical - did not lead to me staying in that religion. I ended up having a variety of problems with both means and ends. But it was wonderful to see that something could work.

In the forms of Buddhism that emphasize meditation, for example, does that meditation have positive benefits in our lives? Does it change us in positive ways? That would make it worth pursuing, even if we can't be sure about the transcendental Jnanas, Nibbana or Satori that supposedly lie further down the path (in this or a future lifetime). Nice to think that they are there, but the meditation practice comes to have its own meaning and justification in our lives, even without the promised payoff.

What if it felt bad but seemed to work? By what criteria might you decide that it is not worth it or there is a problem here, even though you also noticed benefits - greater concentration, less anxiety, whatever.

 

[Pineal]

What to you may have been gains without pain, to someone else may be gains with a lot of pain - even more pain than the gain may be worth.

You mean for them to make a similar gain they would have to suffer or does that mean that if they experienced exactly what I experienced they would have labeled it gain via pain?


In any case, I experienced gain without pain.

 

[Pineal]

To renew my OP.

I think this idea that one must suffer to make gains - sometimes tied in with the idea of discipline in practice - is a deeply ingrained idea and often not correct. I think in relation to religions and there are often a lot of harsh judgments against those who think that it could be another way. At the very least I think it is a meme that some minds will be better off without.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I would offer that, as a universal applicable to the main world religions mentioned thus far, "right thinking" emerges as early as writing.

It seems to me that after only a few episodes of soul searching, the novice would begin to notice, each time he leaves the temple, that there is huge suffering and wrong thinking pervading the real world.

So the task, which may have begun as self-correction would seem to naturally shift into humanitarianism, and there you would have a fertile field of work that would seem to drift into the rites and liturgy as holy obligations.

 

[chimpkin]

To renew my OP.

I think this idea that one must suffer to make gains - sometimes tied in with the idea of discipline in practice - is a deeply ingrained idea and often not correct. I think in relation to religions and there are often a lot of harsh judgments against those who think that it could be another way. At the very least I think it is a meme that some minds will be better off without.

I find meditation very boring, frustrating, and occasionally painful. But if I don't do it my brain becomes an increasingly violently noisy place.