4 ms·

> 321. A tamed elephant is led into a crowd, and the king mounts a tamed elephant. Best among men is the subdued one who endures abuse. Not sure I can agree wi

> 321. A tamed elephant is led into a crowd, and the king mounts a tamed elephant. Best among men is the subdued one who endures abuse. Not sure I can agree with this, especially as a man. Essentially saying neuter and emasculate yourself , so the King will ride your ass for the rest of your life and you'll live a content life.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> neuter and emasculate yourself... and you'll live a content life. A lot of Buddhist advice becomes very strange when taken into a secular context. It feels like there's a sense in the West of Buddhism as "less religious" than other faiths because it's less engaged with a deity, but that's a misleading approach. It's worth remembering that most Buddhist traditions don't expect enlightenment in one lifetime, and do believe in literal, bodily reincarnation based on your behavior in this life. I can't speak to this specific verse, but "best among men is one who endures abuse" is the sort of sentiment which is very different in a world where the one abused will be reincarnated and seeks an end to that cycle more than they seek present benefit. There are bits worth using in a secular context, but as with most faiths we should also expect some advice that's grossly wrong without its spiritual framework. (This is also worth remembering when we talk about corporate Buddhist meditation retreats and the like. They seem to assume that if enlightenment is the death of desire and ego, a little Buddhism will be a decrease of greed and selfishness. There are a lot of Buddhist traditions which are very much not about that sort of linear progress.)
- blueprint 8y ago
  Well, not bodily. Transmigration is the term. It means that a human consciousness is said to separate from the person's body once they die (the body stops activities and decomposes); the consciousness is said to be able to remain indepedent by its energy being "installed" onto a certain amount of gas, however strange that sounds at first, and that's what they call a "spirit" or "ghost" in the East. Then when that energy disappears, if the person didn't destroy themselves through some kind of problem they got while being alive the previous time, they are reborn through what is in their "origin", which was composed entirely of what that person has done. They forget all memories from past lives because memories are according to Buddhist teaching said to be stored in the consciousness and once that consciousness deteriorates and disappears, they're are gone. But what the person has done doesn't disappear and it's said that a person can find teachings earned in a past life in their own origin again. That's their explanation for why some people are naturals at some things and others are not. They gain a new body through rebirth but their soul (consciousness) is supposed to stay the same unless they lose themselves and along with it, their ability to be born as a human. Had a lot of time to read this stuff. It goes pretty deep.
  - cko 8y ago
    Is that from Tibetan book of the Dead? Never read it, but early Buddhism rejects calling consciousness the “soul” or even supports the concept of a soul. In fact there is one Sutta in the Pali Canon where one monk went around proclaiming consciousness as “self” or Atman and Gotama was pretty annoyed at him.
    - blueprint 8y ago
      No, Tibetan book of the dead is orthogonal to Buddha's teaching. People attempted to mix them but Buddha's teaching was only able to be correctly revealed in each detail by a Buddha due to only him having a high enough level to see things as they are (that's why he called himself a Tathagata), so people can't help but change it by adding their own thoughts and ideas. When we look at cases of a special teacher showing a reaction we must confirm every exact detail in context or we will likely completely miss some critical qualifying detail. Buddha didn't see the concepts which religions of the day promulgated so he didn't teach concepts from them. They were naturally imprecise or wrong in some ways. Each object and each living creature has its own self; for example an apple tree only makes apple fruits, and if it changes what is in itself due to a change in its environment then it's a fact that its own truth changed. People who are not enlightened can't see, so they make things complicated due to thinking and learning others' ideas without knowing the world. That's why someone who could actually see things - the enlightened being - had to come to the human world. No one expected what he told people. Most /wanted/ Atman to be a real thing - perhaps that's why Buddha was shunned while he was alive. Hope that makes some sense for you.
freeflight 8y ago
Really depends on interpretation, of which there can be quite a few different ones: Even with a king riding on it, subdued and enduring abuse, it's still the elephant who's best (mightiest) among men exactly because of how it is patiently enduring. Says something about power being independent of social status? How the strong keep enduring to preserve harmony? If the elephant wanted, it could easily squash the king, regardless of him being a king or not.
- UnpossibleJim 8y ago
  Don't forget, the elephants are almost extinct, men are overpopulated and depressed, while kings have flourished and bicker for the riches of the world. While it's a lovely parable, if you extend it out, the truth of it becomes apparent =P
- jackhack 8y ago
  Not with a crushed spirit. A bird that has lived its life in a cage won't leave. It's really quite sad to see. Men convince themselves they are free by refusing to ackowledge the walls of their own dungeon.
grasshopperpurp 8y ago
Scriptures are, of course, open to interpretation, but I think 322 and 323 indicate that the passage is about taming/taking control of your mind/perception and subsequent actions.
hw89y24y89 8y ago
You read it wrong. The tamed elephant isn't a metaphor for a man, it's literally an elephant. The notion is you should endure the abuse of the elephant, rather than lash out at the king for reprehensible behavior. The overall notion, regardless of whether it is a realistic one or not, is if we stop giving the gregarious attention they crave, it'll cease to be a valuable endeavor. Don't let the king rule you emotionally, and you'll never be their subject literally. The alternative is revolt against the king. But violence begets violence. And the kings usually have the best weapons. It's akin to Anarchisms "Rules without rulers".
- justboxing 8y ago
  Thank you. I guess I interpreted it literally.
otakucode 8y ago
I'm no buddhist, but yes, neutering and emasculating yourself and realizing that your status (which you fear would be tarnished by the king riding you) is worthless would, I think, result in contentment. You can either choose to try to hold on tighter to your imagined status, and possibly succeed and live only with constant fear that it might be taken away... or let it go.
saghm 8y ago
> Not sure I can agree with this, especially as a man I'm not sure I understand the qualifier; do you think you'd be more likely to agree with this if you were a woman?

Bartweiss 8y ago

> neuter and emasculate yourself... and you'll live a content life. A lot of Buddhist advice becomes very strange when taken into a secular context. It feels like there's a sense in the West of Buddhism as "less religious" than other faiths because it's less engaged with a deity, but that's a misleading approach. It's worth remembering that most Buddhist traditions don't expect enlightenment in one lifetime, and do believe in literal, bodily reincarnation based on your behavior in this life. I can't speak to this specific verse, but "best among men is one who endures abuse" is the sort of sentiment which is very different in a world where the one abused will be reincarnated and seeks an end to that cycle more than they seek present benefit. There are bits worth using in a secular context, but as with most faiths we should also expect some advice that's grossly wrong without its spiritual framework. (This is also worth remembering when we talk about corporate Buddhist meditation retreats and the like. They seem to assume that if enlightenment is the death of desire and ego, a little Buddhism will be a decrease of greed and selfishness. There are a lot of Buddhist traditions which are very much not about that sort of linear progress.)

blueprint 8y ago
Well, not bodily. Transmigration is the term. It means that a human consciousness is said to separate from the person's body once they die (the body stops activities and decomposes); the consciousness is said to be able to remain indepedent by its energy being "installed" onto a certain amount of gas, however strange that sounds at first, and that's what they call a "spirit" or "ghost" in the East. Then when that energy disappears, if the person didn't destroy themselves through some kind of problem they got while being alive the previous time, they are reborn through what is in their "origin", which was composed entirely of what that person has done. They forget all memories from past lives because memories are according to Buddhist teaching said to be stored in the consciousness and once that consciousness deteriorates and disappears, they're are gone. But what the person has done doesn't disappear and it's said that a person can find teachings earned in a past life in their own origin again. That's their explanation for why some people are naturals at some things and others are not. They gain a new body through rebirth but their soul (consciousness) is supposed to stay the same unless they lose themselves and along with it, their ability to be born as a human. Had a lot of time to read this stuff. It goes pretty deep.
- cko 8y ago
  Is that from Tibetan book of the Dead? Never read it, but early Buddhism rejects calling consciousness the “soul” or even supports the concept of a soul. In fact there is one Sutta in the Pali Canon where one monk went around proclaiming consciousness as “self” or Atman and Gotama was pretty annoyed at him.
  - blueprint 8y ago
    No, Tibetan book of the dead is orthogonal to Buddha's teaching. People attempted to mix them but Buddha's teaching was only able to be correctly revealed in each detail by a Buddha due to only him having a high enough level to see things as they are (that's why he called himself a Tathagata), so people can't help but change it by adding their own thoughts and ideas. When we look at cases of a special teacher showing a reaction we must confirm every exact detail in context or we will likely completely miss some critical qualifying detail. Buddha didn't see the concepts which religions of the day promulgated so he didn't teach concepts from them. They were naturally imprecise or wrong in some ways. Each object and each living creature has its own self; for example an apple tree only makes apple fruits, and if it changes what is in itself due to a change in its environment then it's a fact that its own truth changed. People who are not enlightened can't see, so they make things complicated due to thinking and learning others' ideas without knowing the world. That's why someone who could actually see things - the enlightened being - had to come to the human world. No one expected what he told people. Most /wanted/ Atman to be a real thing - perhaps that's why Buddha was shunned while he was alive. Hope that makes some sense for you.

freeflight 8y ago

Really depends on interpretation, of which there can be quite a few different ones: Even with a king riding on it, subdued and enduring abuse, it's still the elephant who's best (mightiest) among men exactly because of how it is patiently enduring. Says something about power being independent of social status? How the strong keep enduring to preserve harmony? If the elephant wanted, it could easily squash the king, regardless of him being a king or not.

UnpossibleJim 8y ago
Don't forget, the elephants are almost extinct, men are overpopulated and depressed, while kings have flourished and bicker for the riches of the world. While it's a lovely parable, if you extend it out, the truth of it becomes apparent =P
jackhack 8y ago
Not with a crushed spirit. A bird that has lived its life in a cage won't leave. It's really quite sad to see. Men convince themselves they are free by refusing to ackowledge the walls of their own dungeon.

grasshopperpurp 8y ago

Scriptures are, of course, open to interpretation, but I think 322 and 323 indicate that the passage is about taming/taking control of your mind/perception and subsequent actions.

hw89y24y89 8y ago

You read it wrong. The tamed elephant isn't a metaphor for a man, it's literally an elephant. The notion is you should endure the abuse of the elephant, rather than lash out at the king for reprehensible behavior. The overall notion, regardless of whether it is a realistic one or not, is if we stop giving the gregarious attention they crave, it'll cease to be a valuable endeavor. Don't let the king rule you emotionally, and you'll never be their subject literally. The alternative is revolt against the king. But violence begets violence. And the kings usually have the best weapons. It's akin to Anarchisms "Rules without rulers".

justboxing 8y ago
Thank you. I guess I interpreted it literally.

otakucode 8y ago

I'm no buddhist, but yes, neutering and emasculating yourself and realizing that your status (which you fear would be tarnished by the king riding you) is worthless would, I think, result in contentment. You can either choose to try to hold on tighter to your imagined status, and possibly succeed and live only with constant fear that it might be taken away... or let it go.

saghm 8y ago

> Not sure I can agree with this, especially as a man I'm not sure I understand the qualifier; do you think you'd be more likely to agree with this if you were a woman?