|
I'm another one of those armchair Buddhists, but sign me up for the group as an undeclared. I lean Zen, but that's just because that's what I've read the most about. I've always been drawn to Buddhist concepts of dependent arising, non-attachment, and the idea of rebirth. But for some reason, I've never really gotten serious about any kind of practice. I think I'm at a stage in my life now where I'd like to change that.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 07:22 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 15:36 |
|
|
starless posted:meat Different groups have different attitudes towards vegetarianism, but the real answer to your question is on the cushion. Meditate, develop some insight, start learning to observe mental phenomena as they arise and you will learn a lot more about what makes you a meat-eater.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 09:34 |
|
|
Just wanted to pop in and say that there were a lot of cool meditation studies at this year's big cognitive neuroscience conference (most of them were posters of work so "hot off the press" they aren't even in press yet), particularly of vipassana. It seems to show a lot of promise for disorders of mood regulation and attention, like PTSD, ADHD, depression, and panic disorder. Highlights included increased neural markers of error detection (and task performance) in ADHD (thought to relate to concentration and attentional control), a decreased emotion response to threat images but increased response to human suffering in healthy adults, and a very cool finding that experienced meditators (3000 hours average) are much better at reporting their tactile sensitivity (i.e., their self-report estimations of their own sensitivity were more accurate as indexed by objective measures like two-point discrimination - meditation helped them not under- or over-estimate their own abilities). A lot of my colleagues are also really excited by how much potential meditation has - evidence over the last few years has really accumulated a lot. It's also cheap, effective even in healthy individuals (so it's hard to "misprescribe", and is easy to translate into a non-religious practice. There was even one team that had induced delta wave activity in napping people, and found that it produced similar effects to meditation on a memory task (for those who can't or don't want to learn it etc). Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at Apr 13, 2011 around 14:34 |
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 13:38 |
|
|
Is reincarnation subject to linear time? That is, when you die, can you be reborn as another life form in the past or future, or do you get reborn into a being that is coming entering life whatever the standard duration is after you die in your prior life?
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 16:15 |
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Just wanted to pop in and say that there were a lot of cool meditation studies at this year's big cognitive neuroscience conference (most of them were posters of work so "hot off the press" they aren't even in press yet), particularly of vipassana. It seems to show a lot of promise for disorders of mood regulation and attention, like PTSD, ADHD, depression, and panic disorder. Highlights included increased neural markers of error detection (and task performance) in ADHD (thought to relate to concentration and attentional control), a decreased emotion response to threat images but increased response to human suffering in healthy adults, and a very cool finding that experienced meditators (3000 hours average) are much better at reporting their tactile sensitivity (i.e., their self-report estimations of their own sensitivity were more accurate as indexed by objective measures like two-point discrimination - meditation helped them not under- or over-estimate their own abilities). Meditation is definitely becoming a big deal to psychologists and neuroscientists. My university has at least one professor who researches meditation techniques and how they can be applied to therapy. I'm going into psychology myself, so it's definitely something I keep my eye on. That said, I think it was Shadowstar that posted in the last thread a few links to articles pointing out that meditating for all of those benefits as a Buddhist is missing the point of meditation. I still think it can benefit non-Buddhists for those reasons, so it's a good thing to encourage people to do, but it's something we need to be careful with.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 16:46 |
|
|
Reene posted:I still think it can benefit non-Buddhists for those reasons, so it's a good thing to encourage people to do, but it's something we need to be careful with. starless posted:The only hesitance I have, is that I'm not sure how I feel about eating meat but allowing someone else to kind of do the dirty work for me. I think humans thrive on an omnivorous diet, and can't see myself ever becoming a vegetarian. At the same time, how can one think less of, say, a local farmer/butcher but still partake of his product (I know Buddhism doesn't really "think less of" anyone, but I think you can see where I am coming from with this).
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 17:03 |
|
|
Longhouse posted:Another interesting point is that the buddha honestly didn't care whether you converted to buddhism or not. He didn't view it as an all-or-nothing situation. Sure it was best if you did convert and lived entirely according to the teaching, but it was better to adopt at least some practices or views than none at all. I think this applies to eating meat as well (and most things with Buddhism). Best to be aware and thoughtful, but don't beat yourself up if you don't feel you're ready/ willing/ able to go all-out on everything.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 17:06 |
|
|
Pyramid Scheme posted:Is reincarnation subject to linear time? That is, when you die, can you be reborn as another life form in the past or future, or do you get reborn into a being that is coming entering life whatever the standard duration is after you die in your prior life? This is a really awesome question and I'm quoting it because I'm intrigued. I would assume that since Karma is effectively cause and effect based, that it coincides with time being linear, and the past is good and gone.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 17:21 |
|
|
starless posted:So I read the entire last thread and this one, got some books, and have been reading online. What I have read thus far holds strong appeal for me. I intend to check out a couple of local places, begin meditating on a regular basis and see how it goes. It all comes down to intent. Also this concept may be a bit tough for those raised into western religions, but karma is not sin. You don't get judged like that. There are different degrees to karma. Two men may commit an act of murder but what could separate them is intention. A person who accidentally murdered someone would get less bad karma than someone who planned a cold blooded murder. The karmic system is not quite divine retribution but more of a meta-physic of an equal force being applied back to whatever force you exerted. You shouldn't concern yourself with what others think is acceptable or not but think about your actions yourself. As long as you consciously control your actions to not cause suffering to anyone (including yourself) and any being, you're good. You have to understand the implications of your actions because you yourself can see them, and not because someone is telling you what is 'good' or 'bad'. Blindly following something is a bad thing because it shows ignorance and ignorance will likely bring suffering.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 18:09 |
|
|
Mr.Brinks posted:This is a really awesome question and I'm quoting it because I'm intrigued. I wouldn't trust anyone who say they know how reincarnation works. That includes the Dalai Llama. It's such an odd concept to begin with and there's so many variations in every denomination. Not to mention it's not a concept Buddhism came up with but mostly taken from Hinduism. In my area, the Hindus believed reincarnation is not strictly on a one-to-one basis. More than one 'soul' could gather into one person or one 'soul' could reincarnate into multiple people. One funky idea I heard is that there's only one 'soul', which is God, and he reincarnates into everyone and everything. So hurting someone else is actually hurting yourself (thus the karmic retribution).
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 18:16 |
|
|
quote:One funky idea I heard is that there's only one 'soul', which is God, and he reincarnates into everyone and everything. This is basically straight copy-pasted from Hinduism. And that's fine, but I do think it's missing the point. It is important to remember the culture in which Buddhism developed. Gautama was a Hindu, not a Buddhist. People in his culture practiced Hinduism. It's natural that a lot of the ideas that are presented from that time period and region will have Hindu overtones. Belief in literal reincarnation is one of those things that does not sit well with me because I have never been able to reconcile it with the belief that all phenomena are empty. I choose to view it as a metaphor for how our life and actions basically outlive us; the karma we generate from the poo poo we are doing now will not suddenly vanish just because we die, but continue to affect reality and the people whose lives we touched and so on. This may not be a popular view, but I very much try to be a "secular" Buddhist.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 19:26 |
|
|
So, had an vague interest in Buddhism for many years now. Actually a friend of mine who passed from cancer was practicing at a Shambala center the year or so before her death. Seeing her acceptance, humor and grace a day before she passed from un-imaginable pain has stuck with me. And Buddhism kept coming up in my thoughts, and recently I've taken to noticing and following the synchronicity in my life, usually to interesting and new areas. So I took out a few books from the library about Zen Buddhism. One that seems to be a standard western text by Christmas Humphrey. It has been called dated and a little misguided but a good place to start. How much should I know about general Buddhism as an introduction to the Zen path? Or after knowing some historical stuff and about the 8 fold path, just start *living* it? How necessary is a Master? I would love to find one, but honestly this is all new to me and don't know what the requirements of the student are (money, time, obviously dedication).... or do you mostly pursue it on your own with some guidance? Buddhism seems to make a lot of sense to me as a "faith". I am pretty much an individualist and like the idea that enlightenment comes from within. I have also struggling with what I call "grasping" at things in life, like "I *need* more money" or "Man I *need* that girl to like me." But here is something I don't understand exactly... isn't the pursuit of enlightenment forming an attachment to the goal of enlightenment? I get the idea that it's a path, mostly inward, but with causative effects on the outer world too, but doesn't *seeking* something negate the principles of Buddhism? sorry for  but I strangely feel ready to start some sort of path, and like many who posted I was a bit  about religion before, but something is sturring
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 19:44 |
|
|
Interstitial Abs posted:But here is something I don't understand exactly... isn't the pursuit of enlightenment forming an attachment to the goal of enlightenment? I get the idea that it's a path, mostly inward, but with causative effects on the outer world too, but doesn't *seeking* something negate the principles of Buddhism? Yes, but there just isn't any other way. We have to direct our lives to create conditions for real insight to happen, and that means practicing meditation and studying the view. It's often said that the only reason we have to meditate so much is to correct the problems raised by our previous meditation. You have a flash of true insight, so close to complete enlightenment, but then the ego makes a thing of it and you think, "wow that was pretty cool... Oh no, where'd it go!? I hope it happens again." Then you have to go back to meditating to create the conditions for freedom from that clinging, and further real insight. Kind of sucks, but thus is life!  Truly realized people are completely done seeking, and they don't particularly have to practice or contemplate the view any longer unless they feel like it. But bear in mind this also means they aren't even having the thought, "I am realized."
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 19:51 |
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Just wanted to pop in and say that there were a lot of cool meditation studies at this year's big cognitive neuroscience conference (most of them were posters of work so "hot off the press" they aren't even in press yet), particularly of vipassana. It seems to show a lot of promise for disorders of mood regulation and attention, like PTSD, ADHD, depression, and panic disorder. Highlights included increased neural markers of error detection (and task performance) in ADHD (thought to relate to concentration and attentional control), a decreased emotion response to threat images but increased response to human suffering in healthy adults, and a very cool finding that experienced meditators (3000 hours average) are much better at reporting their tactile sensitivity (i.e., their self-report estimations of their own sensitivity were more accurate as indexed by objective measures like two-point discrimination - meditation helped them not under- or over-estimate their own abilities). These are great scientific discoveries indeed ! I would like to know from experienced meditators if they think meditation really could work as a therapeutic help. I know from my own experience (panic attacks + general anxiety) of meditation that whenever i try to use it to get better, it fails : the simple purpose of getting better with meditation leads to the fear of it not working. It began to help me a bit when i did not use it as a tool anymore, but started to just "live along what was coming". In fact, when i begun trying to meditate, i got worse : panic and anxiety rose : i was using meditation to get rid of them, because i "knew" that it was supposed to help me... Of course, i learned from that mistake, so you could consider it a progress, but really, to meditate you don't have to expect anything, and i find it hard to include this state of mind in a therapeutic process : "if you want to get better, meditate" isn't the right attitude !
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 21:23 |
|
|
Ugrok posted:These are great scientific discoveries indeed ! I would like to know from experienced meditators if they think meditation really could work as a therapeutic help. I know from my own experience (panic attacks + general anxiety) of meditation that whenever i try to use it to get better, it fails : the simple purpose of getting better with meditation leads to the fear of it not working. It began to help me a bit when i did not use it as a tool anymore, but started to just "live along what was coming". In fact, when i begun trying to meditate, i got worse : panic and anxiety rose : i was using meditation to get rid of them, because i "knew" that it was supposed to help me... Of course, i learned from that mistake, so you could consider it a progress, but really, to meditate you don't have to expect anything, and i find it hard to include this state of mind in a therapeutic process : "if you want to get better, meditate" isn't the right attitude ! This is a very insightful point. The "aim" of meditation is indeed to develop a stilled, concentrated mind. Meditation practice must have some benefit, or else there wouldn't be any point to doing it! But there's a difference between a simple awareness of this fact (that meditation leads to a still mind), and the mindset when trying to induce or attain such a state. The latter is more akin to our common goal-oriented behavior, where we monitor, manage, and control our progress toward some goal, and are worried/distraught if we aren't reaching it. This itself involves a subtle form of craving and thus subverts the original aim of developing a stilled, concentrated mind. Only when one accepts that the results will happen naturally simply as a consequence of the practice do they then become attainable. The whole thing is kind of circular, and mirrors the larger process of samsara: we experience suffering so we try to conquer or run away from it, which only leads to additional suffering. "The only winning move is not to play."  In other words, only abandoning clinging provides a way out of the cycle.As for the therapeutic benefits, I still think meditation can be used in a non-explicitly Buddhist environment, but the value of a good teacher can't be understated. While I don't think a teacher is absolutely necessary, having someone that's gone down the same road to point out something you might not see yourself can be a great aid.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2011 23:11 |
|
|
Reene posted:It is important to remember the culture in which Buddhism developed. Gautama was a Hindu, not a Buddhist. People in his culture practiced Hinduism. It's natural that a lot of the ideas that are presented from that time period and region will have Hindu overtones. Also, the religious diversity was great at the buddha's time. We know there were people who didn't believe in karma or reincarnation, since that's why the Kalama people were so confused by those concepts and asked the buddha to clarify it for them.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 00:43 |
|
|
Whoo! alright, some interesting points I've missed! So much I want to touch on! First: Namaste Aliceamandee, Interstitial Abs, Glop Demon and starless. Also so many armchair buddhists, shameful! Grab yourselves a practise and a sangha! Would any of you like to be added to the list of practitioners?starless posted:Would this view ostracize me from a Sangha? I'm not looking to become a monk or anything, just to apply these teachings to my life in as honest a way as I can. Your views won't ostracize you, however, killing your own food might. I grant it's respectable to kill your meat if you're going to eat meat, but it's still a big taboo in buddhism. Simply because you don't really have to kill an animal to be fed. Killing is a violation of the first precept, and it still takes life. As was said, yeah, buddhism doesn't require vegetarianism in the slightest, but it does prohibit killing. Obviously, if you give an animal respect and do it humanely you're still on a right path, just not the noble right path. It's karmically bad, but not that bad. A general view is that if you're a nice dude and buddhist enough to be a buddhist, but not buddhist enough to truly commit to everything, then you'll come back as someone able to reach an end to dukkha etc. I guess the tricky thing is that in budhdism, animals are literally people too. Our ancestors, our family members. That guy who cuts you off in traffic (okay maybe you can eat him). As far as carnivores and buddha nature that's the problem. Animals that are carnivorous don't have any choice but to kill to live, so there's some pardon there. However, it's also important to note that animals are more trapped by their desires. "Instinct" basically, so an animal will generally have to reincarnate before it gets a shot at enlightenment because of these restrictions. Mr.Brinks posted:Is Buddhism incompatible with a God/Creator figure? As was said before the answer is a tentative "no" Buddhism is not incompatible with a god. Thats why there are many buddhist deities. But even gods are, according to buddhism, trapped in this cycle of suffering. Like men gods are reborn, they suffer, get sick, lose that which they love, then die, then are born again to repeat the process. I guess it hits a deep note there with christianity. After all you could look at the christ as a god reborn as a human, who suffered through life and was reborn again as a god. Buddhism is also very focused on worldly matters. However the caveat here is that, as with the above example, buddhism doesn't really mesh with other religions. You can be a buddhist and pray to gods for help, but ultimately your actions turn around back upon yourself. Dependent origination is huge for Karma, so having a god figure guide actions doesn't quite work like that. To suffer in Heaven by salvation? Or to meet release from Dukkha through the eightfold path? aliceamadee posted:Funny story about New Kadampa: My mother was in the US visiting me (she lives in rural Wales in semi-permanent retreat) and I was taking her around Lambertville, NJ/ New Hope, PA which is a cute little area I think she may be interested in moving to if she decides to come back to the US permanently. Anyway, I was trying to convince her by saying that I saw flyers for a Buddhist group in the town. She took one look and was like, "Oh, it's New Kadampa, they're basically demon worshippers and actively pray to rid the world of Shambhala Buddhism." Sooooo I don't think she'll be checking them out next time she's here! The funny thing is she's not that far off  But I do have a question for you, what do you mean you're not a religious buddhist? Glop Demon posted:I'm another one of those armchair Buddhists, but sign me up for the group as an undeclared. I lean Zen, but that's just because that's what I've read the most about. If you have any questions about traditions, please, I encourage you to ask, we're happy to help answer them and guide you to something that fits. Pyramid Scheme posted:Is reincarnation subject to linear time? That is, when you die, can you be reborn as another life form in the past or future, or do you get reborn into a being that is coming entering life whatever the standard duration is after you die in your prior life? Simply but, no, it isn't part of linear time. Linear time is generally a conception brought about by abrahamic traditions, which ave a clear beginning and an end. Emerging from hinduism, buddhism is steeped in Cyclical time. You can trace a wheel from begining to end, but ultimately those are appellations applied arbitrarily. SO ic the concept of time passing. Time isn't measured it simply "is". As far as reincarnation, about the only catch is that there is "one" soul, so that you can't simultaneously have a reincarnation and the same person alive at once. You can I suppose hop around time, but we cannot know, those who choose to reincarnate do so to have a continuous line to spread enlightenment, and ultimately thinking about reincarnation, or worrying about it, is counter-intuitive to enlightenment (unless you're pure land). So I guess the appropriate answer is Wu. (Meaningless) Reene posted:This may not be a popular view, but I very much try to be a "secular" Buddhist. Secular buddhism is actually pretty popular here in the west, where a lot of buddhist ideas go against western mindsets. Don't worry about it too much. I think that's about it! Thank you guys by the way for posting and asking questions, We're getting some great discussion going on here.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 01:13 |
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Whoo! alright, some interesting points I've missed! So much I want to touch on! you can add me to the list as a Shambhala Buddhist but I'm not really actively practicing. See below for details I said I'm not a religious Buddhist the same way someone raised Jewish may say they're Jewish, but not religious. Unlike most of you guys, I didn't come to Buddhism because I was interested in spirituality or religion- I was raised as one, by very very serious Buddhists (as I said before, my mother's been on some form of retreat for most of the time for the past 7 or 8 years). The principles of Buddhism are ingrained strongly in me and I can't imagine what I'd be like if I hadn't been raised that way. However, I am also generally not a very spiritually or religiously curious person. Ironically, I think a lot of that is because I was raised Buddhist- I feel like I have the basic "answers of life" (be compassionate! that's about it!) and so I don't go out searching for them. The last time I really felt compelled to meditate was at my father's death, and I found the Buddhist funeral and meditation to be the most helpful, comforting thing possible. So I guess I'm like Christians who only pray when someone dies. I do keep meaning to visit the Shambhala center near me and at least say hi and drop in to some open meditation sessions, maybe this thread will be the kick in the butt that I need.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 11:56 |
|
|
Any recommended Dhammapada translations?
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 13:16 |
|
|
the F Max Muller translation is my favourite, and I feel pretty solid of a translation.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 14:28 |
|
|
Are there any Pure Land Buddhists in this thread? I have a question about a personal spiritual practice that I'm worried is appropriation, and I'd like the perspective of someone who's actually Pure Land.
|
| # ? Apr 14, 2011 15:21 |
|
|
wid posted:In my area, the Hindus believed reincarnation is not strictly on a one-to-one basis. More than one 'soul' could gather into one person or one 'soul' could reincarnate into multiple people. One funky idea I heard is that there's only one 'soul', which is God, and he reincarnates into everyone and everything. One way to picture this is to view the Oversoul/God as a vast ocean, and each individual living thing as a cup. When alive, the living thing has a soul/the cup holds a portion of water. When dead, the cup lies spilled/the water has returned to the ocean. An new life/freshly filled cup may contain, say, 75% of the water from one previous cup and 25% of the water from another previous cup, and the attendant karma for the specific portions of soul/specific impurities from the specific portions of water.
|
| # ? Apr 15, 2011 02:30 |
|
|
Or, you know, just waves in an ocean. Nothing being poured, nothing ever separated. Just itty-bitty fluctuations on the surface that seem like a bigger deal on the edges.
|
| # ? Apr 15, 2011 16:58 |
|
|
I'm looking to expand my horizons and noticed that the suggested reading is pretty heavy on Tibetan/Vajrayana/Mahayana books and light on Theravada. Does anyone have any good suggestions for Theravada books? As a side note, I know he's Mahayana, but I'm also wondering what the first book I should get from Thich Nhat Hahn is.
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2011 07:14 |
|
|
Shadowstar posted:Or, you know, just waves in an ocean. Nothing being poured, nothing ever separated. Just itty-bitty fluctuations on the surface that seem like a bigger deal on the edges. So in this view is it sensible to talk about 'your soul' being reincarnated? Or is it more about a new soul being carnated? e: edit for politeness FightingMongoose fucked around with this message at Apr 17, 2011 around 19:21 |
| # ? Apr 17, 2011 17:47 |
|
|
Miss Fats posted:Does anyone have any good suggestions for Theravada books? There's also Food for the Heart, a collection of dharma talks by the late Chah Subhaddo, one of the most influential Thai monks (the site I linked contains most of the content). The biography on that site is also interesting, and gives a lot of understanding to how the life of a forest monk in Thailand was at the time. Another of my favorite books is this one. It's a modern commentary on the discourse the buddha made on satipatthana, often translated to "the foundations of mindfulness". It can also be a difficult read, but it's very rewarding and surprisingly less subjective than many other works on buddhism. Le edit: FightingMongoose posted:So in this view is it sensible to talk about 'your soul' being reincarnated? Or is it more about a new soul being carnated? Longhouse fucked around with this message at Apr 17, 2011 around 23:46 |
| # ? Apr 17, 2011 23:33 |
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:So in this view is it sensible to talk about 'your soul' being reincarnated? Or is it more about a new soul being carnated? No.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2011 00:38 |
|
|
I don't understand. Look to spell out what's bothering me a bit more. Let's say you have a soul an when you die it reincarnates as someone else, but once it's reincarnated it has no memory of being in its last body. What makes it the same soul? I mean if you have a sandcastle and you knock it all down and then you build a new sandcastle that doesn't resemble the old one in the slightest why would you still say its the same sandcastle? Why not say its a new sandcastle? I have a feeling you might say that what you do in one life affects how your soul is realised in the next. But still, if there's no tangible connection between the two, why say it's the same soul and not different souls? Presumably I could be really kind to someone else, or really nasty, and have an effect on their soul or how it reincarnates, but I wouldn't say it was my soul. FightingMongoose fucked around with this message at Apr 18, 2011 around 07:20 |
| # ? Apr 18, 2011 07:13 |
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:I don't understand. You're headed in the right direction, but I think you may be missing the point. What makes it a soul at all? How exactly do you define a "soul" in the first place? When you ask questions about souls dying and (re)incarnating and such, you make a lot of metaphysical assumptions about the nature of things. Keep in mind that not all Buddhists believe in literal rebirth. I personally don't believe that humans have literal past and future lives as other beings, but it's not a belief that I'm particularly attached to or interested in. I think what Shadowstar is trying to say is that the distinctions you're trying to make are meaningless. If we use the ocean as a metaphor again, humans might be just a few water molecules that happen to stick together for a moment but are inevitably drawn apart by a current. There's no new water being added or created, just a bunch of really old water that's constantly re-arranging itself. Some of those particles might stick together for another minute, but eventually they'll all be separated and shuffled around. There's no grand purpose to it; it's just the order of things. The absolute truth about things like reincarnation are beyond our comprehension as humans and they fall outside the scope of Buddhism. Regardless of whether we have souls that reincarnate or whether one is ultimately correct about such things, preoccupation with them will inevitably cause suffering. What is it to me right now, in the present moment, if I know for sure whether or not I will be reincarnated? It's nothing but an abstraction to me in the present moment. At best it's a distraction from what is right now and at worst a serious hindrance to enlightenment. frobert blamble fucked around with this message at Apr 18, 2011 around 10:29 |
| # ? Apr 18, 2011 09:01 |
|
|
Well put frobert. One easy way people get confused is by thinking of karma as a "thing." The very core of Buddhism is a refutation of any independently existing objects. There is no "soul," no "karmic account." Just a series of endlessly interacting, interdepenant forces. According to Buddhist philosophy, literally nothing is the same about "you," or "your soul" even from one moment to the next, let alone an entire lifetime. The only continuity is in the arising of the same forces of ignorance over and over again.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2011 14:16 |
|
|
Miss Fats posted:As a side note, I know he's Mahayana, but I'm also wondering what the first book I should get from Thich Nhat Hahn is. The Miracle of Mindfulness is probably his best known. It's a very good introduction on mindfulness meditation, and generally a pretty solid general introduction to Buddhist thought in plain, easy-to-understand terms. The Blooming of a Lotus is a nice collection of non-denominational mediation exercises.
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2011 19:16 |
|
|
You'd think Buddhists would be great at playing the Blues since it's all about suffering, but it turns out they have no soul. 
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2011 01:28 |
|
|
Reene posted:Oh hey a new thread. This describes me, too. I have been studying Buddhism for about 5 years now and practicing meditation for about 2. I haven't officially taken refuge, but I do identify as Buddhist, but no particular school of thought. I try to follow the Eight Fold Path and live by the Noble Truths. I believe in karma but am still very undecided about reincarnation. I am probably considered not a very good Buddhist, not "devout", but I think I approach it much more as a philosophy to live by than a religion. At any rate, it all makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than Christianity did.
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2011 02:17 |
|
|
Given that the end of suffering is the goal of meditation, is there anything notable along the way to this goal? What drives one to continue meditating for months/years before achieving this?
|
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 02:47 |
|
|
frobert blamble posted:The absolute truth about things like reincarnation are beyond our comprehension as humans and they fall outside the scope of Buddhism. Regardless of whether we have souls that reincarnate or whether one is ultimately correct about such things, preoccupation with them will inevitably cause suffering. What is it to me right now, in the present moment, if I know for sure whether or not I will be reincarnated? It's nothing but an abstraction to me in the present moment. At best it's a distraction from what is right now and at worst a serious hindrance to enlightenment. I enjoy such well-thought out and sincere explanations of deep religious concepts coupled with your avatar.  Are there best times of the day to meditate either according to scripture or science (or personal opinion)? Toadofsky fucked around with this message at Apr 21, 2011 around 03:22 |
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 03:15 |
|
|
qwerasdf posted:Given that the end of suffering is the goal of meditation, is there anything notable along the way to this goal? What drives one to continue meditating for months/years before achieving this? "To seek freedom is the only driving force I know. Freedom to fly off into that infinity out there. Freedom to dissolve; to lift off; to be like the flame of a candle, which, in spite of being up against the light of a billion stars, remains intact, because it never pretended to be more than what it is: a mere candle." I am ruled by my fear and my suffering. I can think of no greater goal than to be free from them.
|
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 03:31 |
|
|
qwerasdf posted:Given that the end of suffering is the goal of meditation, is there anything notable along the way to this goal? What drives one to continue meditating for months/years before achieving this? Some forms of concentration induced by meditation involve a pleasure that the Buddha described as greater than any other conventional pleasure. Even a short meditation can be very restful and stilling. So it isn't really akin to slogging through work year after year. Aside from this, you shouldn't think of it as enduring suffering for years and years until you finally become enlightened and then all the previous suffering goes away. The practice involves a gradual release from suffering; at first the gross forms go away, and later the more subtle forms, until finally there is the knowledge that all the chains of suffering have been broken.
|
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 04:19 |
|
|
As a side note, the state of pleasure that ad infinitum mentions usually comes from concentration meditation. There are several levels of this state of good feeling ultimately peaking with a feeling of complete equanimity (one of the brahmaviharas or four immeasurables). These levels are sometimes called Jhanas or dhyanas. A Buddhist professor I listened to (TTC) said there's an old joke that the word "Zen" comes from a Japanese mispronunciation of the Chinese word "Chan" (Chinese Zen, so to speak) which comes from a mispronunciation of the Sanskrit word Jhana/Dhyana. The etymology of Zen indeed follows this path but someone got mad at me last thread when I included the professor's anecdote so I say that to clarify. Zen and Chan both being traditions that focus heavily on meditation and dhyana meaning thought or meditation. Question for Vajrana practitions and Shadowstar in particular: Do you folks chant mantras? If so, which mantras? Assuming you do, do you believe in the "benefits" or chant more as a tool? Please explain. Finally, if not, why not?
|
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 05:45 |
|
|
Miss Fats posted:A Buddhist professor I listened to (TTC) said there's an old joke that the word "Zen" comes from a Japanese mispronunciation of the Chinese word "Chan" (Chinese Zen, so to speak) which comes from a mispronunciation of the Sanskrit word Jhana/Dhyana. I'd heard that too, but never as a joke. As far as I've ever heard that's really how it happened.
|
| # ? Apr 21, 2011 07:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 15:36 |
|
|
Towads Open Source Buddhismquote:What we call Buddhism is a widely distributed network phenomenon designed to optimize the human experience. Like the Internet, it started out as someone's idea, but then spun out of control: no one person or group now owns it, and it is being modified and updated from day to day in millions of little increments, from every corner of the known world. Too geeky not to post here.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2011 16:47 |
|
