|
Paramemetic posted:Does anyone want to learn Tibetan with me? I need a study buddy. I hope you get to do this, it seems like it would be very rewarding. Does your sangha have anyone that knows it? That will help immensely. I've tried to teach myself some Russian for years now, and starting by learning the whole alphabet and their sounds helped greatly. I can't say I have made a whole lot of progress with it, and it seems my interest in it comes and goes. But yeah, try learning all you can about the alphabet first and best of luck 
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Isn't he the same guy who had a bunch of followers who tried poisoning people in Oregon? I might be mixing up my religious figures. Yep, he's that guy: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I hope you get to do this, it seems like it would be very rewarding. Does your sangha have anyone that knows it? That will help immensely. The monks of course do, but I'm the only Westerner learning it. I already can read and write it well enough, but the structure of the language is very difficult to learn just by reading because it doesn't separate syllables in sentences or words. In the past I've had a lot of success learning languages talking on IRC, where I could look up words by context as I needed them and get a feel for sentence structure, but Tibetans don't use IRC much, they tend to prefer WeChat where they speak outloud, which doesn't work well for this exercise. Regardless, I'll get there. I've not been very motivated lately though due to absence from my sangha and a lot of mounting work developments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:All this talk about ethics and death reminded me of a quote I read two months ago, concerning euthanasia, rebirth, and eugenics. I've been meaning to ask a buddhist about her/his stance on it, so here it is Rajneesh was a first class piece of poo poo, but he was very intelligent and some of what he said at least merited consideration. He has some good points if he's on about euthanasia, but I don't think that's the case here. There is a big to-do now about a 29 year old woman with inoperable brain cancer who is choosing to die, and I don't see a damned thing wrong with her decision. If it goes against buddhism, then buddhism is wrong and must reform. And if you can't even think for yourself enough to have an opinion other than "the sutras say", or "the Buddha says here", well, gently caress off, you're not worthy of buddhism. She is choosing simply to not linger on as an utterly pathetic vegetable for maybe a few months- who could put themselves in her place and choose to suffer more? Rajneesh, however, talks extremely glibly about the soul flying into another womb, which is anathema to alot of buddhists in the first place... but if one considers it as a valid talking point, he utterly dismisses the process of attachment that soul/consciousness involves itself into the fetus it has so poorly built....it's a big loving deal to build a viable human body from a single cell for 9 months gradually 'descending into it in consciousness', is what I'm getting at. And it's a shared experience with the host, the mother-to-be. Not all women who have undergone mid or late-term abortions, but certainly a significant percentage can describe it as a core-wrenching experience. Different from other surgery procedures in how they are emotionally and psychically affected. Some even go through a sort of near death experience themselves as the entity which has attached to their body is ripped out of physical embodiment, deformed or not. And many women experience severe depression afterward. This is anecdotal. Some deformed fetuses can be said to be karmic; some are accidental. If an incoming entity decides to be born in a downs body to alleviate personal karma, then is thwarted by a well-meaning eugenicist, that's going to be a very pissed-off next incarnation. The buddhist perspective on non-killing is going to have to evolve, imo, because it's not black and white, and hasn't been for a while. The world has evolved in a lifetime, and the perspectives have changed. The power we have developed via Science and Medicine would have been viewed as magic or divine power 2500 years ago. Maybe that's exactly how it should be viewed today in terms of responsibility and morality. Science is far outstripping buddhism/metaphysics in terms of what it can do versus what is morally allowable to do. haha, drat that's alot of 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:All this talk about ethics and death reminded me of a quote I read two months ago, concerning euthanasia, rebirth, and eugenics. I've been meaning to ask a buddhist about her/his stance on it, so here it is Eugenics is a funny thing, really. On one hand we should absolutely be attempting to remove genetic disease from our gene pool as much as we can. Genetics can cause all sorts of horrifying diseases and if we can figure out how to remove them from the pool entirely we'll be much better off. The problem with eugenics is that a lot of the focus on "undesirable traits" gets pushed away from things like genetic disease and into things like race. The biggest snag is how you define "undesirable." The genetic code is also ridiculously complex and tinkering with it can lead to unpredictable consequences. Aside from that certain genetic flaws really don't prevent somebody from leading a happy, full life, especially in light of what modern medical science can accomplish. Being born blind, for example, isn't exactly something people would choose generally but blind people can absolutely go on to lead pretty great lives. It also gets into the dangerous territory of things like designer babies and other moral issues contemporary society is grappling with. It's a complex subject but in general one should be very suspicious of anybody speaking in favor of eugenics. They're usually racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Eugenics is a funny thing, really. On one hand we should absolutely be attempting to remove genetic disease from our gene pool as much as we can. Genetics can cause all sorts of horrifying diseases and if we can figure out how to remove them from the pool entirely we'll be much better off. The problem with eugenics is that a lot of the focus on "undesirable traits" gets pushed away from things like genetic disease and into things like race. The biggest snag is how you define "undesirable." The genetic code is also ridiculously complex and tinkering with it can lead to unpredictable consequences. Aside from that certain genetic flaws really don't prevent somebody from leading a happy, full life, especially in light of what modern medical science can accomplish. Being born blind, for example, isn't exactly something people would choose generally but blind people can absolutely go on to lead pretty great lives. It also gets into the dangerous territory of things like designer babies and other moral issues contemporary society is grappling with. It's a complex subject but in general one should be very suspicious of anybody speaking in favor of eugenics. They're usually racist. Many blind or deaf would like their kids to remain unsighted and/or unhearing, and believe that they are not disabled but granted a different, possibly "better," viewpoint. Just as there's little removal of power from others, only transference, the notion of what's a disability and what's just different is a line in the sand when you're dealing with sapient beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I would argue that this kind of attachment to one's own blindness is a good example of the problem of identification with the self.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
So to would be the attachment to sightedness that would lead to the idea that we should "fix" the blindness of people who don't necessarily want anything "fixed," or the thought that parents who choose to birth blind children or decline implants for deaf children etc are wrong or bad or negligent. In the question of eugenics, the concept that there are better or worse genetic options, too, is predicated on value judgments based on our attachments writ large.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
I think it's really silly how we cause ourselves so much misery. I mean it's really funny. Myself for example, I am always looking for recognition or experiences that result in stories to tell or fancy titles or important roles, but this is really stupid. I waste so much time and I make myself so miserable trying to be this or that thing. Like, the other day there was an airplane crash locally, and I had a class so I didn't go to help. And I thought, "I really wish I could have gone." But now, thinking about it, that's so stupid. Why do I wish that? It's asinine. Only because I want to be part of something and feel important or feel good like I'm helpful. There's no other reason. Sometimes I feel guilty and wish I could have a less stressful job and I could practice dharma more, but that's stupid too. I mean, first of all, I'm really lazy, so even if I didn't have a job at all I probably wouldn't practice much. But also, I think all jobs have some stress, and the only thing is how we handle that stress. I was a little stressed earlier because I just took a promotion at work, now I'm really going to have responsibilities and such. But why is that stressful? If I just do what I am expected to do, there's no problem. And if I don't want to do it because it's too hard, then I should step down. No reason to be stressed. But really a lot of stuff I do because I want to be this or that or have an important title, and that's the dumbest thing. Also a dumb thing I do is always want unique experiences. My wife, who is really smart and wise, points out that that is the currency of our generation. Everyone wants to do things to post on social media, and have experiences to talk about. Then we think people will like us or something, I don't know. But I mean, if you think about it, this is pretty goofy. Every experience is pretty much the same. It's all just phenomenal arising. Bitter and sweet are both just tastes, impermanent and fleeting and just an experience. It's just habit why we like one thing and not another. It's just a mental thing we've added to another mental thing. Phenomena are just sensory experiences, not actual things. They just arise and fall. So the experience of just sitting and relaxing and the experience of fighting a fire or the experience of being hungry or thirsty or satisfied or warm or cold or whatever, they are all pretty much equal, we just make them good or bad ourselves in our heads. So basically I think it's really funny how we just do all these stupid things and make ourselves miserable always wanting new things or better things or whatever, and never really just being present right now and enjoying whatever phenomena arise. These are just some nonsense thoughts that has recently shown up in my deluded mind. It's probably not worth anything, but I hope someone can find the same humor in our silly lives and share a laugh. Because, I mean, we're really just dumb. Everything we do even to make our lives easier really just makes it more complicated. We have to go to work, so we get a car, but then we need fuel for the car, so that's another chore, and costs money, so we work, and so on. We think we're lonely or bored so we get a phone, but then we need to pay for the phone, we want a nice house, so we buy a house, but then we have to work all the time to afford it, so we never enjoy it because we're always working. I mean it's just hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I think it's really silly how we cause ourselves so much misery. I mean it's really funny. Myself for example, I am always looking for recognition or experiences that result in stories to tell or fancy titles or important roles, but this is really stupid. I waste so much time and I make myself so miserable trying to be this or that thing. Like, the other day there was an airplane crash locally, and I had a class so I didn't go to help. And I thought, "I really wish I could have gone." But now, thinking about it, that's so stupid. Why do I wish that? It's asinine. Only because I want to be part of something and feel important or feel good like I'm helpful. There's no other reason. I feel like this well put, thank you. I agree that we humans have some astoundingly silly behavior and it's helpful and amusing to be aware of that. But also from a biological standpoint, novelty seeking is an evolutionary advantage that can be found in many, if not most, organisms to some degree. So very probably if it weren't for these silly tendencies we wouldn't even be here to contemplate our own silliness. It's been said that time you've enjoyed wasting wasn't wasted. I think this is a good perspective to have. And if one can train their mind to have a sense of enjoyment regardless of an experience's so-called good or bad qualities then even a lifetime of silliness can be enormously beneficial. I for one have greatly enjoyed the musings I've found in this thread and hope mine can be appreciated as well. Best wishes, all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
I do agree, I think it's also silly this concept of "wasting time." The only thing there is to do really, I think, is to benefit sentient beings and cause enjoyment for others. The reason for this is that benefiting ourselves is also good, but if we understand and appreciate that everything should be equally enjoyable, and so on, then it's not as important for us. Like, I know that I am impermanent, I will soon die, and these experiences are fleeting and transient, but other beings don't realize that. So it's good to try to make them happy and alleviate their suffering just a little bit, however temporarily, because they don't necessarily appreciate how fleeting it really is. By helping others and making others happy, we can also make ourselves happy. So that's good to do. But yeah, I am of the same mind, though I've never heard it put so succinctly. It's not a waste of time if you appreciate it. "Waste of time" implies there is something else you should be doing, and if there's something else you should be doing, then either do that instead, or let go of your attachment to ideas like productivity. But yeah, those were really just some thoughts I'd had while sitting waiting for my NICU crew to get their patient, so it wasn't very coherent. I'm glad you got something out of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I think it's really silly how we cause ourselves so much misery. I mean it's really funny. Myself for example, I am always looking for recognition or experiences that result in stories to tell or fancy titles or important roles, but this is really stupid. I waste so much time and I make myself so miserable trying to be this or that thing. Like, the other day there was an airplane crash locally, and I had a class so I didn't go to help. And I thought, "I really wish I could have gone." But now, thinking about it, that's so stupid. Why do I wish that? It's asinine. Only because I want to be part of something and feel important or feel good like I'm helpful. There's no other reason. This is a good post, and thank you for making it. It put into words a lot of ideas I've been having that I haven't really been able to articulate well to myself or others (one reason I frequently lurk rather than post in this forum).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
Paramemetic posted:These are just some nonsense thoughts that has recently shown up in my deluded mind. I don't think that is nonsense at all. You're basically describing the very nature of clinging and craving. Craving for titles, craving for experiences or for a different existence. I think, if anything, this line of thought should be examined more often, more thoroughly. It is really kind of the heart of what we're all shooting for - craving and clinging less, suffering less. Great post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I think it's really silly how we cause ourselves so much misery. I mean it's really funny. Myself for example, I am always looking for recognition or experiences that result in stories to tell or fancy titles or important roles, but this is really stupid. I waste so much time and I make myself so miserable trying to be this or that thing. Like, the other day there was an airplane crash locally, and I had a class so I didn't go to help. And I thought, "I really wish I could have gone." But now, thinking about it, that's so stupid. Why do I wish that? It's asinine. Only because I want to be part of something and feel important or feel good like I'm helpful. There's no other reason. There's one (maybe a little bit sarcastic) interpretation of the ox herding pictures that basically goes: people turn up as skinny, unhappy, unhealthy, deluded yet overly-serious ~~~seekers~~~. After a few years of getting disillusioned with practice, they relax the obsessive asceticsm and grow into fat, drunk, jolly, (maybe a little bit less) deluded idiots. And that's how you know they're ready to go back into the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
@Paramemetic : don't be too harsh on yourself, though. I mean, it's all well and all to say "well, stuff are just arising and ultimately they are all the same, it does not matter, it's just me making them cool or uncool in my mind, so what's the problem ?" ; but if you get in a car crash and lose your legs, well, this story might be a little harder to tell to yourself. It is just another story, in other words. Seeing that things are just conventional and just, basically, how we make them look in our minds, does not mean that they are not important. Our conventional reality is all we got, and even the fact that we suck in it and that we make lots of mistakes in it should be respected. Basically we follow two rules in this conventional reality : we avoid suffering and seek happiness. I really think there is nothing wrong with that ; it's just that the way we do it is, most of the time, silly, because we are deluded. So maybe craving for a job title is not going to "really" make you happy ; but at the same time, it's part of the way you see happiness for now, so maybe it should not be completely discarded as silly, or stupid. It is just what it is. Nothing is stupid or silly : we just are the way we are. It is often said that delusion and enlightenement walk hand in hand. There is no point in blaming oneself because we are not in adequation with what we think is the "ultimate truth" or "ultimate way of happiness". This is just delusion again because we will never, ever, know "ultimate truth" ; such a thing is not coherent, it's just like wanting to know square circles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I'm amused too that you think that was being harsh on myself. I'm really very happy about all that. It's true that we're stupid, but I'm laughing. I mean, we're really dumb for taking everything so seriously, but of course Prickly Pete is correct, that really is the point is to not do that. It's just nonsense that I'm speaking, I'm not wise or well educated, but I did share all that because I think it's true, I think we all need to look at what we're doing from time to time and laugh. It's important to realize whatever it is we're trying to achieve in this life is just fleeting and impermanent. Only benefiting sentient beings is worthwhile, but this life is the path. I also didn't mean to imply that those things are unsatisfactory, or wrong, or distasteful. I mean, we should still do jobs, we should still work. I'm happy I have a promotion. I'm happy I have the opportunity to fight fires and treat sick people and show people compassion, that's all really good. It's silly that I think about doing things just for prestige or esteem or whatever, but it doesn't mean that doing those things isn't worthwhile. So yeah, I am amused you think I was being harsh, I was really giving myself a break. I get caught up sometimes in all this nonsense, but we all do, that's what we're working to break free of. Someday I hope I can achieve the actual realization of these thoughts I think, because I recognize these things with a limited conceptual understanding, but I lack the realization to enact it. Hopefully with the blessing of the guru I can attain that. But that doesn't really matter anyhow, I don't need to attain something to benefit sentient beings. I think we fixate a lot on attainments, and it's important to strive to achieve liberation, but it's all good. I think I disagree that nothing is stupid or silly. It's all stupid or silly. But I mean, stupid and silly is just another mental addition, it's just something we label a phenomenon. We're like children, all of us, too ignorant to know that everything is just fine, so we work ourselves up because we want things to be other than they are. But Holiness writes at one point, "the world is just the world. It's okay." I think that's really correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I think it's really silly how we cause ourselves so much misery. I mean it's really funny. Myself for example, I am always looking for recognition or experiences that result in stories to tell or fancy titles or important roles, but this is really stupid. I waste so much time and I make myself so miserable trying to be this or that thing. Like, the other day there was an airplane crash locally, and I had a class so I didn't go to help. And I thought, "I really wish I could have gone." But now, thinking about it, that's so stupid. Why do I wish that? It's asinine. Only because I want to be part of something and feel important or feel good like I'm helpful. There's no other reason. This is a pretty good post, in terms of honesty. We do need a sense of our own cosmic insignificance and at the same time a sense of our own cosmic infinity, and that's sort of a side-effect of the urge to buddha-nature, imo...imnsho...heh. You're right about the accessories and things that tempt us to ownership. The old-timers knew that those things actually start to own us, in terms of time and energy we choose to 'focus on them for our pleasure, and the time and energy we have to focus on maintaining them. Some of these things are eminently justifiable in a modern lifestyle, like the house and transportation. It's practical. Buddhism as utter poverty, the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages who took vows of poverty, that stuff is passe', it's crap, those professional holy beggars are a drain on the rest of society, and India is full of them. Learn to be in the world, but not of it....
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Naturally a house, a car, and so on are practical. And so is employment, so is keeping active with various things. So is travel. So is laughter and sharing experiences with people. It's stupid that we do those things with a sort of possessed drive, and we certainly create problems for ourselves with them, but only when we indulge in them mindlessly. While those things are practical, how many other things do we buy and then never appreciate because of their cost or because we're working or because there is a new version and so on. One thing my lama once said that really hit home for me was simply "nobody complained about slow Internet 50 years ago." Now of course we are used to very fast load times and download speeds so if bandwidth is not abundant we get annoyed. Once we have a 4G phone, even 3G speed is like "holy poo poo how does anyone live with this???" Many people alive today, even adults, don't remember dialup or waiting 20 minutes to download a song or whatever. You are right about living in the world but not of the world. Thanks for that. We can engage with this reality mindfully and appreciate all its little absurdities, I think. What else is there to do? But when we do that, there is no stress from it. Why should we be stressed and suffering if it's all just these silly things? And it really is. There's no reason to be upset about anything, really, but sometimes it's hard not to be, such as in the example of losing your legs. But often I think about the fact that this life is impermanent and can change in an instant. Every day I see things that lead to that recognition. People die, children are disabled, people lose their livelihoods or ability to work because of water on pavement, because another driver hit them, because their wall wiring shorted. So I mean, there's nothing to attach to in this life that can be relied on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
I subscribe to several Dharma related podcasts*, one of which is published by the San Francisco Zen Center. A recent talk there was given by Robert Sharf, a Professor of Buddhist Studies at UC Berkeley. It was very interesting and reminded me of many of the discussions in this thread and its predecessors, so I thought I'd link it here: Is Mindfulness Buddhist? And Why it Matters. *These are an amazing resource, by the way. Dharmaseed alone publishes more talks than I can possibly listen to; I've been trying to limit myself to just the Joseph Goldstein talks, but even that is difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Naturally a house, a car, and so on are practical. And so is employment, so is keeping active with various things. So is travel. So is laughter and sharing experiences with people. It's stupid that we do those things with a sort of possessed drive, and we certainly create problems for ourselves with them, but only when we indulge in them mindlessly. While those things are practical, how many other things do we buy and then never appreciate because of their cost or because we're working or because there is a new version and so on. One thing my lama once said that really hit home for me was simply "nobody complained about slow Internet 50 years ago." Now of course we are used to very fast load times and download speeds so if bandwidth is not abundant we get annoyed. Once we have a 4G phone, even 3G speed is like "holy poo poo how does anyone live with this???" Many people alive today, even adults, don't remember dialup or waiting 20 minutes to download a song or whatever. The lama is right. 50 years ago there was a space race, a world-admired President shot down like a dog in the street, riots at home, war abroad; we and the Russians and Chinese lived in mortal fear of one another. The world of today with amazing cell phones and computers would have been a sci-fi projection like the Jetsons, literally unfathomable. Paramemetic posted:You are right about living in the world but not of the world. Thanks for that. We can engage with this reality mindfully and appreciate all its little absurdities, I think. What else is there to do? But when we do that, there is no stress from it. Why should we be stressed and suffering if it's all just these silly things? And it really is. There's no reason to be upset about anything, really, but sometimes it's hard not to be, such as in the example of losing your legs. But often I think about the fact that this life is impermanent and can change in an instant. Every day I see things that lead to that recognition. People die, children are disabled, people lose their livelihoods or ability to work because of water on pavement, because another driver hit them, because their wall wiring shorted. So I mean, there's nothing to attach to in this life that can be relied on. What you say is true. I work in a hospital environment, which includes an extensive rehab network. There is one site that is more devoted to serious disabilities, including children. And there is one, for lack of better term, horrendously deformed and retarded child comes gaping and blinking, whom I've encountered more than a few times in the lobby as he or she is being wheeled out. Yes, it is karma, life is impermanent, guaranteed to end/change, but I cannot remain disengaged at those moments. Perhaps they are working off great karma, but at the heart of that suffering creature is a buddha of perfection, which something in us- the buddha of perfection within ourselves- wants to immediately relieve from the unjustness of its present wretchedness....do you see? It hit me like a sledgehammer yesterday when I saw that child, and I thought of it reading this part of your post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I wrote an almost memoir type thing not long ago after transporting a particularly clever but clearly hurting Hem/Onc kid with Wilms' tumor. I don't think she had a good prognosis, and we took her to and from radiation. Kids like that haunt you, they stick with you. They don't even realize the impermanence they are coming face to face with, they have hardly come to learn about the world, and they know only suffering. I'd like to talk to some survivors sometime. I don't know, you're right though, it just becomes too much sometimes. I hurt for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I'm amused too that you think that was being harsh on myself. Ahaha, indeed this is funny, it says much about how i take other people's words (as complaints, when they are not) ! Well to be honest i think it's not just me, but also a trap of language itself, since when using "silly" we seem to imply that it is somehow "wrong". Which is silly. Ahahaha ! Thank you anyway, and i'm glad you are okay and having fun with it all !
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Since it's been quiet in here recently, could we talk a bit about Ngrondo? I would like to know more about it and how important it is to you, if you work toward it, and if so, how 'far along' are you? Is it exclusive to Tibetan Buddhism? Thanks
Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:Since it's been quiet in here recently, could we talk a bit about Ngrondo? I would like to know more about it and how important it is to you, if you work toward it, and if so, how 'far along' are you? Is it exclusive to Tibetan Buddhism? Thanks The ngondro practices are preliminary practices in Vajrayana that are done before beginning the tantric practices, under the guidance of a guru usually. They are common throughout the different traditions, with only subtle variations here and there, mainly in the visualizations of the refuge tree and the guru devotions. Usually it is preceded by a teaching on the four thoughts that turn the mind to the dharma, and often also by a long life practice like Amitayus to help ensure success. Typically it consists of four parts: refuge, purification, mandala offerings, and guru yoga. It serves as a foundation for the fruition of future practices through these, and each serves a direct purpose as well as affecting change in the practitioner. Refuge is done through prostrations, usually 100,000 or 111,111. It brings about humility and devotion in the practitioner, but also accumulates a vast store of merit. This merit serves to remove obstacles and help bring about fruition to goals consistent with the dharma. Purification, often in the form of 100,000 recitations of the 100 syllable mantra of Vajrasattva with accompanying deity yoga, serves to mitigate, reduce, and bring fruition to negative karma so as to further remove obstacles. It also emphasizes moral conduct. Mandala offerings, 100,000 of them, serve again to accumulate a vast store of merit and to cultivate devotion and generosity. Finally, guru yoga cultivates devotion and dedication as well as fortifying the seed of karmic connection to the guru. So, is the practice important? Many people believe that it is not, they think "oh it's just preliminaries, the really important stuff is the tantra and the yogas and so on." However, Jigten Sumgon, founder of the Drikung Kagyu teaches that the preliminaries are more profound and more important than the tantra, because it is the basis upon which success is predicated. It is of course possible that because of practices in past lives that someone may already have vast merit and right moral conduct and so on already, and so encounter few obstacles. Still, Jigten Sumgon taught that even these people should do the ngondro in order to demonstrate correct behavior and be an example to others. In other lineages, such as the Drukpa lineage, ngondro is never considered complete. I have seen one article where Holiness suggested that a practitioner should complete the ngondro four times in a lifetime. I personally am working very slowly on the ngondro, but I have been very lazy lately. This is mostly because of my poor discipline but also because of confusion arising from feeling devotion to a guru from a lineage other than the one I have the refuge transmissions from. This is mostly an excuse for my own poor capacities and lack of devotion. As a result, I'm not very far along at all. In a retreat on the Drikung Kagyu's "Fivefold Path to Mahamudra," the great retreat master Drubpon Yeshi taught that while it is best to do the ngondro in a solid three month retreat, for Westerners this can be modified according to our abilities under the supervision of the guru. The most important thing is practicing in the manner that your guru teaches, because the entire point of the ngondro is to form a foundation for receiving the guru's blessing. I don't know of a ngondro outside of Vajrayana, but it wouldn't surprise me to find similar things. I would expect though that because ngondro is heavily consistent of guru and deity practices that non-Vajrayana preliminaries would look radically different. Edit: I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for or not. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Yes, very informative. Thank you! Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
Paramemetic, I'm sure you have seen this, but I found it very moving and wanted to share. The past week or so, HH the Gyalwang Drukpa has been on an Eco Pad Yantra, where he and some followers are picking up non-biodegradable trash around Holy Sites in India. His facebook has been updated along this journey, where he has met an amazing friend: quote:A goat came to His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa at the campsite, she circumambulated His Holiness and refused to leave, the goat has been following His Holiness since and she is now a proud member of the 7th Eco Pad Yatra.  quote:I don't see the difference between animals, humans, insects, I don't see the difference between colours of the people and beings, I don't see the difference between types and species, but I do see their Buddha nature. We are all equal in this sense.  quote:The goat waited for His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa at His Holiness's tent while His Holiness took a break between teaching and prayer.  quote:A calf came and followed His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa voluntarily at the 7th Eco Pad Yatra before her owner came and took him back. Unfortunately, her owner refused to sell the calf to His Holiness.  His facebook page also stated that he does plan to take the goat back to the Druk Amitabha Mountain with him. A truly fortunate goat! Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Questions for Tibetan Buddhist Goons: -How did you guys go about finding a teacher/guru/spiritual mentor? Is the teacher that is often talked about in texts the same person who gives you initiations/empowerments/abhishekas/etc.? How often do you meet with this person to discuss how your practice is progressing? Is it in person? Did this person also give you your ngondro? Who is generally allowed to transmit ngondro? Is there a difference in abilities and permissions of teachings that can be given from Lamas like say, Lama Tsultrim Allione or Lama Surya Das compared to someone like Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche or Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche? Could the former types of lamas serve as spiritual mentor/guru types and eventually give you access to tantric practices once you've reached the point of preparation for them? Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm finding more and more the need to find a spiritual teacher, and more and more questions keep coming up. I want to take my practice a step further and possibly work on Ngondro soon, but I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. I know at my local Kagyu center, they offer Ngondro to anyone who simply asks. Something about that feels a little unusual to me, shouldn't they take some time to at least see how the individual's practice is and whether they even understand what they're doing when it comes to ngondro? When we did a Chenrezi practice at the center and they barely explained what we were doing and I found it very unhelpful and rather challenging to sustain an interest. Also, the people who usually came to give teachings were lamas in training from the nearby monastery, and I'm unclear as to whether I could request ngondro from them either. I guess my main question is, if you want to really get your foot in the door with the Vajrayana, what's the next step to take after you've become acquainted with the teachings and have a stable meditation practice that could use improvement through conference with a teacher? Rest assured, I do not think I am in any way even beginning to resemble someone who's ready for higher teachings like Tantra or whatnot. However, I would like to set myself on that course and sail in that direction confidently, and it seems that in almost every resource I turn to, the most tremendous emphasis is on finding a teacher you trust, and I'm having a bit of a hard time just making contact with these teachers. reversefungi fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Questions for Tibetan Buddhist Goons: This is a lot of questions that I think it is better to answer in kind of a general response rather than individually. So, as you have found, Tibetan Buddhism has a huge emphasis on the guru. In Vajrayana, the guru is even more important than Buddha, because Buddha isn't here right now, the guru is. Also the guru is Buddha and is inseparable from Buddha so I mean it just keeps going like that but that's neither here nor there. One of the big confusions about gurus and lamas and such is that there are lots of kinds of gurus or lamas. Many people get really caught up talking about the root guru, but this guru is really just the guru that turns your mind emphatically to the Dharma. It might not even be only one individual. For example, I consider Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa my root guru, but I have never attended a teaching by him or anything, and he's never given me any direct transmissions or anything. No problem. The spiritual teacher is someone who teaches you directly, they may or may not be the same as the spiritual master, which is specific to practices. For example, if you get an empowerment to practice, say, Vajradakini, then the lama who confers that empowerment on you is your master for that practice, and you make samayas with him or her for that practice, and when you visualize the lama during that practice that is who you visualize. However, that might not be the same person who you meet with regularly. For me, most of my empowerments have come through visiting lamas who have given me a lot of practices in a general group, but I don't really practice most of those practices. It is not necessary to have a high lama. A lot of people get very attached to saying "well I got such and such empowerment from Holiness So and So," or "I got this teaching from Holiness Such and Such." We think that having a high lama give us a teaching is really important, but what's much more important is having a lama who is close to your mind and heart. So this can be your regular teacher, or a visiting lama, or so on, but having a transmission from a guru who really knows you is much better than having one from say the Dalai Lama in a crowd of thousands (though that kind of empowerment can also be very powerful if you have a lot of devotion to HHDL). Devotion is the other key, because spiritual closeness and devotion work together to allow the empowerments and transmissions and blessings of the lama to fruit. A lama who has received a practice can transmit a practice if they are authorized to do so, which typically involves them having memorized and really learned the practice excellently. They will not offer a practice they cannot give you, but most lamas who are teaching or leading centers have received the empowerments to transmit things like that, but they won't necessarily until the student is ready. quote:Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm finding more and more the need to find a spiritual teacher, and more and more questions keep coming up. I want to take my practice a step further and possibly work on Ngondro soon, but I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. I know at my local Kagyu center, they offer Ngondro to anyone who simply asks. Something about that feels a little unusual to me, shouldn't they take some time to at least see how the individual's practice is and whether they even understand what they're doing when it comes to ngondro? When we did a Chenrezi practice at the center and they barely explained what we were doing and I found it very unhelpful and rather challenging to sustain an interest. Also, the people who usually came to give teachings were lamas in training from the nearby monastery, and I'm unclear as to whether I could request ngondro from them either. I don't know who can give the ngondro, I would assume anyone who has received and completed it and knows it so that they can transmit it, but again it is better if this comes from a lama who is close to you and to whom you have a lot of devotion. Ngondro are preliminary practices, giving them to anyone who asks isn't out of line, though normally they will require you to have taken refuge vows first. Often ngondro is given as a series, because it is usually done over a three month retreat in the East. Typically, they will do a week or so of a long life practice to ensure enough life to finish the ngondro, then they will give all four parts of the ngondro at once, which are then practiced each aspect to completion. quote:I guess my main question is, if you want to really get your foot in the door with the Vajrayana, what's the next step to take after you've become acquainted with the teachings and have a stable meditation practice that could use improvement through conference with a teacher? Rest assured, I do not think I am in any way even beginning to resemble someone who's ready for higher teachings like Tantra or whatnot. However, I would like to set myself on that course and sail in that direction confidently, and it seems that in almost every resource I turn to, the most tremendous emphasis is on finding a teacher you trust, and I'm having a bit of a hard time just making contact with these teachers. The first step is ngondro, this is the preliminary basis that allows all the other Vajrayana "stuff" to work better. You can practice deity or guru yoga and so on without having completed ngondro, but completing it will help everything go better and is the "correct" way. The emphasis on the guru is because the guru is central in Vajrayana practice, so it's really important to find someone who can help you in that way, but that might be as simple as starting out with the monk who is closest to you proximally. I did not initially have any connection to my current center, except I moved to this town and since have developed a lot of devotion to my lama as well as to this lineage, even though I don't consider it necessarily the only lineage for me or the perfect lineage for me. Basically, go with what works. Every single sentient being possesses a Buddha nature and therefore an aspect of the lama, so there's no need to choose one like choosing a wife. You will naturally develop devotion to a lama, so it's most important to check their attainments in the form of how compassionate they are and so on. You can check out the Google ebook of Holiness Drukpa's, "Walking an Uncommon Path," which is pretty affordable and has 3 chapters devoted to searching and finding an authentic guru. Also look on Berzin Archives, there are some articles on there about different types of gurus and so on. Then it's just a matter of developing a relationship. I think you can do it very formally or very informally and this depends on the nature of the lama. I never have had an official ceremony where I've been like "hey I am your student now" with Khenpo, but I am very devoted and want to practice and study under him even to the point where I am planning to see if he might be willing to mentor me formally as a lay student. So yeah. I can't give much advice for picking a particular lama from a bunch of lamas to be a guru, because those circumstances didn't arise for me, but it's really a natural process I think. Who do you feel close to? You do you feel exemplifies the key behaviors of a bodhisattva?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I don't know who can give the ngondro, I would assume anyone who has received and completed it and knows it so that they can transmit it, but again it is better if this comes from a lama who is close to you and to whom you have a lot of devotion. Ngondro are preliminary practices, giving them to anyone who asks isn't out of line, though normally they will require you to have taken refuge vows first. Often ngondro is given as a series, because it is usually done over a three month retreat in the East. Typically, they will do a week or so of a long life practice to ensure enough life to finish the ngondro, then they will give all four parts of the ngondro at once, which are then practiced each aspect to completion. You probably know a lot more about ngondro than I do, but from what I understand, there are quite a variety of ngondro practices out there. Obviously there are a few that are far more common, but from what I've heard, there are many of them and people are often assigned alternative ones specifically to keep the less popular ones from dying out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Just ask yourself what it is you actually want and go from there. Stop getting caught in other people's worlds
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:You probably know a lot more about ngondro than I do, but from what I understand, there are quite a variety of ngondro practices out there. Obviously there are a few that are far more common, but from what I've heard, there are many of them and people are often assigned alternative ones specifically to keep the less popular ones from dying out. This is true, the ngondro I've described earlier is a typical one of my tradition, and common to Kagyu, but there are differences all throughout even Tibetan Buddhism. Additionally, one of the most important things about finding an authentic guru is that nobody has identical karma. It's generally taught that everyone should do the standard practices when talking about tulkus and such, nobody gets to skip in that regard, but the truth is that a good lama can identify the needs of each individual and assign practices accordingly. It's not unheard of that a lama might say "okay just skip this" or "do this instead" based on the karma of the individual. Basically a guru is really important in Vajrayana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Thank you Paramemetic, I always appreciate the massive amounts of time and care you take into your posts! I'll definitely check out those resources that you mentioned. I think in general I need to get a clearer understanding of what exactly that teacher-student relationship entails. But when people talk about having massive amounts of care and spending 12 years doing your research about who to choose as your teacher (as in Words of My Perfect Teacher), who exactly is this? In other words, who exactly is this person who you're directing intense feelings of devotion to? Is it, as you mentioned, your root guru that you might not necessarily be physically close to but feel a strong heart connection? Or is it the lama that you've met at a local center that you can work closely with and helps you refine aspects of your practice after you've received empowerments that might not necessarily have come from the same lama? I remember meeting a couple of people who studied with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso and Dzigar Kongtrul, and I wish I could have had a chance to ask them how they established that connection and became their students. Also, when you're doing ngondro guru yoga, who's the guru that you visualize for this practice? From what I understand, cultivating devotion is a really huge aspect of the Vajrayana. Is it possible to cultivate this devotion if you don't have a close connection with this person? Tautologicus posted:Just ask yourself what it is you actually want and go from there. Stop getting caught in other people's worlds Thanks, this is something I routinely end up doing and gets me in a lot of trouble. Right now what I want is just someone experienced I can work closely with that can give me more feedback on my practice. When considering the density of Tibetan Buddhism, there are a lot of nuances I'm still working on wrapping my head around. I really feel an intense connection to the Vajrayana, but the idea of samaya vows and guru devotion is a little unsettling and I want to have as crystal clear of an understanding of how that relationship works and what it looks like before I make any commitments, and to direct my time as wisely as possible in the current moment in a path that will be sustainable for myself in the long run. reversefungi fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Quickly while I prepare for work, this is an awesome Berzin Archive piece on the subject of gurus and so on that goes into quite a bit of depth about the question you're asking: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1305527811.html Usually when people say they spent ten years looking, this does not mean that during those ten years they were doing nothing else, not practicing, and so on. It often means that after ten years they met or discovered someone who they connected to so profoundly as to know that that is the one. There is no need for exclusivity here, you're not marrying the teacher. You can have many teachers. In fact, usually you'll not meet the root guru until after you have practiced for a while, when they appear as a result of your karma. So don't worry too much about having exactly the right teacher and not learning from anyone else first. It's a process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
That's all super helpful. So what kind of commitment is generally expected these days when you enter a samaya vow with a teacher. When you're saying that you have many teachers, can you still have samaya vows with many of them without there being some sort of necessity for a strong relationship?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:That's all super helpful. So what kind of commitment is generally expected these days when you enter a samaya vow with a teacher. When you're saying that you have many teachers, can you still have samaya vows with many of them without there being some sort of necessity for a strong relationship? What I've been taught is that a samaya is as strong as the devotion with which it's made, and it's not always necessarily made when you get a teaching or empowerment. There are no accidental samayas, no surprise ones, you can't enter one without willfully going "I'm making this vow." Doing so would bind you within that practice to that teacher. If you make the samaya to practice Vajravarahi or somesuch, then you are making a vow with that vajra master. But this is not a punitive thing. You can make the vow just because you had the opportunity to meet the teacher and get the teaching, this is good to do because it benefits you with karma and merit. If you can't end up doing that practice regularly, that's okay, but you shouldn't take a vow with the idea "I will definitely complete this vow" if you don't intend to complete the vow. Similarly, if you do generate that aspiration when you're taking it, you should definitely complete it. I don't know that there are required or expected commitments these days. If you do what you say you'll do then that's good. If you do more that's better. If you do less that's not so good. Basically don't lie about your willingness or your ability to practice and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:What I've been taught is that a samaya is as strong as the devotion with which it's made, and it's not always necessarily made when you get a teaching or empowerment. There are no accidental samayas, no surprise ones, you can't enter one without willfully going "I'm making this vow." Doing so would bind you within that practice to that teacher. If you make the samaya to practice Vajravarahi or somesuch, then you are making a vow with that vajra master. But this is not a punitive thing. You can make the vow just because you had the opportunity to meet the teacher and get the teaching, this is good to do because it benefits you with karma and merit. If you can't end up doing that practice regularly, that's okay, but you shouldn't take a vow with the idea "I will definitely complete this vow" if you don't intend to complete the vow. Similarly, if you do generate that aspiration when you're taking it, you should definitely complete it. Thank you, this is really illuminating. Some of the accounts I read make choosing a guru sound akin to choosing who you'll become a spiritual slave to and abandon any rationality or sound judgment, although I suspect this is wrong view. This sounds much more manageable and beneficial!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Edit: potentially premature post with developing situation.
Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I am taking refuge Sunday, and in the information I have it says "Participants should bring an offering if they wish". What would be a good offering? What do they do with these offerings?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I am taking refuge Sunday, and in the information I have it says "Participants should bring an offering if they wish". What would be a good offering? What do they do with these offerings? The offerings might differ depending on your tradition. In my experience, offerings usually consist of fresh flowers for the altar, candles, or incense. I think food is sometimes placed at the altar but I don't recall seeing that at my center. This is from a Thai Forest perspective. I'd probably just ask ahead of time to see how they do things. Glad to hear you're taking refuge also. It is a nice foundation for your practice. I need to get back on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I am taking refuge Sunday, and in the information I have it says "Participants should bring an offering if they wish". What would be a good offering? What do they do with these offerings? Basically the offerings can be for the shrine, in which case flowers, fresh fruit, and so on are excellent options, or they can be for the center itself or for monastics, in which case money is exchanged. It's also typical to offer money to monastics who are doing work on your behalf as thanks in the Tibetan traditions. This is definitely contraindicated in other traditions, because monks in those traditions typically have vows against handling money. I don't know what is exactly typical here, it's on your own conscience really. Basically I would go equipped with some fresh fruit from a store, a couple middle-sized bills, and a katag. If you don't have a katag (I don't think they're typically things people have unless they do these kinds of things often) then see if the center can't lend you one or sell you one (typically about $3-6). They are the long white scarves you see all the time, and are presented on the folded hands to the lama, who will usually take it while touching heads and then place it over your shoulders, though they don't have to (they could just keep it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:26
|
|