|
Rhymenoceros posted:I think the idea is just to analyze the object of your desire. When you lust after someone, you basically want their body, but what actually is a body? It's skin, muscles, sinew, fluids, snot, goo, puss, bacteria, etc. That's not so sexy, is it? Part of the point is to to see things as they are rather than as you perceive them. It's about digging deeper in your understanding. As in, what is a human? Well, it's a walking collection of organs and parts with a mind, right? As for lust and what have you, you're supposed to be understanding what you are lusting after and why. Why is it that straight men find breasts so fascinating and just what is a breast in the first place? As for the want or urge side of things you're not supposed to be suppressing desire but rather letting go of it. Suppressing desires is unhealthy yes but one of the goals is to not be ruled by want or have your actions dictated by feelings and desires. In the case of sex and lust the thought tends to be "I want to have *kind of* sex with *type* of person so I must do *thing* to get it." Instead it's "my body is telling me I should fulfill sexual desires." Later on, after higher levels of mastery have been achieved, you can turn off those drives completely so that suppressing them isn't even an issue. In any event it's more useful, from the standpoint of meditation, to get to the point where these things can be viewed as information and nothing more. "My body wants to have sex with another body" is information. How do you respond to it and why is your body telling you that? That's my understanding of such things, anyway.
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
I started studying Buddhism and meditation before I actually became a Buddhist. I call myself a Zen Buddhist because it seems to fit most, from what I've read. Buddhists are extremely rare where I live so I'm a pretty solitary one. I've taught a few people the basics who wanted to learn over the years but yeah...not much Buddhism here. I say Zen because, after studying the other ones, I felt like Zen was what I was basically practicing anyway, in that it emphasizes experience and koans, on top of personal experience over doctrine and dogma. I guess I'm more nondenominational than anything but Zen fits the most. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:Well written set of questions. Thanks for posting. My understanding of Zen is that it emphasizes personal experience greatly. The fundamental truth is there but there are a poo poo load of different ways to get there. The important thing is that you be kind and compassionate. The reason you are kind and compassionate is secondary. If you treat people well because Jesus told you and you believe in a god that will punish you for being an rear end in a top hat then fine, you have the important part of "don't be a dick" down. Zen also doesn't hold that there are some scriptures or dogmas that are more or less important than others or paths of study that are important. You find wisdom absolutely anywhere you can. It's better to come to conclusions yourself and embrace them then be told what the conclusion was and accept it just because somebody else told you to. There's a certain amount of that in all Buddhism but that's much bigger in Zen. It's why Zen archery and Zen calligraphy and whatnot exist. You can actually learn a great deal about patience, discipline, and even yourself by picking some sort of skill, mastering it, and analyzing every little detail of what you're doing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Crack posted:A butcher doesn't actually kill his animals, just cuts up the meat. Is the distinction in this case in terms of "right livelihood" that where a butcher is involved with the whole carcass and flesh whereas in a lab you only handle the blood? One thing that has been specifically mentioned is that a profession related to killing is still a wrong livelihood even if you aren't doing any killing yourself. The most common and most specific example I've always heard was making weapons. A person whose occupation is working in a gun factory could go their whole lives without killing anybody or being directly involved in killing anybody but is still partially responsible for whatever suffering the guns they make cause because, well, they made them. Butchery is similar; the existence of a butcher means that animals must be killed for the butcher to take apart. Even if the butcher did not kill the animal he's partially responsible for the death. Incidentally this is also why Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Buying meat creates demand for it, which by extention causes animals to be killed for meat. If you buy a cheeseburger then you are partially responsible for killing the cow that became the meat. Crack posted:Ah poo poo, I apparently didn't realise that the guys in the slaughterhouse were also called butchers. I was thinking of the local butcher shop where there's a van that comes round with a load of pig carcasses hung in the back, but I guess they were killed by another butcher. There are different schools of thought on that and there are some sects of Buddhism that don't require vegetarianism for monks. That's a difficult question to answer for a lot of reasons but in some areas of the world diets are very heavy on meat because there isn't much else to have in the area. I'm talking places where you can graze livestock but the soil is lovely for farming. In that case eating meat isn't awful and eating meat isn't some horrible grave sin that condemns you to Hell. It's one of those things where it isn't totally prohibited and is judged situationally. As in, you should avoid causing as much suffering as you can but sometimes it's impossible to cause no harm. But yeah, killing a deer here and there so you and yours don't starve is fine. Killing for sport, however, is right out and if you can avoid eating meat then you should. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Himuro posted:Thank you for sharing. It's hard when there's so much pain and suffering in the world though. Yeah but one of the most important realizations is that you're far too small to change the world. Don't worry about changing the huge things but change the small things you can do. Be compassionate when you can. If you come across somebody hungry and can afford to buy them a meal do so. If a friend fell on hard times help them. Maybe volunteer at a soup kitchen. The way you feel changes nothing. The way you act does. The little things add up to big things. If all of us each do some little things it piles up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
SubjectVerbObject posted:Guys, thanks for the thoughtful replies. It just seems odd. Here, takes these classes and poof, you're enlightened, or something. I am sure there is much more to it, but I am coming from a place where I have spent a lot of my life being told 'just do x, y and z and you will be happy successful, etc' and life doesn't seem to work that way. It's easier to find your way around unfamiliar terrain if you have a guide. Think of it that way. Yes there is much more to it but find teachers you can work with and learn from them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:That is part of the endless arising and passing away of world systems. The Dhamma is taught by a Buddha who then passes the teaching on after his death. The teaching flourishes, and then fades into something corrupted after a long time or is lost entirely, at which point another Buddha will eventually appear to revive the teachings again. I wasn't aware that 5000 years was the timeframe. I wonder if that differs among traditions. I can't remember if it is specified in any Theravada texts off the top of my head. If memory serves the Buddha actually predicted a few hundred years but it was later updated to thousands when the teachings were still alive and well like 800 years later. Like was said though there is no end and no beginning to the fundamental truths. They're there. Some people become aware of it, some don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:I always found the advice of "touch and go" to be extremely helpful. Whatever comes up, whether it's that excitement, that sensation of tranquility itself, or really any other feeling, you notice the sensation be with it fully, but then you let it go, without analyzing or fixating on it. Easier said than done, but I find that just keeping that phrase and attitude in the back of my mind does me wonders, as it's so easy to get caught up in trying to find that feeling again that your meditation becomes claustrophobic. What I've found is that's actually a pretty good attitude to have for life as well. When good poo poo comes along enjoy the crap out of it but don't cling to it; it will leave when it must. Let it go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Mindfulness is kind of like the Tao. If you can define it you aren't seeing the real one. Far as I know, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment. Technically speaking (mind that this varies by tradition and also by whatever other religions a person follows) Buddhists can't practice idolatry because a Buddhist doesn't worship anything. Buddhists revere the Buddha but as a teacher rather than a messiah. He isn't a Jesus figure and never claimed to have created what he taught; he found it shared it. He even specifically said that he wasn't divine or even all that special; just a dude that managed to find the truth. This is one of the things that makes Buddhism different from abrahamic religions and is why it confuses some people. If memory serves a lot of Buddhist art like statues or buildings is less an act of worship and more an act of respect. Imagery of bodhisattvas is preserved so we know who they were and what they taught. A statue of the Buddha may very well be no more than that; a statue of the Buddha. It can also help somebody along the path if there are places where you go that are basically labelled "this is a place you meditate." Buddhism also doesn't have a ton of hard and fast rules you must follow or you go to hell forever. The important thing is to be walking the path. You'll get it right eventually. Yes you don't worship statues because worshipping a statue is silly but a statue is just a thing; it can't do anything on its own so it's basically harmless. What matters to you and your mind is how you react to it. Like if you make a statue of the Buddha and say "this will last forever" you've screwed up because you are attached to permanence by doing that. Nothing is permanent. Ever. Nothing can be. But creating a statue can be a meditative experience or a sign of respect. In a way it can also be a good thing because it can be a way to introduce somebody who has never heard of Buddhism to the practice. "What is this statue of?" Somebody asks. "The Buddha," you say. "A great teacher." Zen Buddhism in particular places great emphasis on experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Ammonsa posted:Hi, newcomer here to Buddhism, I'm seriously looking into it and seeking refuge. Generally speaking Buddhism doesn't have hard and fast rules that drat you forever if you break them like Christianity. Stuff like "refrain from intoxicants" is something you shouldn't do rather than something you can't do as a Buddhist. Similarly goes rules like eating meat and what have you; it varies a ton by sect and by individual practice. The important thing is to dig down and ask why drugs and alcohol are bad. Even so, a few glasses of wine or beer here and there aren't all that awful. Caffeine, all told, is a pretty mild drug and very few religions prohibit it entirely. Plus, like was said, tea is real popular among Buddhism. Anyway, for "intoxicants" in general the problem is that they warp your perception. Buddhism encourages seeing thing as they are; alcohol clouds that. It also clouds your judgement. You don't get to use "I was drunk" as an excuse in the face of karma. If you get drunk and beat the poo poo out of somebody that's a bad thing to do and getting drunk makes people more likely to do that sort of thing. Your judgement being clouded also makes it harder to do those pesky "right" things. You know, right action, right speech, right thought and that. Drugs and alcohol impair your judgement which, as a Buddhist, is undesirable as self-control is pretty central. Don't give in to temptations to do the wrong things no matter how awesome they seem. Sometimes doing the right thing is downright painful. There's also the attachment side of it; consuming intoxicants is pleasurable and attachment to fleeting pleasure is a very common theme among humanity. It's easy to get addicted to that good feeling, if for no other reason that you think it feels nice. However, it never lasts so you have to do it again. You can lose that pleasure but still chase it. If you quit chasing it entirely you're ultimately better off. Buddhism also encourages cutting attachments. However, you aren't, especially if you're new to the path, expected to get everything absolutely right all the time. If you're a lay person and not a monk as well you aren't expected to follow strict rules. This is especially a big deal because following all of the rules can be pretty hard; even impossible for many. If your first steps along the path are things like "be more charitable, be nicer to people, and meditate more often" then you're off to a fine start. Following some of the rules and trying to get further along the path is far better than following no rules. Should you abstain from alcohol? Yes. Is it a requirement to be a Buddhist? No.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:it's not about not eating meat, but not taking life. so about the same as eating any other kind of meat; depends on who you ask. some say you only need to not eat meat if you take the five vows, some say everyone has to eat veg, some say only monks, and some say it doesn't matter if you eat meat or not because there is no way you can become a buddha through your own efforts and so you have to realize ultimately that it is only through amida's grace and compassion that you are able to be reborn in his pure land and begin the hard work of becoming a buddha. As a living human one needs to eat to survive. One needs to eat certain things to survive. It's possible to be a healthy vegetarian but that isn't possible everywhere, hence the mention of Tibetan Buddhism above. A lot of it has to do with local conditions; being a vegetarian just isn't always possible. It gets into a lot of grey area because part of the point is a reduction of suffering. Killing an animal probably puts it in pain while it dies and you probably need to kill an animal to eat it. However, if you eat a plant you also take the plant's life and it turns out that plants actually react to being eaten as well. Life feeds on other life and you need food. As a Buddhist one should endeavor to cause as little suffering as possible. You won't get it 100% right and you will inadvertently cause suffering but it's important to try. Killing for sport is obviously right out as is killing more living things that you need to. Gluttony is also right out. Eating too little is distracting as is devoting too much time to the earthly pleasure of food. If you eat more than you need then it is likely you are depriving somebody or something else. The other side of it is that not all Buddhists are far enough along the path to get everything right. Getting some of the rules right but eating meat is better than getting none of them right. It's a long journey you can't complete in one life. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
pidan posted:As far as I know "Hinduism" is kind of a generic name for a number of related religious practices in India that don't fall under a more specific label like Jainism or Buddhism. Some of them have the understanding that all gods are just manifestations of one divinity, others do treat the gods as separate entities, others again only worship one or a few gods out of the many. Yeah Hinduism, if you look at it based on Western ideas, is ultimately a bunch of different religions. There are some core beliefs (that everything has a soul for example) that persist and some common deities but there just isn't one set of common beliefs that every Hindu must adhere to. A common one is that all gods are ultimately aspects or avatars of a particular god so it really doesn't matter what you worship; in the end you're worshiping The One anyway. Depending on who you ask that could be various gods or even no god at all. Some Hindus follow only one god; some many, others none. This is part of why dharmic religions get along better than Abrahamic ones and why it's possible to be a Buddhist, a Taoist, and a Hindu with no real problems. It's possible to make Buddhism and Christianity work together for Christians that actually understand Buddhism but that can be a hard hurdle to go over. I've had to explain to a lot of people that I don't worship the Buddha and he isn't a messiah. I don't worship anything nor do I follow any gods. I also don't deny that gods exist. If they do then my puny mortal mind wouldn't be able to even try to comprehend them so I don't worry about that. Of course that also depends on the sect of Christianity; I grew up around a lot of evangelicals and they believe that every religion other than their particular flavor of Christianity was created by the devil. They tend to believe that Buddhists all actually worship Buddha who was just the devil in disguise trying to mislead people. As they believe that the Earth is and always has been a battleground between God and the devil any religion other than the right flavor of Christianity is effectively devil worship. As Buddhism trends toward the agnostic this is viewed as tempting people away from God and His teachings by pulling practitioners into that state of questioning. There are sects of Christianity that are more permissive of such things so long as you go to church, pray to God, and believe in Jesus. Of course I've also run into people that became quite furious when they found out that I'm not a Christian but have studied the teachings of Jesus. There is wisdom there. Unfortunately a lot of Christians have this attitude of "if you read his teachings or the Bible you would inevitably come to the same conclusions I did and would believe exactly what I do. Since you don't you are following the devil and I want nothing to do with you." Getting past that would not be easy in that case and evangelical Christianity is sadly pretty widespread. It's very hard to explain to that type that Buddhism neither requires you to worship nor not worship; whatever gets you in the right direction is fine. You can screw up along the way as long as you're making progress. Compare that to many flavors of Christianity; you must be 100% correct or you go to Hell forever. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 5, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
A simple way to think of things; are you the same person you were 10 years ago? Last year? Last week? Yesterday? No. You change. You learn, you adapt. Things you can't control happen and affect how you interact with the world. What you think of as "you" only exists in a given moment. It changes constantly. What you can see as "you" is therefore impermanent. If the soul exists them it will of course change as well. Some unchanging core that is "you" can't possibly exist in any permanent state and nothing you create can last forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Oh, yeah: I meant from a like, theological perspective. Ultimately the lived praxis is what is important, but I think the ideas are important too, if only to be able to use them as a point of comparison. I think one of the great arrogancies of the modern world - and perhaps it was always thus - is the idea that we're kind of the final fulfillment of history, or at least within spitting distance of it. It's exciting, but seems like a big assumption. I'm reasonably certain that every historical era has done that to some degree while every big, powerful Empire that effectively controlled the world said they were the last. It's a bad sign as that's when the empire inevitably starts falling apart. The world WILL change. You can't stop that. What you can do is adapt but as soon as you declare that you don't need to change because this is the peak and we will stay here forever stagnation kicks in. Of course the big powerful empire and those that run it benefit from keeping things as they are so they'll resist change. Then people who stand to gain from change or those with ambitions of empire roll in. If they also understand the new world better than the old one the empire is clinging to they'll end up toppling it even if they don't want to. How many historical empires have declared themselves eternal? How many fell apart, had civil wars, or got conquered? You're seeing this now in America. As a nation we declared victory. That end of history quote doesn't bode well for western civilization. Some countries are getting it but the anglosphere in particular is now assuming it will just win by default while China despite its corruption is developing economically and Russia is...well doing the things Russia is doing. We're solidly in the information age but America desperately wants to go back to the 1950s. You can't resist change. All you can do is adapt to it. Yes it is very arrogant to assume the current state of affairs will last forever. That is never true.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Hell is not punishment. It is training. Edit: really wish I could remember where I heard that. The internet said it may or may not have a known origin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:Given that humanity has progressed to a point where we could realistically end our own existence as a species, either directly through something like nuclear war or indirectly like through possible climate change destroying the habitability of the planet, what is the Buddhist line of thought on working to prevent that? From what I understand, the prime reason for not ending another's life, specifically human life, is because you deny that being the potential for enlightenment. But if there was a reasonable degree of certainty that an individual or group of humans were about to push the proverbial Big Red Button, would one be justified in working against that because if there's no humans, there's no chance at Enlightenment (at least for a while, assuming there's life elsewhere)? The teachings are not something that is exclusive to humans. We, as humanity, are working on having the ability to exterminate ourselves but that doesn't mean the chance to achieve enlightenment dies with use. We can't exterminate life itself. We might put a temporary end to intelligent life but like all things that's temporary. The teachings are fundamental truths of reality that the Buddha happened across and shared. The Earth, and the universe for that matter, will go on just fine without us. We are temporary; the teachings are not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
Generally speaking when religions talk about a "soul" or some related thing it's some core, essential piece of you that is eternal and unchanging. It lasts forever and is just "you" for eternity. Buddhism rejects the idea of eternity entirely. Not in that infinite time can't exist but in that everything changes. If there is a soul then it isn't "you." The idea of "you" doesn't really exist as everything is always in flux. There can't be eternal souls as moment to moment you're constantly changing. Buddhism doesn't completely reject the idea of a soul existing it says that that is asking the wrong question. Buddhism rejects the idea of the self entirely. You as some eternal, unchanging thing doesn't exist, can't exist, and never will exist; you're a part of the universe and the universe is part of you. There isn't any real separation between you and everything else; you're part of it and are always changing. Your body, whether you have a soul or not, is going to age and eventually die. When it dies it will rot and the things that made it up will return to the earth and become other things. The stuff that you think of as "you" will be arranged into other things; some of that might go into making people. The atoms that make up your cells never go away but they quit being arranged into what you think of as "you."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:From a Buddhist perspective how does a person with a mental illness come to experience the true nature of mind? I’m assuming we can KNOW the true nature of mind in an academic/philosophical way, but how do we trust in the experience when we have an illness that directly interferes with the mind and clouds experience and perspective. For example, from my Catholic perspective, how does someone with a disorder that can manifest as hallucinations know that their experience of extraordinary grace (visions, locutions, etc.) are valid? In essence: from a Buddhist standpoint, when can we trust that our experience is valid and/or true despite our illness? Hello, I'm a person with some heavy duty mental illness issues that is also a Buddhist. I can probably shed some light on this one. For me there's a lot of "this feeling is my brain being stupid." It also helps to know why my brain is being stupid. I've been reading heavily about mental illness, seeing a therapist off and on, and just in general learning to sort my thoughts from things that are a valid reaction to something from my brain being a dummy. A lot of mental illness comes from actual, physical mechanical and/or chemical things going on in the brain. Other parts of it come down to maladaptive learning. I had a horrible childhood which led to learning a lot of destructive defense mechanisms. This comes down to the right view stuff; it's extremely important to see things as they are. I have issues; why do I have issues? Where do they come from and how do they affect my behavior? There are a lot of things, at least in my case, that come down to stupid lizard brain stuff. Your lizard brain is great at surviving but is loving stupid at basically everything else. This is why there is also that focus on right action. You can't help but feel anger but what you can do is refuse to act on it. My condition led to an unpredictable temper that could end up on a hairline trigger. Buddhism was a massive help in getting that under control because instead of acting impulsively on raw emotion I learned to step back and say "is that the right thing to do here? You're angry but why are you angry? Is acting out of anger truly the best option here?" The mind is a very complex thing that can't be entirely divorced from the hardware that it lives in. Understanding the hardware helped understanding such things massively. Same with how the conditions develop and what the end results are. Hallucination generally has some kind of actual mechanical cause. I've never dealt with that but I've read about things like a schizophrenic who had auditory hallucinations getting a dog and watching the dog when he heard something. If the dog didn't react to the noise he was hearing at all then it was highly likely a hallucination. That's another "your brain is being dumb" case. His hardware makes him hear stuff that isn't there. That's the truth of the situation; his brain doesn't function quite right. He can't control it obviously but he can do something like the dog thing so he can sort out what's a real noise and what isn't. Right view is "the reality of the situation is that I have this condition and it causes *thing.*" Once you understand that then you can respond to the thing that it causes. The true nature of the mind is that physical hardware affects how it behaves. This is why there can be an importance placed on a certain level of detachment being possible; instead of immediately acting when you feel a certain way you ask why you're feeling that way. In the case of mental illness that's often just a case of faulty hardware being faulty. Then you learn to work around it. Thirteen Orphans posted:Thanks, Paramemetic! You have the blessed trait of being both informative and insightful. Zen posters, what would someone who wants to practice do if they are unable to meditate? Nobody is entirely unable to meditate. That being said Zen heavily focuses on experience being a good teacher. This is why things like Zen calligraphy exist or why Zen practitioners will study something like Kyudo. You're supposed to focus on emptying yourself, discarding your preconceptions, and focus exclusively on getting better at that thing. Programmers who talk about achieving the elusive state of "flow" are achieving that mental state. It's actually a very meditative mental state in that you've basically lost yourself entirely in what you're doing. There comes a certain point where you can kill your ego entirely and focus on the task at hand. This is the "empty self" that gets talked about. The thing you're doing and the mechanical skill you are learning both don't give a poo poo about you or what you believed coming in to things. The goal is not mastery of the skill; the goal is to see the skill and whatever the results are with total purity. The goal is to learn to give yourself entirely to what you're doing in that moment. If you can do that with one action then you can do it with any action. I'm largely a non-denominational, primarily solitary Buddhist with some Zen leanings, for what that's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Thank you for your perspective! Perhaps I lacked nuance when I enquired about Zen and meditation. From what I have observed, many Zen centers focus mainly on sitting, with other activities (like the ones you mentioned) being secondary to the primary practice. It seemed that would make participation for those suffering from certain mental illnesses very difficult. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Granted I don't think walking the path is ever easy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Another thing worth noting is that once one has achieved enlightenment there's the expectation that you'll come back to help others along the path. It isn't just "get enlightened -> nirvana." There's actually more steps in between; according to the cosmology there are people who became buddhas but vowed to keep coming back until everything is enlightened. As those along the path endeavor to reduce suffering getting involved in politics is part of that. One of the snags with politics in the real world is that power exists. There are those that are attracted to power so they can abuse it. That is something worth resisting as people abusing power does tend to lead to unnecessary suffering. There are also those who might like to stamp out the teachings for one reason or another. Based on that alone it's useful to get involved in politics in at least that sense so that the teachings don't get buried. For lay and even monastic practice the path is just that; a path. The goal is to sever attachments but absolutely nobody manages to do it all at once. Getting some of the things right is better than getting none of the things right so if you can't detach from politics yet don't worry about it. As for monastic organizations part of the idea there is that monks should usually be farther along than the laity. This isn't always true as nothing is perfect; people who are not monks can become enlightened while it's also possible for a bad person to put on the right mask long enough to weasel their way into an organization. This is a messy, imperfect world so any religious organizations are going to be messy and imperfect. That does not make them bad.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Chinook posted:Can someone please comment on the role (if any) of “faith” in Buddhist thought or teaching? The Buddha himself said that you shouldn't just take things on faith. I forget the exact quote but the short of it is don't believe something just because it's believed by a lot of people, don't believe something just because a priest said it, don't believe something just because there are rumors, and don't believe something just because the Buddha said it. Make sure you go over it yourself so you can be certain what is true and what is not. One should listen to those that are farther along the path but a fact of reality is that you can misinterpret what they say, they might make mistakes, and some of them will outright lie to you. Being an authority doesn't make somebody automatically right about everything and, being that we're all still here on Earth, nobody can be 100% right about everything. Buddhism is less a faith or a religion and more of a path. The Buddha himself didn't invent the fundamental truths that are core to Buddhism and was pretty explicit about that; he found them and decided to share. It's completely possible to find those same truths in a different way than he did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
matti posted:i may need to get back into the fold Do what you can, when you can. Getting one thing right is better than getting no things right. Sometimes you can do ten things; sometimes you can barely manage one. That's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Mushika posted:How do y'all feel about secular Buddhism? In the Stephen Batchelor vein. Is it white appropriation? Is it an interesting perspective on western Buddhism? I'm curious especially how goons who may have been raised Buddhist feel about that. It's effectively impossible to appropriate Buddhism. The Buddha himself said that the teachings and the path were fundamental truths of the universe that nobody owns. He didn't invent them; he found them and decided to share. All Buddhists are working toward the same destination regardless of denomination. That's the part that matters; everything else is just going about it a different way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 11:42
|
|
|
You pick the path that works, in the end. Whichever one it is you're sure to find people on the same or similar paths that would love to help you along.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The right thing to do is to find a path that is getting you in the direction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 18:57
|
|