|
The last thread went well, but it was agreed that it slowed down and was far too weighty in the middle, to revitilize it, it is reborn! Read through the op, ask away with a question, or talk to us about why we are all giant hippies. A little about the Big guy. “He who sees me, sees the Dharma, he who sees the Dharma, sees me”(SN 22.87) Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy based primarily on the teachings (or Dharma) of one man, Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha (The awakened one). According to Literal tradition, the Buddha was born between 7th and 5th centuries BCE to king Suddhodhana somewhere around Nepal. Suddhodhana received a prophecy that his son would either become a great military warlord in the tradition of his father, clan, and caste; or that the Buddha would become a great spiritual leader. Thinking this disgraceful and not a life for a prince, the king decided to shelter the Buddha from all the ills of the world. Eventually though, the Buddha had to leave the palace, his father ordered the city cleared of all ills that could plague the prince, but was ultimately unable to clear them all. Over the course of three trips a shocked prince was exposed to the suffering of life, and vowed to discover the cure from death and suffering. He left to become a vedic priest and ascetic. While living an extreme life deprived of everything, a life in total suffering, the Buddha heard a musician speak to his son while floating down the river. “If a string is too tight, it will snap, if it is too lax it will not play.” And then inspiration came to the Buddha, he knew that the answer lay not in one or the other, but in balancing both deprivation and indulgence, in walking the middle path. He meditated on this under a bodhi(a type of ficus) tree for some time and found true enlightenment. Siddhartha became the Buddha, and resolved to help others achieve the same as he had. Schools and Sects; The True Scotsman's Buddhism Though the Buddha’s teachings are largely the same across all the traditions, there are varieties of interpretations and different addendums onto the basic teachings. Theravada is the most orthodox and traditional of Buddhist traditions, while Mahayana is a word to mean New Schools of Buddhist thought that arose after the early Buddhist councils. Vajrayana is a whole different bag, it is esoteric Buddhism and has many different, often hard to conceptualize features. Zen is Mahayana but throws out a lot of scripture in favour of a more mind and practice oriented approach, Tibetan Buddhism is Vajrayana with many Tibetan traditions. Theravada- The strictest branch of buddhism. There are very few surviving schools of Theravada; as such it suffices to call the practise in general “Theravada”. Theravada buddhism is a very orthodox buddhism with a stark divide between laity and monks. They have an intense reliance upon scriptural support and study to attain enlightenment, often the focus here is scholastic study, though the Thai forest tradition has emerged as a reaction against this scholasticism by returning to a percieved original state of monastic life. Usually associated with southeast asia and sri lanka, there is a growing movement in the US and Europe of Theravadin groups called the “vipassana” movement, which is a semi-secular insight meditation movement meant to accompany a sectarian Theravada practise. Mahayana- Meaning “New Vehicle”, Mahayana arose as a new school of thought out of the original orthodox buddhism. Rather than focusing on attaining enlightenment as an arahant (an enlightened one) it posits that the goal should be to become a Bodhisattva(someone who delays final enlightenment until all other beings have been liberated). There are many different schools and philosophical traditions in Mahayana, and it is a very diverse branch of Buddhism, especially when compared to Theravada. The main difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism is the presence of the Bodhisattva vow and the encouragement of Laity in participating in practise. Prior to anti-colonial reactions, Theravada Buddhism restricted meditation to monks while lay people concerned themselves with trying to be good people so as to be born again as monks.. Vajrayana- Oh boy. Perhaps the second most popular form of buddhism in the US because of it's association with tibet and the dalai lama, Vajrayana traditions are a very difficult subject to broach. Ostensibly part of the mahayana tradition, vajrayana is usually classified seperately because it is an esoteric faith that delves deep into meditative, ritualistic and obscure teaching and practises. Yep, it requires initiation and a studious master-student kind of relationship. Recommended for literal wizards and sadhu-aspirants. Zen- By far the most popular form of buddhism in the west, there is some debate as to whether this is a seperate part of buddhism or part of the greater Mahayana Tradition. It arose from a school of Buddhist High Philosophy when bodhidharma, a student of that school, travelled to china and converted the Shaolin Monastery. Also he invented Kung-fu. From the shaolin temple this stripped down highly meditative school of buddhism spread throughout asia and established a number of seed schools each derived from the Chan buddhism taught in the Shaolin Temple. The local japanese growth of this was Zen. Zen still has many mahayana leanings in it's practise, including the bodhisattva vow, but in keeping with it's focus on simplicity has stripped down many teachings and sutras to their bare forms (the zen vows are just four lines!). Most known for koans and so popular it entered into the american lexicon as a word for "going with the flow" For a basic overview of the differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism look here! But what IS buddhism? "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts" (DHP 1.1) This is such a tough and tricky question to handle; Buddhism works like a giant circular chain would. You can pick up one link, and show that off, but it is almost impossible to do without also lifting up other parts of the chain. Likewise it is hard to talk about any one part of buddhism without going all in on the multitude of logical dialectics and philosophical treatises that elaborate on and expand on the plethora of what constitutes buddhism. But the simplest answer: Buddhism, more appropriately called Buddhadharma, is a religious tradition of thought based on the teachings of the Buddha. It holds that our self-concept propagates conditions that lead to clinging which ultimately creates distress, and that this clinging or desire should be broken down. In doing our best to live the eight steps that the buddha outlined, we can eliminate both trouble-causing wanting and that self-concept: and then experience the world as it is, without subjectivity. The best way to live those eight steps is by practise which develops your mind. That is the easiest way I can sum up the vast theology and metaphysics of buddhism, and there is still much I want to touch on because they are such powerful and critical concepts- but all buddhist schools and means of thought share the same similar underpinning, the same basic roadmap to enlightenment that the buddha put forward, and that's all you really need to start buddhist practise. So if you are wondering how you get into buddhism, the answer is to look around for local groups to help you out while you pursue your own growth and development- and to recognize the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path as your most critical tools: The Four Noble Truths The buddha proposed four statements to illustrate the problem of suffering, these are called the Four Noble truths- 1) Life as we lead it will, one way or another, lead to suffering or uneasiness. This suffering is referred to as Dukkha. 2) Suffering is caused by want and craving. This want often arises from clinging to a falsehood perceived as fact such as selfhood, or that we hold to things we believe cause happiness and fetishize them in a way. Or perhaps even that we want things that are to not be. 3) The end of Dukkha arises when that want and craving ends. By eliminating those falsehoods such as the self, we are able to cease want and then reach a state of Nirvana. 4) Reaching this state arises in following the eightfold path. The Eightfold Path The Eightfold path is the path one should strive to follow to end suffering. There are three aspects of the Path: Prajna, or wisdom and the first two aspects, Sila, or Morality and the next three aspects, and Samadhi, or discipline and the final three aspects. Right Wisdom: 1) Right View- Drsti- To view reality as it is, without imposing judgements on things we perceive. 2) Right intention- Samkalpa- The intention to eliminate suffering and work to the end of attaining enlightenment. Right Morality: 3) Right speech- Vaca- This is speaking in a manner so as not to be hurtful to others or cause suffering. 4) Right action- Karman- This is acting in a manner so as not to be hurtful to others or cause suffering. 5) Right Livelihood- Ajivana- this is living and practicing a livelihood in a manner so as not to be hurtful to others or cause suffering. This is the hardest to deal with in terms of modern Buddhism, as we are all connected in some way to violence and exploitation. As an example: Use a cellphone? Probably involved exploitation! Right Discipline 6) Right Effort- Vyayama- This is the answer to ajivana. This is acting upon right Intention, and acting to improve yourself. 7) Right Mindfulness- Smrdi- Being aware of things for what they are. For example, being aware that using a cellphone might connect you to suffering. It is keeping mindful of the ill effects of everything 8) Right Concentration - Samadhi- Meditating and practicing in a regular manner. Taking Refuge When one decides to live by the eightfold and become a buddhist, they do what is called "taking refuge". This is a statement and action, similar to Islam's shahadah. It means that one has decided to become a buddhist and states "I will take refuge in the three jewels of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha". In that phrase, to take refuge is to seek shelter from the plights of suffering. They are called Jewels because they are three radiant and immensely valuable things. Taking refuge in the buddha is to look at the buddha as an example of someone who has conquered suffering for inspiration, in dharma is to look at the teachings and philosophy that constitute buddhism as a way of helping you also conquer suffering- showing you the path to conquer it; and the sangha is to recognize those who also seek shelter from the plights of the world with you, and to help them and be helped by them. Five Precepts These are five vows taken by those when they take refuge. These expand to more precepts for monks, ranging from the traditional eight precepts, to two hundred and twenty seven precepts! For lay people though, the five are often a helpful guide to right living because they are five things that refraining from doing will help train you for the rigors of buddhist practise. It is important to note that these are not commandments, but should still be taken seriously. To not take them seriously is to not really be serious about attaining enlightenment. 1) I vow to undertake abstinence from taking life 2) I vow to undertake abstinence from taking that which is not mine 3) I vow to undertake abstinence from engaging in sexual misconduct 4) I vow to undertake abstinence from hurtful and false speech 5) I vow to undertake abstinence from intoxication The first one seems simple at first, don’t kill people. But it expands to ways that get more complicated. It means don’t kill. Obviously killing an animal is different than killing a human, but this is only because when you kill a human, you also kill a mind that might become enlightened. Even by killing an animal, you still take life. Life is life. Try to not to let any of the precepts cause undue suffering for you, You won’t be damned to hell for eons because you had to put down your dog or because you swatted a mosquito. The intention for these actions separates them. It is all about mindfulness. The second one is fairly clear, don’t steal something. This causes suffering. The Third one has a storied history. The original sexual misconduct meant not engaging in excessive sex, or sex with a caste of people that included hermaphrodites (but not transgendered) and those born with disabilities. This was entirely because of the culture of the time, and in modern times it’s sort of okay to have sexual relations with someone who was born with a disability as long as you’re not a creep about it. And that’s what it boils down to for laypeople, gay or straight, just conduct yourself appropriately in sexual situations, don’t take advantage of those who cant consent, etc. Yes, it is true that buddhism more explicitly prohibits homosexual relationships: This is because the faith is oriented towards monasticism, and in a monastic life the sexes are seperated, and heterosexuality though equally frowned upon is not as possible. There’s more difficult interpretations about what constitutes misconduct for Monks, but that doesn’t belong in an OP. The fourth precept is also very difficult. So often we tell little lies, or tell white lies, for a multitude of reasons, many of which are compassionate. But the premise is that a white lie causes suffering too- it misleads someone to something that is false. In situations where frank honesty is also very hurtful for someone, the best resolution is to speak carefully, wisely, and rightly, like Vaca suggests. However for many the more practical solution is the old adage "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" The fifth Precept warns against intoxication because to willfully imbibe in intoxication for the purposes of fun or recreation etc is almost to tacitly condone a lie to yourself- to deny what is really happening and to deny enlightenment. This just runs counter to what buddhism and is often difficult for people. For many Buddhists abstinence is important for their practise, for others it is less so. Is there a holy book? In buddhism, there are important texts, mostly as means of preserving teachings. The critical relationship is not between practitioner and text, but between student and teacher. The most important texts are the massive volume of works known as the Pali Canon. These are arranged by Sutras (or commonly Suttas) and exist originally in pali, a language closely related to what the buddha spoke and consist of suttas that early buddhist councils agreed created the fundamentals of buddhist doctrine. Related to this is the Dhammapada- a collection of verses directly attributable to the buddha. Verses which arose likely as seperate answers to a string of questions and were later codified. There are many other important texts in the form of sutras, especially for mahayana buddhists which expand and grow infinitely more diverse than theravada buddhists- who are still very reliant upon the pali canon as the be-all-end-all. Schools of thought and different practises will all have their own unique important texts and readings, and can be worthy of study if only to learn about them. What's with meditation? How do I meditate? Meditation is actually a part of most religions, though it is often not as overt as it is in Buddhism. The common image of buddhism is that of monks sitting in silence and thinking, mostly because of the extreme importance buddhism places on meditation. There are a few different kinds of meditation, as the term in buddhism refers to an introspective practise, however the most common kinds of meditation are Metta and Insight. A buddhist works to meditate for the same reason an olympic lifter works on the clean and jerk, to strengthen themselves. The assumption is that most minds are clouded by unwanted thoughts, or by distractions more often than not. Our minds think about this and that, we desire this and that, this and that come to conflict within us. Meditation is a way of cultivating the mind so that when such unwarranted thoughts do arise, we recognize them as just that. Thoughts. Not things with any bearing, not that which can distract us, or cause us to do things. Meditation teaches you to stop thinking about things and to simply be. For perspective try a quick experiment: Sit and don't have any thoughts for five minutes. No thoughts, no judgements, don't think anything. It is very likely that during those five minutes you had at least one thought about something, a judgement about something. The purpose of meditation is to do away with all that and to just be. Or rather, that is a sort of end goal; the purpose is more a way to practise and train the mind towards meeting that goal. Insight meditation is a common buddhist practise of sitting and not dwelling upon any thoughts, but just keeping your concentration and focus on one thing, usually the breath or a mantra. It is best to learn this with someone else, a group of people or a teacher who can help to show you where you are messing up, and with whom you can discuss things: Still if you want to begin, or are looking to hone your current meditative practise, the best resource is without a doubt Mindfullness in Plain English, by the Ven. Henepola Gunaratana The other common buddhist practise is Metta, which is best translated as "compassion" or "loving-kindness". Buddhism asserts that people are fundamentally empathic beings, but that the conditions of our being mean that it is often difficult to act on that compassion, or even to realize a compassion for another. The solution, like insight meditation, is to engage in a mental training exercise that encourages us to be compassionate. This exercise is Metta. Simply, you would start by thinking happy thoughts about yourself, then expand that out to dear friends, family, then your enemies, then groups of people you do not like, and finally to the millions of people who suffer in any aspect. You would focus all of your concentration on feeling these happy thoughts for others, and it can leave you feeling emotionally drained or warm and fuzzy, but repeated practise of metta is a form of therapy which will teach you compassion. A more expanded explanation is here. If you're still looking for tips on how to meditate, or want something more to give you a guided practise, here is a good online six-week course on meditation: http://www.audiodharma.org/series/1/talk/1762/ Is Buddhism a religion/Atheism and buddhism ""We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."" (Johannes Eriugena, on Pseudo-Dionysius) This is also a really complicated question: The simplest answer is that such things are not important- Learn buddhadharma and practise it to free yourself of suffering, it matters not what else you do or how you think, as long as it is conducive to practising buddhadharma. If that's fine for you, and you want to skip to atheism and buddhism, go ahead! The following is a bunch of  about buddhism as a religion that may be offputting for some, or encouraging for others.However, this is still something important to consider. Buddhism is very much so a religion, rather than a simple philosophy. There are many great secular purposes that can be derived from buddhism- Psychology for example has recently found a ton of copacetic values within much of buddhist practise, or is arriving at what buddhism has been doing for centuries. Still, buddhism requires a good bit of practise and study, and it is more than a philosophy because it fulfills a spiritual role, soteriology and supernatural concepts aside buddhism is a praxis by which we arrive at abnegation of ego-differentiated self. It is a vehicle for mystic experiences as any long-term buddhist practioner will assure you. The great trouble here is what has been the biggest weakness of buddhism- It is a monastic faith at it's heart. This means that among the laity a sort of "low" religion has emerged- You do things that make a good buddhist just because that's what you do. You give food to monks and lamas, you say a few prayers, and that's that. But these trappings and material clingings all have a purpose as a means of engaging the mind in certain activities. Take the tibetan prayer wheel for instance: On the surface you turn it and that gives you good merit, which means a better birth. But deeper than that, the wheel is a praxis by which you engage in the mental experience of having prayed without the activity of prayer, it is useful for not only illustrating the divide between participation and agency, but as well encourages that ego-death state by means of a tacit participation in compassion practise. The faith is built entirely around the idea that all that we percieve, and experience is mediated, often greatly, by language and learned or assumed concepts that have become a deep part of out intellectual processes: Cognition and Emotion. The mystic attainment in buddhism is that which allows one to enter a psychological state of consciousness capable of affording participation in an unmediated world. The mediated world, it is argued, leads to cognitive and emotive processes that are not ultimately desireable reactions to the stimuli of the world. The question of these religious trappings in relation to attaining this psychological ego-death is that many of means we might use to reach this unmediated state are forms and methods that are themselves mediators of the world. The low religious, or lay, application of this high religious pursuit becomes the application of those means which are ding-fur-sich: sometimes linguistic means like koan, sometimes cognitive ablations like mantra recitation, sometimes tactile methods of conditioning such as mala. It is generally acknowledge that the most efficient vehicle for attaining this kind of ego-death in any permanence is still that of meditation- the conditioning of the mind to guide it towards conditioning ego-death as a default measure to ensure a finality in the assumption of that mental-psychological state. However those means which function as ding-fur-sich do so and are done with the understanding that their practise and encouragement conditions the end-goal of nonmediated participation. Often buddhism avoids this kind of deep analytical discourse because it is not usually itself one of those means which encourages those conditions, being a linguistic and conceptual construction of dialectic that is reliant upon the assumption of those learned concepts that lead to mediated, rather than unmediated, participation. The dialectic becomes that which reifies mediative-mind. This is why you so often see mysticism in buddhism relegated to the esoteric, requiring initiation. Even so, there is an encouragement, through meditative practises and through many aspects of mahayana or post-mahayana buddhist thinking which afford, divorced again from the supernatural, that egoistic abnegation before the totality of all-that-is-as-it-is. It is the fact that buddhism strives for this spiritual participation among it's followers that so poignantly makes it a religion, NOT any theistic trappings. The appeal for many, and the reason many avoid calling it a faith, is because they see buddhism as a non-theistic belief system, and this is a little disingenuous. Buddhism is not non-theistic, rather it is apophatic. In lieu of discarding celestial entities or shifting focus away from them, buddhism approaches them as an accepting mind- if enlightenment is that which cannot be understood, and by definition cannot be reified by assumption of position on matters, then the determining of these aspects of religion as aspects of spiritual becomes defined by the negative. Buddhism is not non-theistic just because it has no deities, rather it asks and defines it's soteriological pursuit by the measure of what it does not include, or is not. This becomes that method of encouraging dialectic and questioning for those that seek it, without reifying itself upon these linguistically dependent concepts. Now. Atheism. Buddhism is wholeheartedly a faith. It reeks of a post-colonial western chauvanism to suggest that the intention of it is as a philosophical structure by which good is done and humanity is bettered, while simultaneously rejecting the very vehicles of the system's goals. Or even to dismiss the entire soteriology that those goals are dependent on as nothing more than a misguided superstition taught to ignorant masses by an enlightened master. I have much I could say about atheism in the west, but I will suffice myself to say that this kind of atheistic approach to buddhism is reliant upon abrahamic theological and philosophical concepts to define itself, and that kind of cultural remnant only debases an approach to buddhadharma. That said- Buddhism is a religion that an atheist can very easily approach- it does not necessitate a belief in divine entities- as a religion most of the concepts that are assumed to be supernatural are rooted in empiricism and logic. Early buddhism is very easily characterised by the development of logical discourse and argumentation. This focus on differentiating the objective (noumenal) from the subjective (phenomenal) is called phenomenology, and buddhism has been greatly devoted to that. Additionally there has long been a strong concept in post-mahayana thought known as upaya, or expedient means. Essentially upaya means that if it is something which helps you reach the end-goal of liberative wisdom, even though it cannot serve as a means of reaching that itself, it is generally okay to practise. So don't worry about not believing in dieties or not really thinking about rebirth. You should though, think long and hard, and consider why rebirth is so antithetical to an atheist viewpoint- why do most atheists hold an abrahamic conception of life as ceasing upon the cessation of physical activities? There is no soul, so why the insistence that oblivion is the result of that ego-state passing, and what about when that ego-state passes but the physical form persists? What happens to the matter of that body, etc etc. Karma and Reincarnation For many people, this is a difficult part of the doctrine to accept or deal with. Many western buddhists will suggest a disbelief in supernatural things, or that one takes what is important from buddhism but disregard supernatural aspects such as karma or rebirth. Others will disavow a supernatural point of origin for this and suggest a metaphorical interpretation, some even going as far to suggest that the buddha talked down to those he spoke to in order to convey these metaphoric ideas. Why does this occur so much in western buddhism, and less so in “eastern” buddhism? In regions of the world traditionally subscribing to buddhist, hindu, or folk religious practices, the ideas of the supernatural expressed in buddhism are commonplace, a facet of every day life, similar to how heaven is for many in the west a common trope as an extension of our culture. Now, why does this occur so much in western buddhism? As a newcomer among the western cultural sphere Buddhism is built largely on a convert base; ethnic buddhists notwithstanding. This means that most buddhists in the west are converting to it from a background of christianity or secular rationalism, which do not lend themselves well to rebirth as a concept. However, there is a clear sort of cognitive dissonance in rationalizing rebirth or in dismissing it as superstition, because rebirth forms much of the underpinning drive for what the Buddha taught. When you read the early buddhist texts like the nikayas or the agamas you will notice there is an overwhelming acknowledgement and referencing of rebirth. The simple assumption that death is a final permanent state is one that is repeatedly attacked as wrong view, as being uchcedavada or anihilationist. There's extensive countering of annihilationist ideology within the oldest Buddhist texts, and this isn't a new argument that I'm presenting. Even assuming that the discarding of these things is not in line with anihhilationist thinking becomes an act of supreme dissonance when the views attacked state thusly:"Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. . . At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. . . With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death." This is, however, very unsettling for practitioners, and may turn them away from pursuing the buddhadharma- It can be a form of upaya, mentioned earlier, to not dwell on this, or to begin by approaching it's most simple aspect- The moment to moment becoming of changing with every thought or new action. Defining yourself by your thoughts means that there is also a tacit definition that as thoughts cease or fade, so to does that experiential self fade. It is also important, perhaps critical to point out that the buddha equally attacked those who held the view of an eternal soul that migrates across bodies and forms. Rebirth is not a reincarnation, because to have an essential essence or self goes against some of the most fundamental aspects of buddhist teaching. Rebirth is a continuation of life past the death of a body, but at the time is not an assertion of a supernatural soul that continues past the physical death of a body. The basic teaching is that birth is facilitated by dependent co-arising. "When X arises, Y arises; when X ceases, Y ceases." Birth is conditioned upon clinging, because birth arises from becoming, which arises from clinging. Life continues, so when a material death approaches, one who is still experiencing this co-arising will have that life continue to experience co-arising after the dissolution of one physical form. A succinct summary of this in the canon is via the Upadana Sutta. Karma is part of what governs rebirth. Simply put the Karmic Law is a buddhist explanation of causality: For consequences, there is an action that originates it. More expanded, for every action we take, there is an appropriate consequence. If it is an action which leads away from suffering, it will lead to a consequence which in turn leads away from suffering. It does not mean that good things happen only to good people, simply that a person who is leading a karmically "good", will lead a comparatively better life than if he were taking actions that were karmically "bad". This is important to buddhism, because we are constantly taking actions to reinforce the ego (the self), which in turn causes suffering or want. Or for a more detailed explaination, see here So what now? You come and ask questions! To ask is to learn, to learn is to understand  Some additional things: Web Resources on Buddhism: (Submissions Welcome) http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://www.buddhanet.net/ http://www.khandro.net/index.htm http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Main_Page http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/index.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ The Dalai Lama on stress and depression Ajahn Brahm on Depression Ajahn Brahm on Dealing with Fear Find a local group of buddhists Mahamudra for the Modern World - Reggie Ray Audio Resources: (Submissions Welcome) Audio Dharma - http://www.audiodharma.org/ Buddhanet - http://www.buddhanet.net/audio.htm Ken McLeod - http://www.unfetteredmind.com/ Joseph Goldstein at Dharmaseed - http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/ The Buddhist Channel - http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?index Dharma Downloads - http://www.dharmadownload.net/pages/english/Natsok/E_Download_Natsok.htm Access to Insight - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/outsources/audio.html Buddhist Geeks - http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/ Urban Dharma - http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma9/dharmatalks.html Dependent Origination in Buddhism and Science by Alan Wallace http://www.archive.org/details/B_Alan_Wallace_Dependent_Origination Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche on meditation - http://www.chronicleproject.com/CTRlibrary/meditation.html Sounds True - http://soundstrue.com Dhammatalks - http://dhammatalks.org/ Introductory Books General Buddhism "Touching Enlightenment with the Body" - Reggie Ray "The Posture of Meditation" - Will Johnson "Mindfulness in Plain English" - Ven. Henepola Gunaratana, Available here: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html "Buddhism Plain and Simple" - Steve Hagen "Buddhism For Beginners" Thubten Chodron "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation" Thich Nhat Hanh "How to Meditate: A Practical Guide" - Kathleen McDonald "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" - Daniel Ingram (also available for free: here) "How To Practice" - HH Dalai Lama "Buddhism for Dummies" - by Jonathan Landaw, Stephan Bodian, Gudrun Buhnemann "What Makes You Not a Buddhist" by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Vajrayana Buddhism "Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" - Sogyal Rinpoche "The Crystal and the Way of Light" - Chogyal Namkhai Norbu "Secrets of the Vajra World" and "Indestructible Truth"- Reginald Ray "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" - Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche "Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior" - Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche "Carefree Dignity" - Tsoknyi Rinpoche "As It Is" volumes 1 and 2 - Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" - Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche The Myth of Freedom - Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche One City - A Declaration of Interdependence - Ethan Nichtern Mahayana Buddhism "Cave in the Snow: Tenzin Palmo's Quest for Enlightenment" by Vicki Mackenzie "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" - Shunryu Suzuki Roshi "Zen Buddhism" By D.T. Suzuki "The wisdom of Insecurity" Alan Watts" "The Way of the Bodhisattva" by Shantideva "The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti" by Vimalakirti and Robert A. F. Thurman "Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra With Commentary" by Arya Maitreya and Rosemarie Fuchs Academic Buddhism "Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction" by Paul Williams "Early Buddhist Discourses" by John J. Holder "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika" By Jay L. Garfield "Living Yogacara" by Tagawa Shun'ei 2013 lunar holidays! Febuary 25- Magha Puja March 26- Avalokitesvara's Birthday May 24- Vesak May 25 - Saga Dewa July 22- Asalha Puja August 21- Ulambana October 19- Pavarana October 19 through November 17 - Kathina November 17- Anapanasati December 8- Bodhi Day Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Dec 13, 2013 |
#
¿
May 9, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
So what kind of buddhism do you practice? I practice Mahayana Buddhism, though I practice a lot of mystic approaches. I am very drawn to a lot of academic and philosophic buddhism, which means I read a lot of sutras and that I follow a yogacara tradition. Yogacara is one of two deeply meditative (yogic) schools of Mahayana thinking, the other being Madhyamaka. As for what that entails, think in terms of the platonic allegory of the cave, though it isn't an exact fit. The world has an objective state in its material properties, but our mind is the only thing that is ultimately real within our percieved reality. Were you always buddhist? No, I was raised christian, though loosely. I had my falling outs with that faith which resulted in my present apostasy. However, while I was busy telling people to "deal with it" I discovered more and more religions. Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Islam. I devoured the books hungrily, and I was shown some of buddhism's tenets. I was pretty offput by it though, because I was in a  sort of atheist phase, and reluctant to consider much that was a religion as applying to me. I never really delved as deep into it as I should and relegated a lot of it to superstition or just being good. I'm not sure young me could even really tell you what buddhism was. Later on I was shown the dhammapada, and had a chance to learn about meditation, the goals of buddhism, more on bodhidharma, on vasubandhu and asanga etc. The academic nature of buddhism and these teachings and texts solidified my interest in the subject. From there, I found that what had been my world-view all along now had words that could be put to it. I swallowed my pride and took refuge, got a dharma name, and I've been pretty content with that decision since.Do you worship any gods? Are you a pagan crystal theosophist witch? "Proclaim the utmost mantra, the supreme mantra, the mantra which is true and not false, the mantra which says: I am gone, gone, beyond gone, absolutely gone. Behold, the awakened" (Hridayaprajnaparamita Sutra) I live on the west coast of the US, in the general cultural sphere of north california. New age stuff is kind of a thing, by extension, and a lot of people get the two confused. Personally I do not worship any gods or follow a lot of alternative medicine. I do think that there is vast amount to be gained from a lot of buddhist phenomenology and practices that can made secular and apply to many of the stresses and upsets that so many people unfortunately suffer. I'm not sure if that's alternative medicine though, as psychology is applying a fair bit of that to its own prescriptions these days. As for gods? Not really, and not quite as what can be called conventional literacy. In Mahayana (and by extension vajrayana, zen, pure land) there is the concept of the bodhisattva (or bodhicitta)- beings who have attained enlightenment but vow to forego final liberation until all beings may be helped to attain enlightenment. In buddhism the concept is similar to a christian saint- and many aspirants take vows to become bodhisattvas. While each region and school and tradition and even monastery may have their own host of bodhisattvas; there are eight bodhisattvas usually recognized across cultures and schools, these are eight celestial beings called “Mahasattvas” or the Great Sattvas. Though very important and powerful as a concept in many schools of buddhism, this is not a requisite part of the faith. For myself, I tend to fall in line with the orthodoxy here and acknowledge them, they aren't gods, and don't have any sway or control over my fate, my life or my death. But they are there to help me out when I'm struggling! For reference's sake, and as a resource for many newcomers, here's a good overview: Avalokitesvara is the bodhisattva of compassion, who has pledged to help all beings attain by means of compassionate kindness. By far the most popular of the Mahasattvas, Avalokitesvara is not necessarily the greatest. Avalokitesara has many different incarnations and forms, across all genders, and is usually understood to be genderless by compassionate desires to help all. He is especially important to tibetans who venerate him as Chenrezig, and who see the Dalai Lama as a manifestation of Chenrezig. My personal favourite representation of avalokitesvara is the thousand-armed bodhisattva; in trying to help all beings who are suffering, avalokitesvara's head and arms shatter, but because of his great compassion to keep helping all beings has those pieces become eleven faces and a thousand arms to see, hear, and assist all beings with problems- a good story about helping others! Mantra: Om Mani Padme Hum Manjushri is the Bodhisattva of supreme wisdom, whose realization of the greatest wisdom often puts him at odd expressing that wisdom to others. He has vowed to help others by destroying all ignorance. He is depicted with a flaming diamond sword in the right hand which shows wisdom cutting through all obstacles and a lotus in the left. Lotuses tend to represent sutras, and for Manjusri this is the prajnaparamita (transcendent wisdom) sutra and also shows his own attainment as blooming from a seed of wisdom. My favourite representation of Manjusri is in the Vimalakirti sutra where the eponymous lay practitioner out-debated the Bodhisattva of wisdom who is shown as too wise for his own good. (Vimalakirti becomes a Bodhisattva by his own right) Mantra: Om ara pa ca na dhi Ksitigarbha is the Bodhisattva of instruction, hell and children. He has vowed to help all being be instructed in how to help themselves from the death of the Buddha until the Maitreya becomes a buddha. Additionally he has vowed to help all beings end all hellish suffering, and is sometimes known as the hell bodhisattva. As an instructor by nature, Ksitigarbha is a special patron to all children, who are beings in constant search of instruction. Usually depicted as a bald monk holding a staff and a rosary. Mantra: Om Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva ya Samantabhadra is the bodhisattva of practise. He is the patron of one of the more important sutras: the lotus sutra, and the bodhisattva who orchestrated the ten great vows of Bodhisattvas. His is the realm of action and putting wisdom and knowledge into practise, and has vowed to help all beings in their practise. His main teaching is that there is no value in wisdom unless put into practise. He is depicted as a many-faced being riding a white elephant with six tusks and holding a lotus parasol which represents the Lotus Sutra. Mantra: Om Samyats tvam Maitreya is a special bodhisattva. He is understood as a being who has vowed to learn and understand the pure dharma, and to be reborn as a human when the dharma of the Buddha is forgotten by humanity. When this happens, he will be born and come into full enlightenment, spreading again the pure dctrine of the faith. Until then he helps all beings who seek to reach enlightenment without corruption. The specialness of Maitreya is in the many, many movements and cults that have co-opted his messianic-like status for their own and often violent or wrong ends. Mantra: Om Maitri Mahamaitri Maitriye Svaha Akasagarbha is the esoteric bodhisattva of Akasha, which is probably best translated as spirit, void and space. He is a bodhisattva of wisdom and of emptiness, and is the bodhisattva of the void store. He is often associated with yogic practises to hone the body for enlightenment, and unfortunately not much is known or capable of being made available to the public because of his esoteric status. Mantra: Namo akasagarbhaya om arya kamauri mauli Svaha Mahasthamaprapta is the bodhisattva of powerful wisdom and the coming of great strength. He is the bodhisattva who attained enlightenment by esoteric means of recitation. He is also the bodhisattva who emanates as Vajrapani, a herculean celestial figure that he is better known as. Vajrapani often uses his terrifying power to defend the doctrine and as a means of helping others. Mantra: Om jam jam sam svaha (As vajrapani: Om vajrapani hum pat) Sarvanivarana-Vishkambin is the Bodhisattva of meditation. He has vowed to help all meditators in overcoming the five mental distractions: Hostility, Laziness, Doubt, Distraction and worry, Desire. Interestingly he is one of the earlier bodhisattvas, as the Nivarana in his name refers to the five mental distractions and occurs mostly in theravada traditions rather than Mahayana. He is not usually venerated as much as he is known to those who practise deep meditation. Mantra: Nama samantabuddhanam! Ah! Sattva Hitabyudgata Tram Tram! Ram Ram! Svaha! Additionally I'd like to point out a bodhisattva that I feel deserves special attention: Tara. She is a bodhisattva who has vowed to help all women attain enlightenment. It has unfortunately been the view that being born a woman is a less meritous birth than being a man (usually because women have held second-class roles in relation to men, and therefore have been a less lucky birth). She was a great being who learnt much in the way of wisdom from an enlightened being, but other monks had told her that she should strive to be born as a man to attain that enlightenment. Upset at this, she strove, worked hard, and attained enlightenment as a woman, vowing to help all women do as she did without trying to become a man instead. Mantra: Om tare tuttare ture svaha! What about other goons? Are there other goon practitioners? Certainly! We post a lot and talk about buddhist things, a number of us have even speculated about an informal internet practise group. If you want to be included here, please let me know how you'd like to be listed and I'll update it! Brain Dance - Buddhist leanings, Taoist Leanings. Frobert Blamble - undeclared Mcustic - Undeclared Miss Fats - Undeclared Reene - Undeclared Wafflehound - Yogacara Quantumfate - Yogacara Paramemetic - Drikung Kagyupa ToxicSlurpee - general Ugrok – Zen Edged Hymn - Zen North of Graviy - Zen Shnooks - Zen Mad Wack - Vipassana Sir Azrael – Jodo Shinshu Cumshot in the Dark - Soto Zen Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I've been approached by a few people associated with SGI Buddhism. Is there any sort of consensus about them? They're a cult. To be more specific, requires a little explanation. They're not exactly a cult, more like a buddhist version of sun myung moon's christian church. It's more apt to say they are a new religious movement with a lot of controversial methods and strong "encouragement" of financial and material donation that is inspired by a buddhist movement. They focus pretty heavily on one sutra, the lotus sutra, and don't teach a lot of the commentary and necessary materials to go with it. They don't have a proper ritual observance to qualify as the buddhism they draw from, which is nichiren buddhism, a rather devoted sect of pure-land buddhism that actually calls all other schools of buddhism corrupt and wrong and was partially responsible for instigating some of the most militant and violent revolutions in japanese history. What it comes down to though is whether you would gain any benefit from keeping aware of yourself and learning to seperate the lay buddhist practises from the new religious movement practises, they can show you the fundamentals of meditation and buddhism, but with a large caveat. I also feel like I need to say that soka gokkai is a large charity organization, then again so is scientology. North of Gravity posted:I lurked in the last thread a bit, but was too shy to say anything. I am glad that you posted then, please feel free to jump in! we need more people to keep a lively discussion going. CivilDisobedience posted:Want to help others? Learn to listen. Want to help yourself? Discover warm-heartedness. Buddhism is essentially just common sense with some ritual thrown in for mystique. Weeellll. . . Yes and no. No because the "ritual" is not included just for mystique, it has a critical and very important role in the system, especially as regards breaking down the psychological construct that is the ego. Yes, because for the most part sramana(and consequently buddhism) is based strongly on debate, argumentation, and logical discourse. The faith has a strong reliance on empricism for many aspects of it's phenomenonological suggests. The secular method you suggest can lead to immense suffering, taken as is.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Do you still engage in practise? When you grew up, how much "high" buddhism did you encounter vs just following lay rituals?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Schnooks, when I was your age, I ran into Thich Nhat Hanh's Peace is Every Step and to this day it is probably the best book I've ever come across about integrating mindfulness into all aspects of one's life. This is such good advice and warms the cockles of my heart, same with plus infinity. This is the kind of stuff that's good to see. Plus Infinity, do you still practice? Also, sorry shnooks, you mentioned wanting to be in the OP, but all you said about what you practiced was that you were doing vipassana.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:There was mention in the OP about psychology starting to discover things that lined up with the teachings of Buddhism. Can you go into more detail about what exactly those things are? I can find some articles on that if you really want; but mostly I'm referring to the recent surge in rational-emotive or cognitive behavioural therapy. Although on my campus the psychology department was advertising finals stress management techniques; and handing out "worry bracelets" that looked, and functioned, suspisciously like malas. You were supposed to run your hands over the beads and count them one at a time if you felt stressed  Consider that buddhism has been a philosophical religion for thousands of years; monks encouraging in deep introspection and arguments with one another about the nature of a soul-less mind and consciousness. Psychological developments emerge from this. Modern psychology has found that mindfulness meditation and something like metta meditation is enormously helpful for those who suffer from stress, anxiety, depression and other similar issues. As well, the buddhist model of the mind and the origination of negative is similar to the one many therapists and psychologists are developing- There is no occasional thought: Negative thoughts predicate themselves without needing external factors. There is an order to phenomenon that occur. With regards to metta: focusing on loving-kindness feelings in a secular matter can help you feel better. Though there's something to be said from a buddhist perspective of being highly critical of romantic adoptions of the dharma with regards to how they can close the doors on further dharma practise Tonsured posted:Is there a palpable difference, in your experience, between meditating in isolation versus a group/community setting. Group meditation is always great to correct your form or address worries. it's also nice to do it with other people because group activities play on that natural sense of togetherness that humans have. As part of a group, you will try to do what the group does, so group meditation can help trick your mind into working itself. This is what I find supremely useful and enjoyable, making a noted difference. For isolated meditation, however, I find I get the best results. I'm able to experience the Dhyanas when I'm alone, that I can better dissolve the ego or temporarily abolish any desires I have. I really recommend meditating outside if you're doing it alone: the thai theravadans have something right here; it's a powerful experience. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Secret Sweater posted:This is a bit verbose, you can read the last question if you'd like but I wanted to put down some of my thought process. I've been struggling lately with the definition of consciousness. Consciousness that is it brought about as response to the stimuli of vision, sound, taste, smell and touch are fine, but the mind sense eludes me. Ooo! Ooo! I can answer this! I feel the need to qualify however that I follow a yogacaran viewpoint; so this response is not applicable to all forms of buddhism and that ajahn Walpola Rahula would reprimand it as totally wrong. That said, the mind is broken down into eight interworking consciousnesses that can be lumped into four categories the five sensate consciousnesses (caksur-srota-ghrota-jiva-kaya vijnanana) Interpretive Consciousness (Mano-vijnana) Ego Consciousness (Klesha-vijnana, or more appropriate and commonly, klistamanas) Karma Conciousness (alaya-vijnana) There are also some underlying assumptions made that need to be understood: There is no absolute mind-ego, mind-ego is a concept. There is no ego-differentiated self, the experiencing body is part of the absolute mode of reality. This absolute mode is an objective existing world where everything exists in itself. This is not a reification of conceptual reality applied to an absolute world. All experiences of an egoistic being are predicated and perfumed by karma. This is your predicate "flame". In western philosophy, the objective material "thing" is called the noumenon, that which exists without definition by the senses. That which exists by senses is the phenomenon. In buddhist thought, the phenomenal object arises from an interaction between the Media that interprets it (eye-consciousness) for example. This interplay of perception of an object and the formation of your reality experience around it is mind. Vision has a form of volition because the thoughts connected to it work on it to create ideas. Perception divorced from any sort of attribution or ideation is not mind. Remember the twelve Nidanas; without fabrication you do not have consciousness. The sensate conciousnesses are understandable to you it seems, and citta can be seen as comprising the mental ideative world that organizes the self, sensing with the mind, (i.e thinking). The ego-consciousness is the mode of thinking and thought generation that creates the Kleshas, the attachments, and is also citta. What drives Citta? The Kleshes, prior thoughts, etc. The critical part is to understand that the ultimate predicate of the kleshas and what "drives Citta" is being ignorant of objective reality and suffering, the first nidana. By extension this means the main operant for most thought-generation is karma, actions in this or prior life that come to fruit with every thought, every perception, every experience being colored by prior experiences that can further trap you in an ego world.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Citta doesn't have a simple manifestation, its like asking what the manifestation of kleshas would be. The manifestation of cotta would essentially be ego, but that's easy to conflate with intrinsic self. There's four manifestations of citta that arise. Wholesome or kusala thoughts, neutral thoughts, akusala thoughts and the experienced fruits of karma. The sensate consciousnesses yield sensate experiences and can enforce the sensate derivations of ego. The klesha consciousness yields the aggregates, the karma consciousness yields karmic experience
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 09:26 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
What's confusing?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see how the pali and sanskrit terms can be offputting; I try not to use them but can slip into using them every now and then. It's just more useful and expedient than english terms to explain the concepts. how do you describe sankhara, kleshas and skandhas when all of those terms refer to formations: likewise with Dhyana, Panna and Samadhi which all essentially mean wisdom. For what it's worth the academic buddhism in theravada arises from the focus on scriptural study; in mahyana and vajrayana it comes out of a deep tradition of dialectics. I'm sorry for being weird, goons.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
I just want to be a pedantic jerk and point out we've never disputed between Yogacara and Mahamudra, but rather between Yogacara and Madhyamaka. Both of which acknowledge sensate consciousness and fabrications. That said, I agree that words like vijnana and caksur, like citta or cetana are not words most need to be familiar with: but there are still a number of pali/sanskrit/tibetan what have you words that many just pick up because they are so commonplace. Zen, Zazen, Mahamudra, Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada/Hinayana, Karma, Dukkha, Dhyana (or Jnana), Skandha, Klesha, Lama, Tulku, Guru, Sangha, Dharma, Buddha, Bodhisattva, Tathagarbha etc. . . With this, your point about the audience not speaking sanskrit becomes irrelevant, itself a detracting focus that over-analyzes from the point- Plus you yourself have probably been guiltier than I in this thread of using words not in english Does one need to call the Buddha the Buddha instead of the Awakened, or "The-one-who-neither-comes-nor-goes"? Of course not- But when you get down to it there IS a certain level of terms you pick up, that you can become familiar with what exactly they refer to and it becomes far more expedient to say "Life is dukkha" than "Life can cause varying forms of distress, but not with the immediacy distress implies, and neither quite is it uneasiness; Suffering's right out it is too strong of a word for a good comparison" I was responding to someone asking a very academic question, and trying to respond in a like manner that was helpful; I don't want it to be assumed that Yogacara and mahayana are inherently this big offputting mystical heady thing- and I'm thinking that now you think that it is, which is odd because that is what vajrayana is more guilty of. Myself? I am 100% down for burning the sutras and destroying the shrines, they are fetishes that obscure and distract from dharma, from experience and from trying to undo suffering. But I like to read sutras and great teachers deserve our thanks, often in the form of big-rear end statues. I think, paramemetic- we seriously need to sit down and actually have an academic discussion, because my perspective is totally not what you think it is. As an example- I think you stress too much on attachment to forms, sutras, teachings or prostrations. What have you- I would counter your point about my just being with the number of times I tell you that you spend too much time justifying things and just need to sit down and meditate, interrupting dogs or no. We should talk, because I think you have a wrong idea of what yogacara is; and attribute my personal attachment to academic buddhism too much to it. For what it's worth, I have a contact in my profile- anyone can drop me a line if you'd rather ask me something outside the thread; I am always happy to chat with cool goons.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:It really works both ways. On one hand, it's important to be accessible. There's nothing necessarily essential or magic about the original language this stuff comes from. though this is a specific response, it goes for everyone. Do not be afraid i you don't know some terms. Don't be afraid to ask the wajo, or even the roshi if that's the person saying it, you are there to learn. If you didnt have to learn or practise; you would be enlightened already; asking someone to explain a term (without interrupting them) tells them you are listening, and has the benefit of encouraging them to explain the teachings more. However, the actual glossary of other terms you need to familiarize yourself with is pretty small; larger glossaries are more for reading translations and more arcane teachings. EDIT: Incarnate dao; Amitabha is a buddha with their own land. If you're into wisdom buddhas. However Amitabha was a bodhisattva before, dharmakara. Also, Avalokitesvara can be seen by some as an emanation of Amitabha, which might be your source of confusion. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Even jodo shinshu recognizing Amida as a buddha, So that is weird if they are talking about presently. Perhaps they are referring to an emanation?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Look back a while. I am being more conscious of avoiding them, not that I don't. I never made an effort to use it, and I think my posts in this thread have been wonderfully devoid of non-english terms. EDIT: Read more sutras, meditate outside.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
There is too much sandeha for santapa-kalpa. Dina-kalpa tops. 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Unfortunately yeah, there has been a fair amount of buddhist violence in history. While your examples are good, I think the best thing to point out is zen's role in orchestrating massive amounts of violence and hypernationalism in world war two. Brian Victoria, himself an avid and studied practiotioner is often a a go-to reference for that; I highly recommend picking up zen at war if this kind of thing interests you. But a more nuanced answer is the following: 1) often abbots have preached for the defending of the dharma, all life is suffering and all living generates bad karma, to kill someone is bad karma, but you will get generate ore good karma by defending the dharma and helping the person who you kill by reciting mantras. Because that's totally how it works, right? 2) for a lot of japanese buddhism, in particular the ikko ikki uprisings and the sohei traditions, the dharma is corrupt and you can't learn it in this life/ you weren't born into a privileged caste to practise well. Try to be reborn in the pure lands to learn at amida's feet and spread dharma in this life. So y'know, gently caress it let's not worry about the precepts 3) You can't actually kill, there is no you with which to kill, likewise no entity which is being killed. life continues, andin battle it is simply weapon against weapon, weapon against flesh. It is a perfect expression of emptiness. It is Mu. 4)WRT burma- theravada is not a lay tradition, and most people recognize that you probably wont be born into a position where you can attain enlightenment in most SE asian countries. The monks will be monks and maybe encourage people to violence but don't break the precepts on a technicality.  The real reason is the obvious one of course, that buddhism is human and subject to human fallings including people not practising what they preach. Still, we tend to be fairly pacifist on the average, more so than a lot of religions. Even Jainism, the most pacifist of religions has a history of war. Them's the way humanity is.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Kind of: Refresh yourself on the concepts of anatta, sunyata and the nidanas. The point here is twofold: Life and death do not exist as things in themselves outside of arbitrary definitions and perceptive media. Second the buddha existing after the death of his mundane corpus is not in any way related to rebrth: See the above three. The idea is not that something persists after the body dies- that would be hinduism. Buddhism takes a more apophatic approach nothing persists, because there is nothing to persist, no death with which it may persist out of. A life continues into a new becoming when a person is judged to have died, however that life also undergoes new becomings when that person is judged to be alive. So radically that no single definitive state can yet be called continuous rather than a perfuming of individual thought-moments. As a buddha understands the origination of suffering truly, and lives in such a way that they do not generate karma, do not suffer, no other nidanas can grow from that because the whole system of karma, rebirth and suffering is irreducibly complex. To remove one part is to remove the whole thing. If the buddha is outside the wheel of rebirht and the cycle of suffering, what happens at death? Parinirvana- the final nirvana. Beyond that is not really worthwhile to pursue: see the unanswerables. Though FWIW there is a tacit implication of a precedent nature to the buddha (as a force prior to enlightenment) found in the bramajala sutra. Additionally in the lotus sutra we can see an allegorical buddha as present by means of emantion across realms, transcending them. Here there is a buddha-essence after the death of siddhartha gautama; though it's role is allegorical to illustrate that a buddha is beyond all passing away and all arising, or in pali: Tathagata EDIT: but seriously keep heading where you are! Ask away about anything! 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
drat, that's a good question: One I can't really clarify as any authoritative source because the answer is still deeply schismatic in buddhism- The Alayavijnana and the consequently dependent tathagatagarbha (buddha-nature)have repeatedly been attacked by theravadins as heretical, with plenty of scripture to support them because they have been able to re-frame the meaning of pali words to support those kinds of arguments. Likewise, the development and popularity of Mahayana and Vajrayana buddhism both paved the way for hinduism for absorb it. . . THe cop out answer is the classical one: It's not alayavijnana but citta-santana "mind-stream" and that usually goes over well in mahayana buddhism because it is hard to suggest that a stream has a reified self This is kind of a cop-out because it's essentially making an uneccesary ontological distinction about an academic part of buddhism that stresses above all yogic practise. Admittedly I haven't eaten enough today, so I might not be able to explain this properly: but it is not an impersonal monistic self because (as far as I understand) there is a permanence to atman. The karma may come and go, may change based on the lives of the practicioner: but that "self" the seed of Brahman. It is a fundamentally permanent thing. Contrarily the seedhouse consciousness is not a permanent thing. It exists across "lives", or it doesn't. It is a collection of karmic "seeds". If you have seen every seed that the consciousness had at infancy, but have gathered new seeds by the time that body ceases, there is still a pile of seeds. It is not the same pile, or is it? It is neither the same nor different, because to suggest either answer is to suggest that there can be any inherent anything. All void is form and all form is void. Now, for what it's worth: later citta-matra thought really harps on the fact that considering this atman is worthless because part of becoming enlightened is to make peace with the concept of a self. Not that there is a self, but that because it arises out of the minds of nearly everyone it is most conducive to acknowledge that. I feel like I can't give a satisfying answer; and if I keep trying I will just keep saying what I've said more and more. Basically "No" it is not self. But if you feel like this is something you want to really really look into and get into the super-nitty gritty of: Check out the Kammasiddhiprakana, the lankavatara and ratnagotravibhaga. The last one I know has been referenced as dealing tathagatagarbha teaching from a yogacara perspective; but I can't get a hold of a copy 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Secret Sweater posted:This wasn't exactly where I was going, but I can use this to the same effect. Parinirvana occurs at the time of death; Siddhartha taught that this is as a thing that can happen to people. Siddhartha learned this while presently alive as a human, not as a past experience. So why can Parinirvana be spoken of as if truth when it is, in fact, an unknown. I'm not even talking about after Parinirvana, I'm talking about Parinirvana itself. Nobody knows what happens after Parinirvana, how can you truthfully say you know that Parinirvana occurs at all? Again though, you are making some specious connections: I would refer you back to sunyata: the concept that all things are just apellations on objects that lack a substantial self outside of subjective perceptions, they are phenomenon (contra the noumenon I talked about earlier) so the first major misconception here is that you are attributing a definition of life to the aggregates, and with those being devoid of substance, transitory and (this is especially critical) dependently originated. If buddhism truly defined life as something colored by the aggregates then a colossal problem arises when you find most sutras suggesting that part of enlightenment is realising that there is no collection of aggregates. One of the most principle and popular sutras; the hridayaprajnaparamita sutra goes over the wisdom of emptiness pretty well, many people find it too reiterative- but I think it's good. This isn't just a mahayana thing either. The Abidhamma, while stressing emptiness less, does comment on the sutta pitaka by expressing that the aggregates are not part of unconditioned realty, that is nibbana and nibbana alone- save that the paramathas (or ultimate realities, ultimate meaning they cannot be reduced further) arise from form, sensation, ideation, perception and conciousness and are dependently originated things. There is no self, nor is there soul: the "self" is a collection of these aggregates and (imho) ideative karmic ripening. Our prior experiences and the wake of our actions combine with perceptive media to create a thought moment. Thought-moments are those brief isolated sections of time where a thought arises then decays. But because time does not pause o Theabidhamma r work in isolation, thought moments keep happening, keep occurring. Because we only experience our own karma, and filter all inputs through our ideative and obfuscative tendencies we call this collection of thought moments the ego. But this is a name and a name alone: there is no truly present ego. Because there is no soul, no self, and because there is no inherent materiality to the aggregates, there is neither life, nor death. Those are meaningless-there is only being. When you become enlightened you exist permanently in that state that we all stumble upon from time to time, those brief flashes of egoless-ness. And permanent carries the wrong weight for what I'm trying to express: It is something which transcends time because without ego, without clinging or desire, the whole chain of suffering and origination cannot support itself. There is no life. There is no birth. No death. No becomng. Neither is there a lack of life, nor birth, nor death, nor becoming. You are tathagata: beyond arising and decaying. So why teach parinirvana, which is just a term for a final enlightenment after death? Because it is truth: when the body ceases to be with an attained being, so departs an enlightened one from samsara entirely. They get out of game. What follows after that isn't important for those still in the game; only that they see that you are able to depart. You needn't either go bust or win. You need not keep playing. Playing is worthless, and so s pondering about whether your fourth player left for taco bell. You don't have to teach everyone about taco bell to tell them the fourth player left. Likewise you don't have to concern yourself about what happens after parinirvana. Also again, it's kind of a complicated and meaningless term. Another important mistake in your suggestions is that you are kind of bound to a western monotheistic abrahamic kind of view here: Buddhism absolute agrees that knowledge about what happens after death. The whole faith is built around this kind of soteriology- supernatural stuff aside it is tied to life and death being meaningless terms- there is objectively a continuation of the world and of life after you die. That said; recognition of the nature of rebirth has been a critical thing taught by the buddha and in tons of scripture: it's pretty hard to read the pali canon and a ton of the sutras without rebirth. It is not one of the unanswerables and is very readibly accepted as an important step This wasn't just the buddha using the common metaphysical assumptions of the time either- the buddha was operating in a sramanic framework (of Sramana, only buddhism and jainism survive) and this ran very starkly against the common grain or assumptions of the society he was in: which taught reincarnation as accepted fact. Rebirth is not allegory here- the buddha believed it genuinely and saw that many people will cling to their views that are already held about death and life. Destroying those views is part of accepting rebirth. Rebirth as an eternalist teaching is pretty strongly debunked: I link a number of sutras in the OP where the buddha speaks about the six wrong views, of which eternalism is one of them; likewise however is anihilationism one of them- the idea that with death you go to oblivion. So you pledge the concept of rebirth not just because it's important to attain nirvana- but because it is necessary for the faith aswell- it forms the entire soteriology. From a mahayana perspective to not follow rebirth is to renounce the bodhisattva vows, which you state you will be reborn for all beings. You cannot affix a permanence to death. This is long and rambling but TL:DR- Parinirvana is getting out of the game, a negative fact. Rebirth is real, critical, and genuinely taught by the buddha. Nirvana has nothing to do with birth or rebirth, life or death, form, consciousness, ideation, perception or sensation. It just is. I hope this doesn't come off as too rambling, it is a little late. EDIT: Yiggy! :rage: You said a lot of this much simpler than I could give, I blame the hour. My point of contention with what you posit though is the relegation of rebirth to a smaller role than it can really stand to play in most buddhism. But your point about the difficulty of having a common conversation without the accepted metaphysical truths is one of the most stalwart roadblocks that buddhism seems to encounter in the west. Atheist or Theist, most people seem to have a tacit agreement that there is one life and one death. That both are permanent and real things. It can make sunyata or tathagatagarbha hard to convey. Still, you have given me a frame of reference to begin to explain this; and for that I am immensely greatful, thanks for the help here as well. I hope I helped repay that by being able to partially (at the least) answer the question you had RE: yogacara. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 08:58 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
It's worth noting that zen was founded the same time as kung fu- Bodhidharma taught the shaolin monks both original zen (chan) and a rigorous martial arts exercise (kung fu). So there is a very long history of zen and martial arts. However, working with this you also have to recognize that zen is really trying to distance tiself from its violent past and the numerous warcrimes it helped to perpetrate in world war 2. They want to move away from the whole "Two samurai fight, it is not akusala to kill because there is no self being killed, no self to kill, only two swords, two bodies" So there's a big discouragement from thinks like shooting or certain kinds of archery etc. It's endorsing of martial arts but less so of those that can be put towards violent ends.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
By all means feel free to follow along and participate!
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
It's to show reverence for the teachers who laid the path- and also a sign of humility. I'll be celebrating Shakyamuni's birth on Vesak, which is friday! So hopefully it will be good for me! (it won't, I'm not in a largely buddhist area)
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
After chatting with paramemetic, I have a question I'd like input on- Or rather an interesting sort of dilemma. I've been meditating outside a fair bit, and while doing this I observed an ant moving to what was clear to me: a spider web. As I had been making a habit of helping out animals I meet, I naturally pushed the little girl onto another direction with a gentle prod from a twig. Upon reflection though this action denied the spider a meal and may have meant starvation or suffering. Now obviously billions of beings die each day, suffering will continue to exist, and to dwell on all those suffering can be a hinderance because we cannot help them all. But the dilemma is that in this instance you are perfectly poised to help a sentient being- Should you intervene on behalf of the ant? On behalf of the spider? Should you remain inactive and simply say Manis and Mantras to help the ant attain a different birth and to help the spider who causes suffering with a necessary act?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. You'll find the same true in Catholicism, though it does not stress quietism while orthodoxy will. The orthodox tends to put a bigger stress on mysticism, the sacraments for example- Buddhism is a mystic tradition quite plainly, as is jainism, so the mystic aspects of other faiths will ring similar to these two which are more wholly mystic. Sufism for example stresses the abolishment of the ego. There may have been some transmission from buddhism to early christianity; less due to the graeco-buddhists (who never had any real westward transmission), but rather to ashoka's missionaries to greece. See Saint Yodasaph,which is a christian interpretation of the buddha. These transmissions are probably little- maybe the importance of rosaries. So serendipity- more recognizing a common goal in the kingdom of heaven/nirvana.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Uh no guys. You're both wrong. It's Tae Bo Though I am glad you're happy seeing eye duck. Stick around and post some too!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
The turtles in your example would incur "bad" karma for their actions, because that's how karma works. It isn't a judgemental arbiter, it's a word for causality. Though animals may be driven by instinct or necessity, taking another life is still not the best. But then again neither is anything else animals do- In a way you could say that animals are a less fortunate birth because of this- Most have the capability for enlightenment, but aren't able to realize it within that "Becoming-of-being". Yeah, it sucks if you become an animal, but this is why the brahmajala sutra implores us to recognize animals as our mothers and fathers, to treat them like our parents. In a way the ideal world would see Isaiah sixty five realized, and would see the liberation of all sentient beings. Buddhism approaches animal welfare with a guardianship or assistance mindset. The general assumption is that if you eat meat or whatever because of previous karma or your present circumstance that is OKAY. Everyone suffers and generates unhealthy vipaka. You should be kind to animals, treat them well and try to relieve as much suffering as you while helping them to practise as much dharma as they can to help them attain a birth with more fortunate karma. As for whether ants suffer? Eh, They seem to writhe and show negative impulses when agitated or they lose a bodypart. I would argue that this constitutes a sufficient enough level of intelligence to deem it disease or suffering. It's something buddhists are starting to struggle to grasp with regards to modern science. If something is insufficiently complex enough to suffer but still an animal(I.E Coral, sponges), then it might be something either outside of normal samsara much as plants are, or something with a karmic seed that will never ripen to liberation. With regards to the ecological importance? That seems kind of non-important, because the sutras don't advocate for extermination as a meas of cessation of bad karma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Thanks a lot for the detailed responses. I really love this way of looking at the issue and of engaging with the world in general. I've become very interested in animal welfare over the past few years, and since I think, due to my upbringing, I'm incapable of living without some kind of spirituality, so I've started looking at different philosophies on animal welfare. I guess one of the things that really bothers me about a lot of them, including the one I grew up around (though, thankfully, my parents are actually big animal lovers who take in rescues and have never, ever hunted) is the callous neglect of the natural world. My parents are, in my experience, a pretty big exception to the rule in their community; a lot of fundies believe that there's no point in taking care of nature and its inhabitants because Jesus supports offshore drilling and is coming back soon anyway, so gently caress it. It's kind of a sorry outlook, and, at least in my experience, seems to encourage cruelty. I can't count how many times I've heard of people swerving to deliberately run over an animal just because they think it's "gross." Parroting wafflehound, deletion of the FB account was probably a requirement of social media restriction more than anything. Regarding the animal stuff, I can empathise with you pretty well, I probably approach religion the way I do because of my ubringing, and I have also become really concerned with animal welfare lately, thus the whole spider-ant dilemma I had. (Although lately we've had tons of caterpillars around here who fall from trees trying to make a cocoon, I help them back up  ).Sometimes there are monks who will do questionable things, a popular thing is buying bettas and then releasing them. Which uh. . . Given that most pet bettas are male and highly territorial is probably a bad idea to do in the same small stream or pond. . . With regards to pentecostal or evangelical christians- It can help to explain things to them in the frame of the nazarene vows, pointing out the story of barlaam, verses in isaiah, or even just illustring the levitical commandments about avoiding death and the noahide covenant being a thing of necessity; rather than an imperative. But this really isn't the thread for that- So bramajala! paramemetic posted:Words about mindstream
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Paramemetic is Vajrayana which follows the belief of a mindstream that flows between lives, quantumfate and I are Yogacara which views this as pretty much a heresy, I'll leave it to them to write a bajillion words since I don't want to deprive them of their favourite activities. May you have the infinite fortune of being born out of the hell-realm of loving yourself.  Joking aside- It's not exactly heretical- wafflehound is wrong. To clarify for you guys: I called paramemetic a pagan because his form of buddhism is weird, and uses many bon yogic traditions. The distinction here is clarifying between citta-santana and alaya-vijnana. Two sanskrit terms, the first is best translated as "stream of mind-ness". The second is translated best as "Seedhouse Consciousness". The concept of a mindstream, from a yogacara perspective as being something which cannot be substantiated independently because it is a continuous thing. The primary issue is that a mindstream is not absolute, nor is it something which, by yogacara views, necessarily carries over to the next life. It's an issue of semiotics- Is an echo of something the same as the origin of the sound? In this case, is a klesha perfumed by karma a continuation of the karma? Or is only the fruit of that karmic seed the continuation. The 'heresy' I think wafflehound is mistakingly referring to is the Samtanantarasiddhi- Which is a treatise refuting the heresy of eternalism: A perpetual self. Specifically it targets a hardline conservative buddhist notion of ekkacitta- "One mind" Mindstream- that had begun to become popular in madhyamaka dialectics. It is an assertion of multiplicity of minds and the inherent unverifiability of mind as an absolute media of cognition, suggesting that perfumed minds do not constitute a perfect understanding and ripening of buddha-nature via understanding the nature of the mind. It is an incredibly minute point to argue over and ultimately not significant in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Actually the general consensus among buddhism is that both death and birth are illusory falsehoods. They're part of the nidanas, of samskara- There is no ego to be born, none which can die. Etc etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
I supppose I can offer my input as well, even though paramemetic did a bang-up job.Perpetual Hiatus posted:I have to earn my truths or they just don't mean anything to me. I guess its probably time to get to the questions... quote:I have no real understanding of spirituality or religion other than that intrinsic or innate to my self, do you think that Buddhist texts and thoughts are able to be properly understood without having a lens of spiritual practice? quote:Are there any books or lectures you could recommend that would help me to understand the place that Buddhism comes from? quote:How do you (personally) distinguish between your own (internal) truths, universal truths, and falsehood or misunderstanding? quote:Do you have any advice for distinguishing the voice of clarity from your ego/mind/emotions/self-concept-preservation? quote:My friend who studies(?) yoga suggested that learning a basic routine would help me to focus in learning meditation and that meditation is a lot less about the mind and more about the interaction between the parts of your self, what are your thoughts on this? quote:I am probably really far off in my non-understanding of this but here goes: One of the central ideas is that it is the attachment brings suffering, how does non-attached love work in the Buddhist philosophy? quote:Id also like to know what sexual misconduct means, which isn't actually very related to the last question surprisingly. quote:Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, that is the opposite of my intentions. If you believe in a karmic system of reincarnation how do you distinguish between suffering that is part of your/their purpose in this reincarnation and suffering that should be alleviated when possible? I really struggle with this concept when I try and think about it... How do you parse the horrors that man can inflict, is a child born into sex-slavery simply living out there karma? How do your beliefs balance the freedoms of will(choice and intention) against the experiences that people are apportioned? How does the karmic 'butterfly-effect' work? quote:And a final question to take the bad taste out of your mouth, when you meditate or dream have you ever met 'spirit guides' or similar archetypes? Or Bodhisattvas? Or yourself/your ego? If it's not too personal could you give a brief description of what they were like?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
A double post to let everyone know: a series of bombs have just gone off at the mahabodhi complex. A thousand fold thousand mantras for those injured http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/5-injured-in-multiple-blasts-at-Mahabodhi-temple-in-Bodh-gaya/articleshow/20951736.cms
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
I wouldn't caution someone away in general. Bhaktiyoga is an incredible tool to forge s better person. But for a Buddhist practice, surrendering yourself to god fosters too much attachment, encourages a reification of the false views. EDIT: why would I want to become god? All things that rise, so too fall, if I am tethered to samsara, let me have the dharma. As god I will not have the means to liberate myself Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Right, it teaches a recognition of the divine in all things- because it is about union with god. For hindus, god is the supreme reality, it is in everything and everyone. God, brahman, is the cosmic soul, and all beings are god- but karma ties us to samsara. It keeps us from realizing this. Bhakti is about professing a supreme love for everything, it is about sublimatng, but NOT abnegating, the ego before god. It relies on a conception of atman- inherent self. This is something that is profoundly and fundamentally unbuddhist. Further, to acknowledge the divine in all things is also fundamnetally unbuddhist. There is no brahman, no atman. These are core tenets. this is why I would most strongly guide someone who wishes to engage in a buddhist practise away from bhakti- Yes, it is great, it will make you a great person, but it is heading the wrong direction. The bhakta knows love, because as the bhagavad gita tells us: Krishna says that god is love, and love is god. The bhakta practises upon this love as a means of devotion to god, to the almighty. If you aren't being tauht that the bhakta is living for god, welp. v v
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It is, of course, wrong view to say that such divinity is absolutely real, however, or that it is independently originated, or self-arising without cause. It can be difficult to reconcile with a Buddhist path, thus I would caution against it, because the fundaments of bhakti mean adoption of wrong view. This is all I meant, to make that clear for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
bobthedinosaur posted:What is someone meaning when they talk about "killing buddhas?" The second is probably what you're referring to: a Quote attributed to the Chan master Lin Chi is: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! This means not to dwell overmuch on the buddha, not to dwell on the scriptures. Enlightenment will be attained, but not if you attach yourself to it. A big thing in buddhism is attachment to concepts: Kill the attachment in your mind, kill the resultant suffering. So you'll hear a number of mahayana buddhists saying to kill the buddha because you are focusing too much on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Most proper zen buddhism is like that; But there are also a ton of western dharma centers that will teach you zazen or zen concepts without anything formal- though the roshi may not have qualifications.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Ugh. UGH. I hate talking about feminism and buddhism, because people just look at me like I am insane for railing about feminist issues in the context of buddhism, even though it's a dialogue strongly needed. Asia, sexist, etc. Avoid the bahudhatuka sutra, avoid it strongly. Old men bein' sexist and saying women can't be buddhas. Also buddhism has tons of misogyny too, because patriarchal asia. It is a great topic to ask about, and one which should never be apologized for bringing up. I can't think of any specific texts; because all that's coming to mind is saying that those who cling to sex and gender are doing it wrong. Perhaps I'll remember some later. But I can point you in a good direction for what to research or look at. People to check out! The Mahasattva Tara, guardian of all women. Tenzin Palmo, vowed to attain as a woman, no matter how many lifetimes. Pema Chondrup, big western buddhist writer. Dhammananda Bhikkuni, founded a nunnery in thailand, despite nunneries being illegal by royal decree.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Yes, you might say that's the end goal really. Well, penultimate goal since I know a pedant will come in and say "freedom from suffering is the ultimate goal!". Much of my meditative practise, on a personal level is colored by the pursuit of ego death. Something about that experience, that feeling speaks to me, very rarely has it been something I've reached- but it's been reached a few times. I would say that while I sat those times I lost all connection to ego- categorically this is false because I retained enough of a sliver that it tethered me to the world like an anchor. Evident given my lack of enlightenment and persistence of ego. However, from my own close experiences, and lesser experiences where the jnanas were tangible to me, I would say tha it is possible. It requires practised and deep meditation.Mr. Mambold posted:Just do it if it feels right. People talking about attachment are full of attachment to their own righteous opinions. There are cd's and tracks of Tibetan deep-voice chanters who can take you right into nirvana with that vibration. I don't mean to provoke, but this is something which requires a large caveat: Something shouldn't be done because it feels right. The mind is something which is very easily conditioned to attach and cling to concepts- things will arise in such a manner as to seem right, but this is a fallacious concept: Such things that arise are devoid of this. They are empty. A big thing to understand is that music in the context of the vinaya is a dukkata- a suffering generating thing that shakyamuni recommended monastics avoid because it would root them too much to worldly affairs. As for the tibetan throat singing CDs? Those are prayers meant to be heard to generate uplifting karma for listeners, not music meant to be danced to or for the enjoyment of the monks. Tibetan monastic "music" or use of instruments or offering songs aren't melodious or meant to be enjoyed as such. Nor are they meant to "take you right into nirvana." It is interesting to note that some bon traditions have involved parables sung to people, but that's not really buddhism. This isn't me disparaging music, I am of firm belief that while music is something you can become strongly attached to quite easily- it can also be something that can be used as expedient means. If you are really distracted by outside sounds then a fairly unbusy nonmelodious music can be helpful to train yourself to be a better meditator. I also feel that in some circumstances music can be a destructive force for the ego and help to sublimate the ego. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Another way of breaking down what paramemetic is saying is thus There is a sort of semiotic self Something which we can look at and designate as "Hey, this is for the purposes of discussion, a self- We will call the actions related to this entity 'Mine'" The trouble with buddhist thinking is that this is false according to that mindset. There is no ego-differentiated self. That is to say that there is no entity distinct from the world by virtue of being an individual. It is a false construct. The milindapanha has a great breakdown of this in the exchange with nagasena. To quote a section: Visudda-magha posted:Just as the word “chariot” is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absoulte sense there is no chariot; and just as the word “house” is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word “fist” is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word “lute” for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; “army” for elephants, horses, etc; “city” for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; “tree” for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words “living entity” and “Ego,” are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as “I am,” or “I”; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. To get dumb and pedantic; a person would not be born disabled because of actions taken in their prior life- There was no "I" that the differently abled person had in that prior life. They were not the same person. Indeed they are not the same person on a moment-by-moment basis. We abandon personhood freely with each new thought, for every thought that arises is a distinct experiential construct from the previous. Every thought has with it a certain perfuming, if you will, whereby it is coloured by all prior thoughts and experiences. You see a table and you call it a table because of your past experiences with the concept of table-ness; but it is no more a table than a car, there is no intrinsic feature which makes it a distinct and pure table. It is a participation in the ideal of table, but not that ideal itself. Likewise will "you" apply similar biases and experiences to all your experiences, all your thoughts, and even your own actions Paramemetic posted:Based on this, there can be no transfer of a self. There are only causes and conditions arising that result in a self, but it is not the same "self." Even if my killing that person in the example before does not result in immediate suffering for me, those conditions still exist, I have still created those causes. So when I inevitably die, it becomes impossible that I myself might suffer consequences for my actions. I am, after all, dead. This is a big problem that comes with the acceptance of rebirth in the west where it is an alien concept: There is no soul to transfer from body, No self that goes. Karma can be seen like a storehouse for seeds- The karma accrued in a life sits in the storehouse, over time reactions occur to the actions that generated the karma. This depletes the seeds that are stored. However, these reactions may themselves be actions, or more actions may occur. This adds new seeds in. If all of the original seeds of a life are depleted, are the new seeds still the same storehouse? Ultimately, yes. Because they will in turn be depleted by reactions. When a life ends, there are still actions which must yield fruit because of the actions of the dying. Something occurs which causes a new life to emerge as a result of the depleted life. Without getting overly spiritual. So yes, someone who is born in unfortunate circumstances is experiencing the result of something that occured to put them into unfortunate circumstances. They did not spontaneously arise into poor circumstances. If I step into the street and am hit by a bus, has that bus spontaneously hit me? Nope. Did I "Deserve" it? Justice is irrelevant here, but I took an action (Stepping into the street) that precipitated my being hit by the bus. This is what is meant when we say that someone is born into a harsher or a more fruitious life. That there was a precipitant agent. Here's a big write-up I did of karma and dependent origination that might help. quantumfate posted:Firstly- Karma is the law that states that all our actions, whatever we do with our body, mind or speech have consequences. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PrickleyPete, you might be one of the few theravadins here; Please offer your insight because it is always great to have cross-doctrinal discussion. Also please recommend theravada books or sources for the OP
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Yeah. . . 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 04:33
|
|