|
Pollyanna posted:My understanding of Theravada is that it’s the currently extant school most closely related to the original philosophy and teachings of the historical Buddha. As someone interested in Being Okay, I wanted to start with the very basics without having to yet think about ancillary or advanced discourse, discrepancies in thoughts and views, and rhetorical or theological baggage accumulated over centuries. The very core of the teachings, as it were. quote:Boy, what a can of worms. There are a couple different schools of Buddhism. The main schools are the Mahayana, the Vajrayana, and the Theravada. If I had a comment here (as someone who would self classify as Mahayana) it would be that ultimately it's all the same road going to the same direction, and that the 'original form' isn't necessarily the best or strongest. The actual material of recorded teachings of Shakyamuni are fundamental to Mahayana and Vajrayana too, they just have additional materials. And, to complicate things even more, I have heard it said that there was enough of a gap when the sutras were known only by oral recitation that it's impossible to be absolutely, completely sure of textual continuity - we don't have Ananda's letters or something although Ananda was reputed to have had a perfect memory, IIRC.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Phone posting but when I think of Theravada wrt conservativism it's that there's effectively no hope or idea that a layperson is even capable of attaining buddhahood in this lifetime. It's correct that I'm a Vajrayana practitioner, and in particular that my intention is to attain as a householder because I believe both that is possible and that we need more modern examples. So, I'm not by any means a scholar of Theravada. But, my understanding is that Theravada householder practice is entirely oriented towards merit cultivation with the explicit intention of getting a future life where one can be a monk, and that this is essentially the only path towards stream-entry. I think that it's important and great to practice what the history Buddha taught and that this should be the foundation of all Buddhism. This is a position that has only recently come about in Tibetan circles, with HH the Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang R going so far as to say that any practices that don't orient with the historical Buddha's teachings should be disavowed. Theravada has its origins in historical hinayana but what it is today was largely based on reforms from the 1800s. Historical Buddhism most likely looked like other contemporary practices in the region, i.e. shamanism and yogatantra that was common at the time alongside a form of Hinduism that was likely significantly different from post-colonial modern Hinduism which was restored but heavily influenced by theosophy etc as reaction against British missionary colonialism. Basically It's Complicated TM and Theravada is cool but its orthodoxy strongly, strongly promotes monasticism as the only path and so deemphasizes lay practice to a degree where most Western adherents would be good people but would not have the expectation of e.g. Zen or other Mahayanists that they might attain in this lifetime and certainly not the expectation of Vajrayana practitioners where monasticism is explicitly unnecessary even if it's very helpful and supportive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Sounds like one of the biggest points of contention is monasticism. Meaning whether you have to be a monk to achieve enlightenment and escape samsara. I’m not equipped to comment on that. I’m just gonna do what I can. —- Still working through Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching. It’s slow progress cuz the material is genuinely heavy and impactful, and it’s tiring to try and comprehend it all. I can rip through a Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel in a matter of a couple days, but I get almost mentally winded by one chapter of TNH. Like woof. Spose it’s better than not feeling anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Sounds like one of the biggest points of contention is monasticism. Meaning whether you have to be a monk to achieve enlightenment and escape samsara. I’m not equipped to comment on that. I’m just gonna do what I can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
There are many examples of lay or householders reaching attainments in the Pali Cannon which are accepted by Theravada, Paccekabuddha's even. Monasticism is promoted because if you want to Get Out it will provide a proper setting and training. Would you learn to fly an aircraft all on your own? No, you go to a flight school.Paramemetic posted:Theravada has its origins in historical hinayana but what it is today was largely based on reforms from the 1800s I don't understand this, I would argue Theravada orthodoxy has not changed since the 1st or 2nd Council 400-300BCE
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Leaving aside the core ideas of the eightfold path and the four noble truths, things on that level, I'd be shocked if any Buddhist organization retained that level of continuity for that long. Any organization at all, to be honest. I would expect significant change, although there would certainly be a 'paper trail' of some kind, if they kept records.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Sounds like one of the biggest points of contention is monasticism. Meaning whether you have to be a monk to achieve enlightenment and escape samsara. I’m not equipped to comment on that. I’m just gonna do what I can. How to attain Nirvana is something that varies tremendously among the larger branches of Buddhism. Between Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhism, you can find individual schools that land anywhere from "Many lifetimes", "Get to heavenly realm first", "Can be done by a layperson in 7 days of hard work". From my own experience, I can see why being a monk would be helpful, almost to the point that it might be required. It puts one into an environment that narrows the paths of the 8 Fold Path. At the very least, it makes Right Livelihood much easier. Research is even showing that people doing secular forms of mindfulness will have worse "performance", because they are more aware of the suffering their job causes. https://hbr.org/2021/03/where-mindfulness-falls-short But over all, the points of contention largely are another example of the narcissism of small differences. Especially in the modern world, where travel and communication is so easy, leaders from Theravada, Zen, and Tibetan schools often get together and agree on all the basics. And the shouting is, more often than not, students getting caught in the "my teacher can beat up your teach" trap. Nessus posted:Leaving aside the core ideas of the eightfold path and the four noble truths, things on that level, I'd be shocked if any Buddhist organization retained that level of continuity for that long. Any organization at all, to be honest. I would expect significant change, although there would certainly be a 'paper trail' of some kind, if they kept records. It all depends on what you want to call the orthodoxy of Theravada. They have been sticking to just the Pali Canon and the Visuddhimagga for a long time. So on that level, it is easy to say they haven't changed in a long time. But there has certainly has been changes in terms of how those old texts are emphasized. And one can point to Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, and Buddhadasa as recent examples of people shaking up the Theravada tradition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
I'm admittedly not a scholar of Theravada at all and may be conflating the Theravada I've encountered (through cross-disciplinary exchange like mentioned above, where I've been privileged to attend my Lama during exactly the kinds of agreeable and cooperative exchanges described) with Theravada as a whole. Because I've been limited to exposure in the West I've had a disproportionate exposure to the sanghas in DC which may not be representative and the reform history they were describing may have been specific to their groups with language barriers creating more complication. If so, and if I was inaccurate in that, my apologies. Likewise my understanding of the emphasis on monasticism comes from those Theravadin circles and of course Vajrayana and Mahayana teachings which I recognize as severely biased in their presentation. It does strongly seem to be a thrust in those traditions though? I certainly agree about the importance of and benefit of monastic life and don't mean to diminish it. While I've never taken monastic vows, I've spent time at monasteries and monastic colleges. I don't think the Buddha would have spent such a significant amount of time and effort organizing the monastic sangha if it wasn't important or beneficial. Perhaps even critical to exist. Much of my lay practice and the lay practice of even great yogis I know is inextricably tied to the monastic community. Essentially, the short of it is there are three objects of refuge, not just one or two, you know? There have also been a lot of changes to the Vajrayana to accommodate monastic practices. It's really fascinating to me. Kagyu's lineage tree starts with non monks, but Gampopa changed that substantially. Then the preliminary practices were changed over time to be far more standardized in facilitation of monastic communities. This is all within Vajrayana though, and the question was about Theravada and I inelegantly misrepresented that tradition, for which I again apologize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:
This is something I wanted to emphasize independently, that it's absolutely the case. The simple fact of the matter is there's no Vajrayana or Mahayana without building on the foundations from the historical Buddha's teachings. Vajrayana teachers tend to illustrate this with levels on a house. Forgive the use of the term hinayana here,, I'm just going to paraphrase exactly how it was related to me: Hinayana is the ground floor, Mahayana the second, but without the ground floor there's no second floor, it's totally impossible. Everything beyond that gets a little fuzzy. My teacher talks about the three vehicles as, well, vehicles going to a destination (enlightenment): the Hinayana is like a bicycle, it's very reliable and definitely can get you there. It's maybe slower, though, and only gets one person to the destination. Mahayana is like a bus; it can take a lot of people, but it's a bit trickier to drive and there's a higher chance of a major setback. Vajrayana is like an airplane. It can get you there really fast and you can fit everyone, like the bus, but if you gently caress it up the results can cause catastrophic setbacks. But all three get to the same destination. Just different techniques, methods, but you all have to cover the same ground. The bicycle is great is what I'm saying and any sectarian division or denigration of paths or Sanghas is contrary to the Dharma. As an aside, it's been a long time since I wrote the OP and prior to doing so I had asked for input from people of not-Vajrayana persuasion. That was years ago though and it's been a while since I've revisited the OP. If there's erroneous information that needs clarified or if there are major things that need added, please let me know. This is a Buddhism thread, not a Vajrayana thread, and my little knowledge is pretty specific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
I think it's a solid summary in the OP, I just quoted it because I didn't trust myself to relate it from the top, lol. I am curious if there's any sort of consensus for deciding when a Buddhist-derived teaching has moved to the point of being "not Buddhist," though such categories are ultimately meaningless. While this clearly doesn't apply to any of these schools, it does seem like there's a lot of "Buddhist style" stuff floating around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
FWIW, in my everyday practice, the biggest difference between traditionalist Buddhism and Mahayana is the ideal of the bodhisattva. As I understand the teachings, the traditional view is that one aspires to become an Arhat, an enlightened follower of Buddha who can step outside of the circle of death and rebirth. This is immediately appealing to me: I want to get off Mr. Bone's Wild Ride. By comparison, Mahayana emphasizes the bodhisattva over the arhat. Do not seek to escape the world of samsara, for there is nothing from which to escape. Instead become a bodhisattva and delay your final enlightenment until you have saved all beings. This is immediately intimidating to me: I have to stay here, with all these assholes (myself included)? And yet the logic is very clear: the only escape from the world is by diving into the world. If you can look past arhatship with its promise of release from the world and become a compassionate bodhisattva who can save all beings, you ironically will have everything you need to be freed from samsara. This idea is really powerful to me, and it helps guide my moral principles in my everyday life. If my disposition were different, perhaps a Theravadan approach would speak more to me. But as I am, the Mahayana approach has resonated with me deeply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
My take on the "vehicles" aspect of all this is that Theravada is only "lesser" in the sense that they stress only a couple key practices and texts. And from my own experience, it does have everything one could need to attain Nirvana. While it does say one could do this in a few days, I think that really only applies to a small number of people going in with a particular disposition. Theravada is what it is now because Buddhist monks went south, into areas already influenced by "Hinudism", and just stuck with what worked. What we now call "Buddhist Modernism" of the 1800's is almost a mirror image of what happened in Europe with Protestantism and the end of Christian monasticism, in the face of the end of the feudal order of society. Mahayana on the other hand, was the northern tradition that both benefited from patronage of long established Buddhist communities. For example, funding Nalanda and the production and copying of more diverse texts. And also contact with everything from Persia, Greco-Bactria, China, and beyond, that forced them to come up with new arguments and new modes of practice. For the average westerner, it is more likely one would find a Buddhism that speaks to them from the Mahayana schools, simply because it has a longer history of picking up innovations. Then again, just because it is a newer practice, doesn't mean it will be useful to you. A lot of the secular mindfulness stuff going around right now traces back to IMS and S.N. Goenka, which comes from Theravada traditions spreading after the fallout of post-colonial Burma. Paramemetic posted:As an aside, it's been a long time since I wrote the OP and prior to doing so I had asked for input from people of not-Vajrayana persuasion. That was years ago though and it's been a while since I've revisited the OP. If there's erroneous information that needs clarified or if there are major things that need added, please let me know. This is a Buddhism thread, not a Vajrayana thread, and my little knowledge is pretty specific. There has been a trend to end the hinayana/mahayana distinction, and move towards a south/north one. Someone well versed in Buddhist thought probably wouldn't take issue with mahayana having a "greater" practice in the sense of more practices. But the "lesser" aspect of hinayana often gets taken as "inferior". Again, with an example of just the ease at which communication and travel is done now; There has been an effort to bring back bhikkhuni (nun) ordination to Theravada. And a solution was just to use Mahayana nuns to officiate. When the issue of the legality was brought up, it turned out that even though these monastic orders had been separated by a thousand miles and a thousand years, they still held to the same vows, and the slight ritual differences were of no consequence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Giving some further thought about Theravada relationship with laypeople at large. [and I am not an authority on Theravada] I think lay people are like wanderers in samsara; but that using Dhamma and gaining merit will sort of funnel you to betterment. I think the Buddha once idealized them [householders] thusly: quote:They should be: So if a lay person practices mindfullness, including the recollected sense, all the conditions leading to the here and now. restrains their sense desires, and has mental discipline they will likely receive a good rebirth or at least have a more positive experience. Those three are linked too they lead to each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
I don't really have anything further to add but just wanted to say that the discussion the past couple of pages has been really helpful in terms of articulating and clarifying. Thanks you all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Still working through The Heart of the Buddha’s Teachings. This is one of those books that I can get through relatively easily but might take me a lifetime to understand. same eta: I'm on to chapter 26 now. I am really liking how each of the many series of teachings all interweave into one another, and to past teachings. Its a very nicely coherent system to reveal subtly different points and perspectives, all rooted in the present moment ultimately. Bilirubin fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Nov 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
I'm unreasonably angry that Elon Musk of all people has a Vajra on his side table. There are few people less Buddhist than him. I know the appropriation of Buddhist symbols isn't anything new, but man, HIM?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
It’s not just a Buddhist thing, and it’s a notable legendary weapon, so maybe he found it through some video game or other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Maybe he realizes he paid 44 big to own a piece of Avici.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Elon strikes me as the kind of guy whose into buddhism mainly to "Well Ackshully" swastikas. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
An entire Thai temple of monks, including the abbot, tested positive for meth. This is such a sad situation. Temples are so important for their culture, I can’t imagine losing it like that. I’m glad they were sent to treatment, though. I hope they can resume their monastic life, should the vinaya permit it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
Chapter 27 on Interdependent Co-Arising, does a fantastic job of tying many of the earlier teachings together in a cohesive whole. I understand that this is a somewhat new phrasing of these teachings, but it works for me, a western mind, and given this was a lot of what TNH was doing obviously was at least somewhat successful. Not sure what other Buddhist scholars would say about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
What he said about being and non-being felt kind of like he was talking around the "shape" of something I can also see but don't quite get, but that's part of the fun now isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What he said about being and non-being felt kind of like he was talking around the "shape" of something I can also see but don't quite get, but that's part of the fun now isn't it. And the way he tried being and not being, and birth and death, together when he recast the twelve chains into the ten. Following that up with the two sutras how each part contained all others was really effective teaching. I can't say I understand all of it fully but as you say I can kind of see the general shape. And since it's a practice, well, with practice should come better understanding! Really glad we picked this book, sorry I was away from it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
It took me four months, one change in job, and lately one major social relationship upheaval to be able to actually finish the dang ol' book. Don't feel bad imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
So I’ve worked my way through the grand majority of The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching. Based on what I’ve read I’ve tried to put together a personal (but constantly updating!) framework through which to view the world, as a lens. 84k paths ‘n all. I’m writing it down here basically as a way to promote its presence in my mind as well as bounce it off of others, because I’m sure I’ve forgotten a lot already. This all isn’t correct or incorrect, it’s just a current interpretation. Lemme see if I get this straight: — Things change. This is what the word “impermanence” hints at. Nothing stays the same forever. Pick any thing (aka “phenomena”) and you’ll see: rocks erode, magnetic tapes lose their charge, old exes are forgotten, kingdoms rise and fall, we get hungry, stars run out of hydrogen, the Big Crunch subsumes us all. Relatedly: because something doesn’t stay the same forever, that something exists. If our hunger never went away no matter how much we ate, it wouldn’t be hunger as we know it. It would just be a feeling that sticks around and doesn’t change anything regardless of what you do about it, so it wouldn’t actually matter. It’s because hunger can go away and come back that hunger is a thing. Things are composite. This is part of what the words “nonself” and “emptiness” hint at. Nothing is an atom, not really. Everything is made up of something. I don’t just mean literally - I‘m talking about basic cause and effect. A chair is made up of the wood it’s carved from, the carpenter that put it together, and the job that gave you the money to buy it. Your love for your cat is made up of the time you spent with him, the chance meeting at the shelter, and the effort and sacrifices you made in taking care of him. Take any of those pieces away and you no longer have the original thing. The reverse is also true. Everything is part of something. Pretty much by default, too - if you can conceive of something, that something is a component of your conception of it. Kind of a bullshit answer, but it’s not wrong as far as I can tell. Things are also recursively composite. The components of a thing also have their own components. A carpenter’s effort that went into making a chair is composed of the carpenter’s expertise and good health, the rapport between the furniture company and the carpenter as its employee, and the maintenance of the machines used to cut the lumber. Pick anything and you can follow such a chain of composition. I can’t find anything that can’t be broken down like this. Which means… Things affect each other. This is what the word “interbeing” hints at. Everything is a part of the same big ol’ system that is our reality. And because everything is both composite and a component, if you follow a chain of composition long enough, you can draw a line between any two things. The nature and magnitude of that relationship varies - I won’t have much of an effect on world peace by picking water instead of coffee - but that connection still exists by virtue of two things being in the same reality. Things are self-defining. This is part of what the words “nonself” and “emptiness” hint at. This one’s almost impossible to put in any words other than “things are self-defining”, honestly. It might otherwise be better explained with a history lesson. TL;DR old Vedic religions used to talk about how everyone and everything has a “true self” that it can be compared to, and there’s always some distance between a thing’s current existence and what it’s meant to be or what it’s headed towards. A delta between “is” and “ought to be”. Buddhism rejects this and says no, there’s no such thing as a true self for anything and in any capacity. There’s nothing to compare yourself to and nothing to become. There’s no real chair as opposed to just a piece of furniture with a raised surface supported by legs, commonly used to seat a single person, that is bullshit. There is no true Scotsman. You are what you are, that’s it. If you know Plato, this is basically a rejection of the platonic ideal. (Here’s my original attempt at putting this into words, if you’re curious.) The only thing you can really say for sure about any specific thing is that it is that thing itself. Every other assertion is subject to stupid amounts of unending and circular debate. What something is, is what something is. More specifically: nothing stays the same, and everything is infinitely and recursively composed - so there’s no individual component that makes a thibg a thing. What makes a thing a thing is that specific composition of components, i.e. the thing itself. I think the best way to think of this that I can think of is in terms of game development. This is gonna be a bit long and kinda dumb, so sorry in advance. There is a concept called Entity Component System, where everything in a game - NPCs, save files, map geometry - is a bunch of loose bags of data (“Components”) tied together with a unique number (“Entity”) acted upon by chunks of logic and forces (“Systems”). The key observation here is that there are no identifying values that the engine didn’t assign itself. Even a unique number is just a number like 309645828790904429385804096412530086114, and that number is only an Entity because the engineer considers it an Entity. A Player could have 309645828790904429385804096412530086114 HP, so it’s obviously not the number itself that defines an entity. A thing as we know it isn’t the unique number, either - swap the unique numbers of two Entity-Component bags and your protagonist is now walking furniture romancing a dragon, neither of which are subject to the laws of physics. Clearly, they are not the “same thing” anymore, despite still having the same two unique identifiers. Point is that if you change anything about the loosely-tied bundle of Components and So what makes a thing a thing isn’t the Components, and what makes a thing a thing isn’t the Entity. It’s the correlation between Entity and Components that makes a thing a thing. And that’s only from the player’s perspective - the console doesn’t know or give a poo poo. So like, it’s all just your opinion, man. — This is stuff I intuitively get but I don’t really know what it all means. Like sure, I kinda get the whole “the self is just an arbitrary delta over time and you’re eating what used to be dirt and clouds at one point“ thing, but how does that affect me in the context of my own life? I suppose that’s why the practices and poo poo exist, to provide a material way to explore and start to understand these concepts. The heady poo poo is not really the level I’m working on right now, anyway. Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
I think a lot of these teachings are meant for perspective and to avoid grasping into wrong views when you start practicing. You’d still be better off in most cases, but with at least some awareness of impermanence and nonbeing you might avoid those. They also are key to Buddhist philosophy which can be discussed semi independently of practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:This is stuff I intuitively get but I don’t really know what it all means. Like sure, I kinda get the whole “the self is just an arbitrary delta over time and you’re eating what used to be dirt and clouds at one point“ thing, but how does that affect me in the context of my own life? Have you had a chance to read/listen to the Heart Sutra? I like to listen to this album version of the sutra chanted out loud. The sutra starts off describing the insight of emptiness, non-self, and no-birth-and-no-death. And then it makes some rather bold claims about the power of that insight. The sutra claims that this insight is the ultimate insight that anyone really needs, that practicing it has the power to help people overcome all mental barriers, dispel all illusory views, and bring perfect enlightenment. But of course, the dharma teachers at Plum Village would always say not to take their word or anyone's word for it; experiment with it and see for yourself to see its accuracy. If you meditate on the insight on the inextricable interbeing between you, your loved ones, and your not-so-loved-ones for one day, how does it affect you and your choices and your way of relating to those things? What if you practiced this meditation for one week, for one month, for a year, or for the greater part of your life? Personally, I wouldn't say that I no longer have any mental barriers or that I am totally free of wrong views. But has the insight affected me? Yes. And I think that it has helped me in my important relationships and in my difficult relationships. If the heady level is not what you're working on, may I ask what is it that you're working on? At least in the Plum Village Tradition, their dharma teachers would say that mere philosophical inquiry and speculation isn't really what they want to emphasize either. They want their practitioners to use the insights of Buddhism for transformation and healing, and they believe the insights will help with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 07:56
|
|
|
I've been reading the Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh and it's been really intimidating. I feel like I could never apply its teachings unless I ran off and joined a monastery, because it's just so much, and I feel I'm not even close. Has anyone else had that experience reading it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
I haven't read that book myself, but I've had that same feeling myself sometimes, yes. I believe there have been discussions in this very thread about whether or not a house holder (lay person, etc) can achieve enlightenment and they probably stem from the same issues that you're encountering. I think it's important to remember that much of Buddhism can, IMO, rightly be viewed as a path rather than a goal. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Do what you can. That will develop you in ways that you'll be able to do more later. But you'll never get anywhere if you don't start walking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I've been reading the Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh and it's been really intimidating. I feel like I could never apply its teachings unless I ran off and joined a monastery, because it's just so much, and I feel I'm not even close. Has anyone else had that experience reading it? As Johnny Cash said: One piece at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I've been reading the Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh and it's been really intimidating. I feel like I could never apply its teachings unless I ran off and joined a monastery, because it's just so much, and I feel I'm not even close. Has anyone else had that experience reading it? There are just 5 basic rules, and they are not that hard to follow as a lay person. (1) Don't kill. And this means to intentionally kill. Accidentally stepping on ants doesn't count. And even for monks, eating meat that wasn't specifically killed for you doesn't count. Given how big meat eating is in The West, this can be a hard rule to strictly follow. (2) Don't steal Not that hard to follow. (3) Don't do sexual misconduct For lay people, this means no raping or cheating. Again, not that hard to follow. (4) Don't lie This one can be hard, because it can be very easy to trick ourselves into thinking lying would be the best thing to do. (5) Don't take intoxicating drugs This rule is there because being intoxicated often leads to violating the first 4 rules. And joining a monastery only makes it easier to follow those rules. Monastics get an extra 200+ rules, because this whole thing is really about intent. If just making it physically difficult to break the 5 Precepts was all it took, every prisoner sent to solitary confinement would come out enlightened. So monks are often just served vegetarian meals, but then they are only allowed to eat once per day, and get to use any hunger they feel later as an opportunity to be mindful of impermanence. Monks and laypeople both need to practice mindfulness that same amount, just about different things. Nessus posted:I recall "kill you are parents" and "kill an arhat" are on that list. That's part of the traditional list of "not getting enlightened in this lifetime" offenses. Pretty much everything else is "forgivable".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Have you had a chance to read/listen to the Heart Sutra? I’ve been working through TNH’s newest translation of the Heart Sutra, yeah. I feel like I have a vague recollection or identification of what it’s talking about in non-words, but I have yet to internalize it. Who knows if or when I will. It’s good so far, and I’m learning a lot. quote:If the heady level is not what you're working on, may I ask what is it that you're working on? Praxis. From what I understand, there’s a way to Be Okay, so that means there’s a mental and psychological refactoring to help make living life less of a shitshow. I’m hoping to learn how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Praxis. From what I understand, there’s a way to Be Okay, so that means there’s a mental and psychological refactoring to help make living life less of a shitshow. I’m hoping to learn how to do that. https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp503s_Mahasi_Practical-Insight-Meditation.pdf The shitshow is all in our heads. It is just a thought, but it is such a compelling thought that we can't help but get sucked in. But there is no shitshow. Everything just is. It is possible to gain insight into this. To get a sort of meta-awareness of the mind doing this. And if you see the mind do this with enough clarity, then the illusion is broken, like knowing how a magic trick is done. After that, you don't see the shitshow. You just see events that trigger the thought of a shitshow, and then the thought trail off, to be replaced by the next event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Happy Bodhi day... maybe? Or was it the 8th? Seems like it varies. Discuss your traditions' approach to December-adjacent Buddhist holidays. Yes, it doesn't ultimately matter. I did see a localish temple in a Taiwanese-associated group say "hey, you know, funny story, it was December 23rd, turns out."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Can anyone give me the tl;dr explanation of what Shambhala is? Like, it's supposed to be hidden in western Tibet, but I also get the kind of vibe that it's actually a "pure land" or spiritual kingdom that can only be accessed esoterically. Can both be true at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
Tias posted:Can both be true at the same time? Maybe. I suppose it could be true that people think it is a physical location, although I'm sure if it was it would be on Google Maps by now. And there are genres of Buddhism literature that play a lot with allegory. The idea of using "far away kingdoms" as examples of human perfection, or corruption and hubris, is pretty common.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/meaning_enjoyer/status/1625818174863343617?s=46&t=wqjaOIpoTG8GesDkBLpo_w Is being mean to chat bots unskillful? I find I don't really have the desire to talk poo poo to chatbots or mow down pedestrians in GTA these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 04:50
|
|
|
Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Being cruel to a rock probably doesn't mean much in the way of karma but it doesn't reflect well on you either. But not to the same degree it would if you were cruel to a dog. I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
I would avoid being pointlessly cruel to a chatbot because it encourages that habit of mind, although if there was a specific purpose - for instance if you were testing a chat bot to see what happens by acting like an abusive user in ways that you know would be particularly effective from your knowledge of the system - it would be morally neutral. Besides... You never know what will happen. Best to be on their good side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 06:33
|
|