|
I first had the experience before I was ever interested in meditation. I had been sleeping maybe 4-5 hours a night and was very exhausted but still couldn't sleep. I smoked a joint and lay still in my bed listening to music for a while and fell into a half-sleep. All the same things occurred: eyes darting around, light colors fluttering around my eyelids but it turned into one of the most powerful experiences of consciousness that have occurred to me. I felt as if my conscious shape were on some kind of rollercoaster, speeding around and changing shape. There were quick successions of 'epiphanies', as I successfully narrativized what was happening. I was never really this type of person but in the half-dream experience I was aware of a presence that seemed to be impressing its will upon me. I hesitate to call it God, but it was surely separate from 'me' and I imagined it was very old and had always been there somewhere in my head. I could hear froggy booooiiiingwwaaaaaaooohhhh noises. It was a little terrifying and likely in part my own invention but very surreal. I was aware this entire time and eventually I became aware of the music again and just got up. I've gone a little off topic with this story but the oddity and power of the experience was a big step in my path towards discovering and embracing Buddhism. My practice is in its infancy and this thread has imparted a lot of understanding that I'm really grateful for.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Hey thread, I have a noob sitting question. So, when I'm sitting and observing my breath and my brain starts doing stuff, I just try to observe it with, "thinking, thinking..." etc. Though, I've noticed that this observation sometimes ends up getting forceful, like I'm trying to stop the thinking, even though I know I should just be watching it go by. I'm trying to correct this by observing the forcefulness with "forcing, forcing..." etc. It is my understanding that ultimately, I shouldn't have to use mental words at all to do the observing, but it does seem to help me since my sitting experience is still in the beginning stages. So, is noting the forcefulness a reasonable solution?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Have you tried mentally noting it kindly? I find that having a little smile on your face and saying it mentally with a kind tone helps keep away the forcefulness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
comaerror posted:Hey thread, I have a noob sitting question. So, when I'm sitting and observing my breath and my brain starts doing stuff, I just try to observe it with, "thinking, thinking..." etc. Though, I've noticed that this observation sometimes ends up getting forceful, like I'm trying to stop the thinking, even though I know I should just be watching it go by. I'm trying to correct this by observing the forcefulness with "forcing, forcing..." etc. It is my understanding that ultimately, I shouldn't have to use mental words at all to do the observing, but it does seem to help me since my sitting experience is still in the beginning stages. So, is noting the forcefulness a reasonable solution? I think the idea of noting the thoughts with the word "thinking.." is to get you used to noticing them in the first place. Thoughts aren't the enemy really. Just observe the thought and don't hold on to it. It will more-or-less go away on its own. Some useful analogies I've heard/read: - Imagine you're standing alongside a stream and your thoughts are leaves floating by. There's no reason to catch them or touch them. Just note that you had one and then go back to breathing. - The mind is initially like the surface of the ocean covered in debris. There are all manner of things floating by but beneath the surface there is nothing but calm clean open-ness. I was a lot like you when I started (I'm still a beginner :3) but was finding I was too tight -- too focused on breath and suppressing thoughts. As I meditated for longer periods of time (full day sessions), I started to drop a lot of that forcefulness and just let things go. I don't know if it was that my mind got tired or just finally relaxed or what. I just found that over longer periods my mind would naturally calm down; I discovered the tightness wasn't my fault or a failing per se. The short 15-20 minute sessions just don't provide enough time to fully relax my mind. I can't do long sessions daily due to time constraints but just knowing that I am not doing things wrong was a great help in the shorter sessions regardless. I am much more able to just, observe, not get frustrated and move on. Another thing that helped was listening to a Reggie Ray recording where he was talking about building a "toolbox" of Shamatha techniques being useful. Some days, counting works to relax our mind, some days it is just enough to concentrate on the breath. Sometimes we need to be tighter at first and then relax or sometimes we need to do the opposite. That whole idea helped me a lot. You don't just have to do one thing forever and ever if it isn't working or doesn't feel right. Over time I've come to know what I feel like on a given day and can shape my morning practice to the technique that might work best on that day. Anyway, that's what helped me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
What is "Cambodian Buddhism"? I have a co-worker who claims to be Buddhist but he does a whole lot of poo poo that doesn't really square with my (kinda limited) understanding of the religion. He drinks and smokes heavily, and burns candles to 'release bad thoughts'. Bringing this up gets "it's Cambodian Buddhism. It's different." Is this a real thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Cambodia is mostly a Theravada country from what I understand. I don't know anything specific about the sangha there, but I highly doubt there are just allowances for intoxicants. Is your friend actually cambodian? Because there may be some cultural things that are attached to Cambodian Buddhism that allow this kind of thing. The 5 precepts are pretty standard across all traditions. You'll see Buddhists who smoke, as it isn't really specifically prohibited as far as I know. It is obviously an attachment and a destructive practice, but we all have those. You'll see monks smoking and using money in Thailand, watching sports, eating after noon, sometimes drinking fermented beverages, etc - all things that are prohibited in some form either by the precepts or the Vinaya. People have different levels of adherence when it comes to that kind of thing. As far as the candles go, I haven't heard of that. Again, it might be a cultural practice that has been brought into Buddhist practice. This is a really common thing in southeast asia. There are all kinds of things in Thai Buddhism that are done by monks (making amulets, predicting lottery numbers) that are seen as very much part of the religion, but are actually explicitly forbidden by the Vinaya (monastic code).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
So the five skandas are form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. I understand the first four, but what is consciousness? In my understanding, you have to be conscious OF something: of your own body, of the outside world, of your thoughts and emotions, of your memories, etc. But what is consciousness itself, according to Buddhism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Consciousness or mind (viññāṇa) is just "that which knows", or "that which discerns". It is not to be identified as one's self, or me, or mine in any way, as identifying with the skandas is what leads to suffering. They are often called "the 5 aggregates of clinging" in Theravadin texts.The Buddha posted:"Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness. The Buddha posted:"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness. Access to Insight has a study guide on the skandhas/khandas that has a lot of helpful sutta references. The way it is phrased in the original texts can be kind of tedious to read through but it is always helpful to go to the source, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Splurgerwitzl posted:I first had the experience before I was ever interested in meditation. I had been sleeping maybe 4-5 hours a night and was very exhausted but still couldn't sleep. I smoked a joint and lay still in my bed listening to music for a while and fell into a half-sleep. All the same things occurred: eyes darting around, light colors fluttering around my eyelids but it turned into one of the most powerful experiences of consciousness that have occurred to me. I felt as if my conscious shape were on some kind of rollercoaster, speeding around and changing shape. There were quick successions of 'epiphanies', as I successfully narrativized what was happening. If you're 'aware' of your processes, you're not in typical sleep mode at all. Your eyes are part of the physical expression. Also, don't be so quick to label what you see or experience as 'hallucination', as that nullifies the personal validity of what you are experiencing. The 'froggy' noises could be your own original primal nature, which is not buddha nature... or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
I'm looking to get my feet wet in Buddhism so I can see if it's right for me. This thread has been a neat read although confusing at times because I don't know some of the words. Does anyone know anything about Diamond Way? They came up in a google search for Buddhism in my area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Razage posted:I'm looking to get my feet wet in Buddhism so I can see if it's right for me. This thread has been a neat read although confusing at times because I don't know some of the words. There's been some controversy around Ole Nydahl; I'd suggest you do a bit of research on him before you decide whether to visit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
At what point should I consider taking refuge? I've only been looking into Buddhism for a short while but it's gripping me like no belief system has before, and not through lack of looking. My parents aren't religious though from a young age they were insistent that my faith be my choice not theirs. I went to a Protestant primary school and as such learned about Christian theology and was taught to pray but I don't think I ever truly believed any of it. In secondary school I was lucky enough to have two amazing open minded Religious Education teachers who taught me that you didn't have to have a religion to take interest in faith, thanks to them I took Theology at A-level. For the most part of my life I've identified myself as agnostic but as I said Buddhism really makes a lot of sense to me. I've recently been trying to live by the teachings of Buddhism and my life seems to be going better for it. I'm aware taking on a faith is a huge commitment and don't want to rush into anything but I think I know in my heart eventually I'm going to take refuge. If I know that at some point I'm going to take refuge is there any reason I shouldn't do it sooner rather than later? I realize that I still have a lot to learn but at the same time I'm aware that I'll likely never know everything there is to know about Buddhism so how much knowledge is enough to take the plunge? Before I do anything I'd like to go along to a temple or practice group, but there isn't anything local to me so it's not something I'd likely be able to attend regularly. Also should I already have decided on which sect I'm going to join before I take refuge or should that come later? Also I'm not entirely sold on the idea of re-birth but I'm open to it, just not sure I'll ever be able to accept it as fact, but would I be correct in saying that being open to it is all Buddhism asks of me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
From what I've gathered: When you turn up at any Buddhist meeting place, whatever the particular term may be in each case, take a look around and try to figure out whether people there seem happy, healthy, and balanced. If you're considering practicing there, ask around about the teachers affiliated with the place. Ask whatever comes to mind, but also ask what to watch out for, ask if they have any concerns of criticisms. Be really wary if the subject gets rapidly changed or the message seems too strongly, 'everything is perfect, all the people are beautiful.' Specifically, the Buddha said, "Scrutinize Buddhist teachers like a gold merchant scrutinizes gold before buying." One of the main reasons it is widely considered dangerous for people to rush through Buddhism (in a community context) is it is expected and understood that getting to know someone: whether student, teacher, one's peers, etc. in a relatively thorough way just, by nature, takes years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Depending on your tradition, refuge can be taken more or less whenever. If you feel like you are ready to identify as Buddhist, and are ready to commit to whatever precepts and live that path ( take it. In the Vajrayana perspective of Drikung Kagyu, you should take refuge and precepts whenever you're going to generally keep them because if you are a precept holder then whenever you're keeping them you gain merit, whereas otherwise you gain merit only for willful acts. For example if you're a precept holder for not killing, then any time you aren't killing, even if you're sleeping and so on, you accrue the merit of keeping your precept. If you don't hold that, then of course not killing a thing is still virtuous, but only when presented with such an option. Ultimately, refuge isn't a huge thing that only happens once. A lot of people take refuge with multiple lamas and so on. And taking refuge to acquire an identity is useful as an expedient means, but ultimately dressing for the ego. So basically, do you have a qualified Lama you want to take refuge with? If so, ask them if they'll give it to you and ask when you should take it. If not, maybe look for a Lama or don't. If you feel ready to take it, take it. Edit: anecdotally, I started believing in Buddhism two months before moving to an area with a sangha, and took refuge 5 days after I got there. I am now very happy, and it has been a wonderful experience. Refuge was great for me. To answer your question directly from my tradition's perspective, there is no point to wait if you know you're doing it anyways. Might as well make the commitment solid. You've already made it in your heart and mind, after all. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Folderol posted:There's been some controversy around Ole Nydahl; I'd suggest you do a bit of research on him before you decide whether to visit. Thanks for the warning! I checked that out and I don't think I want any part of someone's organization when they disparage other cultures. A question on the precepts, the drinking one must be a hard one to follow for anyone with an active social life outside of Buddhism, what's the line there? And is it okay to drink a little bit socially or is even that forbidden? Also is it necessary to learn Tibeten to read things or is this stuff usually presented in English in western countries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Razage posted:Thanks for the warning! I checked that out and I don't think I want any part of someone's organization when they disparage other cultures. The precepts aren't commandments. They aren't oaths that you can't break (unless you're a monk). The precepts are general advice for how to live life to minimize suffering and to minimize the accumulation of negative karma. In Tibet, most lay people are one or two precept-holders, usually holding the precepts against killing and sexual misconduct, sometimes stealing. It can fluctuate. For Western converts, it's much more typical to be a five-precept holder, but not at all necessary. It's not forbidden to drink. I don't drink, but my guru has told me straight up before that if I drink, it is not virtuous, but it is okay if I am doing so as to reduce suffering. For example my family has a heavy drinking culture. My old friends are mostly drinking buddies. At one point it would have caused them suffering for me to be like "gently caress you guys I found religion." So at one point, I continued to drink. But now that is mostly resolved. Amusingly, when I took refuge my plan was still to drink sometimes. Over time though I decided I don't really even want to drink. The same is happening with me now with eating meat. I never have thought "I should be a vegetarian" but increasingly I find myself disliking the concept of eating flesh. I still do it, but I'm at least mindful of it and probably at some point I will stop. quote:Also is it necessary to learn Tibeten to read things or is this stuff usually presented in English in western countries? There are tens of thousands of Buddhist texts in Tibetan that are untranslated. None of them are necessary to read. Haha. It's not essential, most of the major texts are translated, many of the important minor texts are translated, and generally every text is better taught through a qualified lama anyhow, who usually can read Tibetan. If you're really really into languages, you may want to pick it up, but it's definitely not necessary. One thing though is that in Kagyu traditions, an oral transmission is given by reading a text to a person perfectly. This can be an interesting experience because in those cases if you don't speak Tibetan it's pretty common to have no idea what transmission/empowerment you just received.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Razage posted:A question on the precepts, the drinking one must be a hard one to follow for anyone with an active social life outside of Buddhism, what's the line there? And is it okay to drink a little bit socially or is even that forbidden? I think I can help with this one. Abstaining from alcohol isn't actually as hard as you probably perceive it, personally even before discovering Buddhism I didn't drink and yet manage to keep an active social life, surprisingly few people care that I don't drink and the ones who make a big deal about it are generally the type of people I try to avoid anyway. I'm in a rather strange trade (for the time being, I'm actually getting out of it next week) for a non drinker, my Dad is fairly well known in the pub and brewing industry. I got roped into the family business and have been working as a bar manager, as such I spend a lot of time around drinkers and have a lot of associates who's livelihoods revolve entirely around alcohol (I guess I'm in the same position), despite this I'm met with very little judgement from any of them and all of my regulars know and respect my choice not to drink. As for if there's a line as far as the precepts are concerned, I might be wrong here but I would expect, yes, a little bit of social drinking is okay. The vow isn't against the consumption if alcohol, its against intoxication. Think of it this way, driving whilst intoxicated is illegal, but you can still have one drink and legally drive. There may be a small amount of negative karma associated with even a little drink, due to the possibility of it leading to more drink, but you might want someone more educated than me to weigh in as I may be misunderstanding karma here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:I think I can help with this one. Abstaining from alcohol isn't actually as hard as you probably perceive it, personally even before discovering Buddhism I didn't drink and yet manage to keep an active social life, surprisingly few people care that I don't drink and the ones who make a big deal about it are generally the type of people I try to avoid anyway. I'm in a rather strange trade (for the time being, I'm actually getting out of it next week) for a non drinker, my Dad is fairly well known in the pub and brewing industry. I got roped into the family business and have been working as a bar manager, as such I spend a lot of time around drinkers and have a lot of associates who's livelihoods revolve entirely around alcohol (I guess I'm in the same position), despite this I'm met with very little judgement from any of them and all of my regulars know and respect my choice not to drink. I used to abstain from alcohol, but I like drinking now so I'll have to consider if I want to give it up if I decide to Take Refuge. It probably wouldn't affect my decision since I only drink maybe 3 or 4 times a year and only one of those is getting drunk (So no more of that, haha) There's quite a few more traditional centre's in my city then I thought, so I suppose my next step is to go and attend some introductory sessions and see what they're all about. Any advice on what I should look for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:As for if there's a line as far as the precepts are concerned, I might be wrong here but I would expect, yes, a little bit of social drinking is okay. The vow isn't against the consumption if alcohol, its against intoxication. Think of it this way, driving whilst intoxicated is illegal, but you can still have one drink and legally drive. There may be a small amount of negative karma associated with even a little drink, due to the possibility of it leading to more drink, but you might want someone more educated than me to weigh in as I may be misunderstanding karma here. When you drink alcohol, you become heedless (lack mindfulness). If you drink a lot you become very heedless, if you drink a little bit you become a little bit heedless. If you are unsure of whether or not to drink alcohol, please use wisdom to investigate what you think you are actually gaining from drinking. For me, I found out the things I thought I liked about alcohol was actually things that have nothing to do with alcohol, like meeting new people, hanging out with friends, feeling a sense of camaraderie with my drinking buddies. If you feel you need alcohol to lubricate social situations, I would suggest developing loving kindness instead. It does the job a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:From what I've gathered: I like this, it's very important. You wouldn't believe how many con artists there are who realize that the holy man business can be really high paying. There have been and always will be literal predatory monsters in holy robes coming down the pike East and West, with solemn mien and pithy pronouncements, who garner crowds of followers and tons of money. Tea Bone posted:I think I can help with this one. Abstaining from alcohol isn't actually as hard as you probably perceive it, personally even before discovering Buddhism I didn't drink and yet manage to keep an active social life, surprisingly few people care that I don't drink and the ones who make a big deal about it are generally the type of people I try to avoid anyway. I'm in a rather strange trade (for the time being, I'm actually getting out of it next week) for a non drinker, my Dad is fairly well known in the pub and brewing industry. I got roped into the family business and have been working as a bar manager, as such I spend a lot of time around drinkers and have a lot of associates who's livelihoods revolve entirely around alcohol (I guess I'm in the same position), despite this I'm met with very little judgement from any of them and all of my regulars know and respect my choice not to drink. Don't split hairs over small amounts of negative karma. Gautama learned before his own maha-enlightenment that you need to keep things in balance or perspective, which he called a Middle Way. A drink after a hard stressful day before you go to sit can actually be relaxing and conducive to your practice. A culture of staying drunk will retard your practice. As you evolve in your practice, you will experience an inner joy and drunkenness which no drug nor alcohol can touch. From what I've learned, any system- and keep in mind buddhism is not supposed to be a belief system, it's supposed to be a practice system, and there's a huge difference- is about getting yourself tuned up to a level of awareness fitness just like an athlete. It's work, real work, the best work; and anyone who says it's not is a bullshitter....imo. Precepts are general guidance recommendations toward that aim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Don't split hairs over small amounts of negative karma. Gautama learned before his own maha-enlightenment that you need to keep things in balance or perspective, which he called a Middle Way. A drink after a hard stressful day before you go to sit can actually be relaxing and conducive to your practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
I've been interested in Buddhism for a long time now, but whenever I think about it I find myself wondering what it can actually do for me. I'm think it's intriguing because I think that it has good insights into human nature and how the world works, but on the other hand I can't find much of a point in the actual practice. I'm an atheist and a naturalist and as such the supernatural elements just don't mean anything to me. I don't believe in souls or reincarnation, so being concerned about karma seems pointless - once I'm dead I'm gone forever no matter what I do, so there isn't really anything to work for. I believe the brain is just a meat machine, so sitting around for hours thinking really hard about nothing in particular seems like a waste of time and effort, because it can't give you any supernal insight into reality. On the other hand, I do appreciate some of the moral and psychological elements, especially the ideas that wanting things that can't exist and leading a lifestyle of violence and self-harm is the cause of an unsatisfying life. The noble truths and the eightfold path seem like an excellent way to go about being a pleasant person and leading a good life. A lot of the more peripheral rules seem to be too concerned with bodily and cultic purity for me to really see the point of it, though. All in all I both like it a lot but would also have to throw so much of it out that I wonder what would even be the point in trying to be Buddhist. Sorry about not having any real questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Have you read Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist? You might like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
You aren't really "thinking about nothing," but depending on the practice you could be developing loving-kindness which you can apply to your day to day actions and interactions, or you could be quieting the thinking machine, so that your thoughts are more poignant and you function better. These are very practical in my opinion, but this is just my interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I've been interested in Buddhism for a long time now, but whenever I think about it I find myself wondering what it can actually do for me. I'm think it's intriguing because I think that it has good insights into human nature and how the world works, but on the other hand I can't find much of a point in the actual practice. I'm an atheist and a naturalist and as such the supernatural elements just don't mean anything to me. I don't believe in souls or reincarnation, so being concerned about karma seems pointless - once I'm dead I'm gone forever no matter what I do, so there isn't really anything to work for. Good! Buddhists don't either. No offense but your post sounds pretty ignorant about Buddhism, since you assume they believe in such things when any 101 intro to Buddhism will tell you that they don't. One of the central doctrines of Buddhism is anatta (Not-Self), which basically says that we don't have eternal souls that contain the essence of our being. Reincarnation is a Hindu concept, not a Buddhist one. The correct term is rebirth, but there is lots of debate about what exactly rebirth means, so I can see why there's some misunderstanding. Some say rebirth is just a metaphor for our constantly changing mental states. Others use an analogy like the recycling of our organic molecules into the environment; we don't disappear, we just get converted into something else. There are other interpretations which I don't understand so I can't really explain them to you, but suffice to say that the common idea of Buddhism preaching reincarnation (you are a bad person, so when you die you become an insect or something) is totally incorrect. Karma is just a word for action or deed (according to Wikipedia). It doesn't mean that if you do good things, the Universe will magically make good things come back to you, like The Secret. It just means that what you put out into the world will effect the world. If you do bad things in the world, it will negatively effect the world, but it doesn't necessarily mean the Universe will directly punish you for it. Negative karma will, however, effect you in a less direct way. If you're a hateful person who abused other people, eventually it'll bite you in the rear end. And even if it doesn't, it still causes suffering in the world because of all the people you're hurting. But karma has nothing to do with psychic vibes or anything like that. Its literally just your deeds and actions in the world, not a cosmic punishment/reward system. Blame the New Agers for muddying the waters. There ARE metaphysical beliefs in Buddhism, but the specifics vary from school to school, and it's possible to be a metaphysical naturalist/physicalist and a Buddhist at the same time. Blue Star fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Further to the above, What the Buddha Taught is a pretty good introductory work: http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313 If you prefer to read PDFs or have a Kindle or high speed printer there are various PDF copies available online for free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
mcustic posted:Have you read Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist? You might like it. Blue Star posted:Good! Buddhists don't either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:All in all I both like it a lot but would also have to throw so much of it out that I wonder what would even be the point in trying to be Buddhist. Sorry about not having any real questions. Buddhism is a religion of practice. Don't worry about the details if you don't believe them or something. There is no problem with taking the ideas you like and leaving the ones you don't. Practice what works for you, leave what doesn't. In turns of rebirth and so on, this is not meant to be a carrot on a stick to coerce morality. Whether you believe in rebirth or not, if you practice virtuous behavior, you'll improve the lives of others. Realizing emptiness, realizing our own impermanence, if you recognize that, then behaving morally, behaving ethically becomes an important thing not because of some future gain or benefit, but because of the very real benefit it has for others in this lifetime. Without all the spiritual metaphysical whatsit, His Holiness the Dalai Lama defines Buddhism as nonviolence and loving-kindness. If you practice those things, you're a Buddhist. And those things are really very closely related. Buddha never demanded that people follow everything he teaches. He always instructed to try it out, test it, see if it works. If it brings happiness, embrace it. If it brings suffering, cast it away. There is no need to reject Buddhism based on its spiritual things, because the foundation of Buddhism is its practice. Everything else is philosophical foundation, if you don't want that, don't do it - the noble truths and eightfold path can bring fruition without accepting literal rebirth and on and on. His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote in his book, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” He is very much a man of science, and a professor of a very practical form of Buddhism. Practice what works for you, with an open an investigative mind, and an eye of analysis. Do what works. Don't accept dogmatic labels or imagine you must adhere strictly to dogmatic principles to practice Buddhism. Certainly don't discard good moral ethics that leads to a reduction of suffering for both yourself and others because you don't want to accept what are essentially trappings. At the end of the day, Buddhism which aims only for future rewards, but which doesn't practice good ethics in the present, is empty. It's words and rituals with no substance. A far better Buddhist is a man who practices non-violence, who treats everyone he meets as his esteemed guest, with love and kindness in his heart, but who never once has uttered a refuge prayer, than a person who says his refuge prayer every day but then acts like a schmuck and harbors hatred towards his fellow sentient beings. So yeah, whether you want to accept a literal rebirth or not, that's fine. As to the other points that were made after that post, the concepts of rebirth and karma and such are involved. Ultimately, it all relies on the concepts of emptiness and interdependence, which are fundamentally in agreement with modern physicalist reasoning. Basically, nothing has an inherent substance. Even atoms of elements are not inherently those elements, we've found, as every particle can be reduced further. Buddhist atomism, the concept that every single thing can be reduced infinitely, and that even a partless particle has parts (reflected in its various sides and interactions), long predates the actual scientific discovery of the atom. Everything builds off a foundation that has only been verified, never contradicted, by scientific research. Karma doesn't contradict that, because karma is literally cause and effect. That is not at all a post-hoc definition. Karma is the rule that if you do thing, other thing will result, and that a thing cannot be its own cause. Therefore, everything that happens has some kind of other cause, and nothing that happens happens based on its own existence. As such, everything is dependent on every other thing, therefore we must be mindful of the results of our own actions. Regarding rebirth, the "it's all about mental states" thing seems like a post-hoc, but is not even so, as the basic idea reduces to the point that even our consciousness, our unceasing flow of thoughts, is not spontaneously self-arisen but dependently arisen and therefore without fundamental existence. The "you" reading this sentence is not the "you" that read the sentence prior, because given new information, it has changed. It has been reborn. As to the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation, this is very important, because when I die, I'm dead. That's it. There is a belief that another being will be born as a result in Buddhism, this idea that death is a cause of rebirth, with the conditions of rebirth being based on karma, but this is not critical to accept in order to accept the practical ethical and behavioral level of Buddhism. Whether or not you believe in rebirth is, ultimately, immaterial. You'll die eventually, another being will be reborn or it won't, and it's no big deal. Rebirth is a complicated concept to grasp, and I'd encourage you to look for some of my posts earlier in the thread where I've quoted people much smarter and wiser than myself in trying to elucidate the concept. Needless to say, however, the idea that there is some kind of perpetuation of consciousness beyond the death of the body is not fundamental to Buddhism, even when it does appear in various traditions usually of the Vajrayana persuasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I'm sure I don't know too much about Buddhism, but that sounds like semantic quibbling to me. There's a lot of stories surrounding Buddhism that deal with rebirth and past lives, including those of the Buddha himself. You can say that it isn't precisely about souls and not precisely reincarnation, but it sounds pretty indistinguishable to me in practical terms. I'm still fairly new to Buddhism so I admit that I'm not the best person to explain it. But my main point is that you can still be a Western-style atheist and a Buddhist since the core concepts of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, plus the Three Marks of existence) do not contradict modern science. Heck, you don't even need to be a Buddhist to get the benefits of things like mindfulness, which is simply the act of being mindful of your own mental states and perceptions, or meditation, which has been scientifically shown to reduce stress and other benefits which I'm too lazy to get into right now but you can Google easily enough. There is nothing innately supernatural or magical about these things and they are perfectly compatible with being an atheist or agnostic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
One must be careful while dealing with spiritual or 'mystical' matters/teachings/books (whatever the hell that means exactly) to remember that what is literally being said in the words is only a small part of everything that is being said. They take the symbolism, layers of symbolism, and interactions between symbols to be every bit as important as what is literally being said. Often, if not usually, instructions have a strong smybolic and/or metaphorical context. Moreover, there is often a traditional commentary or explanation that goes along with a teaching. These things exist to help ensure that when someone hears the words, 'meditate on a corpse,' that they may hear it as an encouragement to open-endedly investigate the impermanence of life, each in our own way, not as a command that they have to go sit on a literal, diseased/decaying corpse until they realize that they shouldn't be sitting on an old corpse, anyways. Taken literally, 'meditate on a corpse' is some seriously dubious, probably dangerous advice. Taken (or given) as an encouragement to investigate just what a deeply fulfilling life is and how to make the most out of whatever amount of time we have on this here rock, the encouragement makes a little more sense and can be practiced much more safely. And at one's own pace. Sorry about the rather extreme example. Words (especially old ones that have gone through multiple translations) require some extra, continued effort to connect to and understand. Taking a text or teaching (or whatever) literally that was never meant to be taken literally can get dangerous quickly. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Thanks, I appreciate the explanations. I think I'll visit my local Buddhist's society sometime soon while I'm still on semester break.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
While I agree with the concept that desire leads to suffering it also concerns me that it might be a bit defeatist. I used to very much be of the disposition "if I don't try, I can't fail". About three years ago I realised that if I didn't try I had already failed, and started to try to correct this way of thinking. Since then I've completely changed as a person. I will admit that in those years I've become well acquainted with failure but ultimately I'm in a far better position now than I was three years ago. I realise that my old way of thinking was caused by pride which obviously Buddhism teaches me to combat, but my drive behind fighting my old self has been desire and to go for what I want. I'm scared that should I expel desire from my life, I'll also lose motivation to try. Can someone who's been practising for a while shed some light on this for me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Desire isn't the problem, it's attachment to that desire that creates suffering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:One must be careful while dealing with spiritual or 'mystical' matters/teachings/books (whatever the hell that means exactly) to remember that what is literally being said in the words is only a small part of everything that is being said. They take the symbolism, layers of symbolism, and interactions between symbols to be every bit as important as what is literally being said. Often, if not usually, instructions have a strong smybolic and/or metaphorical context. Moreover, there is often a traditional commentary or explanation that goes along with a teaching. These things exist to help ensure that when someone hears the words, 'meditate on a corpse,' that they may hear it as an encouragement to open-endedly investigate the impermanence of life, each in our own way, not as a command that they have to go sit on a literal, diseased/decaying corpse until they realize that they shouldn't be sitting on an old corpse, anyways. Meditating next to and observing decomposing corpses is literally still a part of Indian aesthetic practice, and an old one at that. There are also several sutras which go over the details of what ways you're supposed to meditate on the decomposing corpse and its steps. The point is ultimately to consider impermanence and the transition of form, but the practice itself is not a metaphor or symbol, its something sramanas have done in India for a long time. In the culture which Buddhism grows out of, corpses are not uncommon or shocking. You're not supposed to literally sit on the corpse, sure, but you're in intimate proximity with it. Also, in a sense Cardiovorax is correct on one point, that the tradition itself despite explicitly denying eternalist positions on souls, throughout its history continually demures about what rebirth means. The mass of tales which proliferated after the Buddha in service of spreading the religion have a popularly received element which very strongly implies commonplace notions of a soul being reborn/reincarnated (at that point a meaningless distinction). The Jataka tales, which more often than not are the element most familiar to lay and "ethnic" Buddhists who commonly do not know or interract with sutras and doctrine much at all, these stories lose much of their essential meaning without an eternalist interpretation of rebirth, which the large majority of Buddhists on the ground tend towards believing. Furthermore, there is a common point noticed by most anthropologists who have studied the interaction of Buddhists, their beliefs and practice as it is on the ground, and generally these people believe (and desire) a personal rebirth, seeing nirvana as a nice ideal for monks to aspire to, but which isn't really relevant to them (let me reach nirvana after a couple more births, "give me chastity, but not yet"). In truth, the 2500 year old tradition of Buddhism prevaricates and plays both sides, with higher doctrine saying that rebirth is not a transmigration of eternal souls, but with the popular elements of Buddhist faith almost always emphasizing its importance. These popular elements reinforcing eternalist notions of souls are continuously flowing into the body of Buddhist texts and beliefs, as relic and rebirth tales filter into the tradition with each community it spreads to. For instance, the jataka tales are placed in the Kudaka Nikaya, which means minor collection. At one time, it was a tiny collection of auxiliary texts. Over time, as more tales were written, this Nikaya has ballooned in size to outgrow the others, in no sense remaining minor, and more often than not being the one aspect Buddhists are familiar with in the cultures in which the religion holds sway. When you look at Buddhism from its developmental, comparative and historic perspectives, this is not surprising I don't think, troubling as it is for essentialist framings of Buddhism. It's certainly not a hindrance to practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:One must be careful while dealing with spiritual or 'mystical' matters/teachings/books (whatever the hell that means exactly) to remember that what is literally being said in the words is only a small part of everything that is being said. They take the symbolism, layers of symbolism, and interactions between symbols to be every bit as important as what is literally being said. Often, if not usually, instructions have a strong smybolic and/or metaphorical context. Moreover, there is often a traditional commentary or explanation that goes along with a teaching. These things exist to help ensure that when someone hears the words, 'meditate on a corpse,' that they may hear it as an encouragement to open-endedly investigate the impermanence of life, each in our own way, not as a command that they have to go sit on a literal, diseased/decaying corpse until they realize that they shouldn't be sitting on an old corpse, anyways. I think one should be careful in interpreting things to broadly as well; we are all going to be rotting corpses in the ground one day, let's contemplate that  Tea Bone posted:While I agree with the concept that desire leads to suffering it also concerns me that it might be a bit defeatist. I used to very much be of the disposition "if I don't try, I can't fail". About three years ago I realised that if I didn't try I had already failed, and started to try to correct this way of thinking. Since then I've completely changed as a person. I will admit that in those years I've become well acquainted with failure but ultimately I'm in a far better position now than I was three years ago. I realise that my old way of thinking was caused by pride which obviously Buddhism teaches me to combat, but my drive behind fighting my old self has been desire and to go for what I want. I'm scared that should I expel desire from my life, I'll also lose motivation to try. Can someone who's been practising for a while shed some light on this for me? You cannot avoid motivation and desire anyway, so in the mean time, try to desire things that will actually make you more fulfilled; desire to be a good person, desire to be a kind person, desire to be content and to meditate, desire to investigate the teachings, desire to be mindful. Edit: "if I don't try, I can't fail" is just the desire to avoid the pain of failure, anyway. If you start practising, you're going to feel the benefits and then you're going to attach to those good feelings and desire more of them. Expelling desire from your life you can do when you become a monk
Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
I was doing some research online and some of the stuff on this website: http://viewonbuddhism.org/depression.html seemed really extreme. So this article is talking about depression and I agree with some of what it says, but some of the stuff seems to be interpreted as do whatever you can to help other regardless of the cost or imposition. Is there a limit one should observe when trying to remove suffering from others. Like if I encounter a homeless person, were I a Buddhist should I drive him to my place and provide for him? What if someone was working two jobs to make ends meet and then was confronted by a family member that needed their next paycheque. Should they hand it over and risk being homeless themselves? How does Buddhism confront that there is a lot of suffering in the world and that one person can't fix the problems of everyone they encounter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Razage posted:How does Buddhism confront that there is a lot of suffering in the world and that one person can't fix the problems of everyone they encounter? Realism. My teacher once told me straight up that we should do whatever we can do. If I can't give up my paycheck because I'd be homeless myself, then I can't give up my paycheck. There is a ton of suffering in the world, more than any one man can fix. Even if I ease the suffering of every being in my town, and make a true utopia, that doesn't fix the next town. It is also understood that not everyone can sacrifice everything. Not everyone has that level of attainment. For a bodhisattva with a high level, they might even sacrifice parts of their body, because they can do that. But for example Shantideva teaches that if you're not at the point where you can handle sacrificing your arms and legs and head and so on, where you don't have the omniscient view to do that properly, then you should only sacrifice your body as a complete thing. If you can't even do that, then only sacrifice your belongings. It's up to you, basically. Remember that this is a long game, not a short game. Even in Vajrayana, where we strive to attain Buddhahood in this very lifetime, there is a recognition that I cannot do it all instantly. Facticity, in the existential sense, is important in Buddhism as well. Do what you're able to do. Sure, if I can give a homeless guy a ride to my place, I should do that, provided I know that will really help him. If I don't have the ability to know that, then maybe I shouldn't. Maybe I should do something else. How do I know he doesn't rob me and thus hurt my ability to help others? If I become homeless myself, then my longterm ability to practice dharma becomes less, so maybe I should not do that one. Maybe I should! But if I lack the wisdom insight to know if I should or shouldn't, I should do only what I can do safely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Realism. My teacher once told me straight up that we should do whatever we can do. If I can't give up my paycheck because I'd be homeless myself, then I can't give up my paycheck. There is a ton of suffering in the world, more than any one man can fix. Even if I ease the suffering of every being in my town, and make a true utopia, that doesn't fix the next town. This was enlightening so thank you! I've been doing some meditation with some stuff I found online (although next week I am going to try going to the Shambhala centre around here and see what they're about). Have you ever spaced out during meditation? It's happen to me a few times and I think it's just my brain taking me for some kind of ride. It seems to happen suddenly so I do d it hard to stay focused on whatever exercise I'm doing. It usually only lasts a few seconds. Any tips on avoiding that or if it's really a bad thing? When it happens it's usually like vivid dreams or visions or something. Very weird. The meditation practice still feels good afterwards though so I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Razage posted:This was enlightening so thank you! Strange sensations are very common during meditation, especially in the beginning. You may experience odd sensations, like the feeling that your body is slowly expanding or contracting, or that your head seems very large. You will often see light patterns behind your eyelids that take on strange shapes. Your body may also feel hot or cold at times. You will find your mind dredging up old memories you hadn't thought of in years or decades - things from your childhood that you'd forgotten, conversations you wish you had approached differently. These are all attempts by the mind to return your attention to the endless train of discursive thought that normally progresses during your waking hours. Attention might not be the right word here, since we often don't pay attention to discursive thought, but your mind wants freedom to do this without consequence. Sometimes, like in your example, they only last a few seconds, and might seem almost like hallucinations. This is common and happened to me quite a bit. I'd have some sort of strange thing happen in my mind, and then find myself snapping out of it and thinking "wow, what was that all about?". It was almost like a very brief psychedelic drug experience for a few seconds. In those cases, just note what happened and return to the breath or whatever object you are using. The experiences aren't worth dwelling over, as interesting or strange as they might seem. There is a section in "mindfulness in plain english" that talks about this, and how to deal with these things as they come up. They are common, and may be a byproduct of your mind protesting against having its normal activities disrupted. You'll find your mind playing all kinds of tricks to distract you from keeping your attention on the breath. It is like a spoiled child that wants attention. You have to gently and repeatedly turn your attention away from the distractions, physical or mental, and return to your meditation object. I think it was Ajahn Chah who compared this to training a puppy to sit in your lap. At first the puppy will squirm and want to run and chase anything that catches its attention. You simply take the puppy back into your arms and set it where you want it. The puppy will again squirm away, and you place it back in your lap. Eventually, through repetition, the puppy will get the point and stop fighting you. Your mind will generally work in the same pattern. There is a sutta where the Buddha compares the training of the mind to taming a wild elephant but I can't find it right now and I'm too busy at work to dig through the Nikayas, but I'll see if I can quote it later. Just keep trying, be patient with yourself, and realize that meditation is very hard, and but also very rewarding once you develop a steady practice. People Stew fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If I remember correctly, dwelling in graveyards and observing corpses in various states of decay is something monks traditionally have done (and still do in some countries IIRC). The idea is to look at a corpse and meditate on "my own body will be like this one day." Yiggy posted:Meditating next to and observing decomposing corpses is literally still a part of Indian aesthetic practice, and an old one at that. There are also several sutras which go over the details of what ways you're supposed to meditate on the decomposing corpse and its steps. The point is ultimately to consider impermanence and the transition of form, but the practice itself is not a metaphor or symbol, its something sramanas have done in India for a long time. In the culture which Buddhism grows out of, corpses are not uncommon or shocking. You're not supposed to literally sit on the corpse, sure, but you're in intimate proximity with it. Uh yeah? That is what was being referred to above. I tried to write it to be clear whether someone was aware of the practice(s) or not. Could have been clearer. I get hesitant to talk about some of the stranger seeming things (some) Buddhists and (some) Hindus get up to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:16
|
|