|
Ugrok posted:It's great that you already know what's behind all this. I think it's a necessary first step. But as you feel already, knowing does not solve anxiety issues ; as you say, i think that now you need to allow yourself to live the difficult, terrible emotions that lie behind your anxiety. Meditation can really help with this since it allows you to deal with whatever comes. I really think you are doing the right things by having a meditation practice and seeing a therapist. Don't be discouraged, as it's a really long process and sometimes feels like three steps forward, two steps back, but be assured that at one point you will feel more at ease with yourself and others. I wish you the best ! Thanks, this kind of reassurance means a lot. I feel this whole thing has progressed really rapidly past few days. Like I wrote earlier, I was spending the weekend at my aunt's in the country. I felt anxious and restless there as well, but picking lingonberries in the forest put my mind at ease. Chopping firewood worked too. During the weekend it struck me how codependent I really am. On Saturday and Sunday I was pretty anxious because of how little my girlfriend was texting with me. So far we've been in constant communication with each other. We live together, but each morning on our way to work/school we've texted each other trivialities such as "have a nice day, I hope you slept well". And when at school or not together we've texted as well. Our fifth anniversary is this month, but I didn't think until now that we've been in way too close a contact with each other. Both my friends and my aunt have said this amount of texting is unnecessary and not normal. (Now that I wrote this it seems clearly like dukkha to me.) When she suddenly dropped the amount of contact during the weekend I got worried if something was on her mind, if she wanted to dump me. Yesterday she finally came through and said she wants to move on her own, because living together causes her anxiety. However she doesn't want to end our relationship. I took it surprisingly well, because for the past day or two I had really thought a lot about how we've been in excessive contact and I had planned to give her space anyway. The fact that she didn't want to dump me made me also happy, since that's what I was fearing. Also if we lived separately I'd have a much better chance at solving my codependency. Yesterday we went to the gym together and I expected us to go home together as well, but she went swimming with her friend. That's when I did something I don't usually do: called my friend and went hanging out. My girlfriend is pretty introverted and when she moved to the city we live in when we moved together she had nobody her but me. She didn't want to see other people that much either. And I accommodated her by letting my other social life stagnate (I had learned to adapt to my mother's needs after all). This year we've been going to the gym which has given my girlfriend a lot more energy and confidence, but I've been stuck in my routine of being either with her or at home and waiting for her to come. I've seen my friends sometimes, but rarely. The ones I've seen the most are my girlfriend's friends as well, so it's "my" friends I have seen the least - the ones who aren't part of her social circle. I've even seen less some of the people she hasn't liked even though she has said it doesn't bother her if I see them. It occurred to me just yesterday how wrong all that is. Now that I've seen it I can't understand how I didn't notice it before, but it was the same with burning out because of too much work two years ago. Anyway, now that I've noticed this I've decided that not anymore: yesterday I want to see a friend, today I'll go to play board games with my fellow students (after seeing my therapist), tomorrow I'll probably watch a movie with the friend I saw yesterday, the day after that I'll go to the local Buddhist sangha (there are meetings for beginners every Thursday, but I've gone only twice in over two years, but now I will be going every week) and on Friday I'll go to a museum with a friend and to another friend's house welcoming party. Earlier the thought of doing new stuff and seeing people made me anxious, because I didn't know how to. But this was surprisingly easy, I made all those plans yesterday. My emotions are still a rollercoaster and I feel frightened when I think about the future ("how will I manage?" - since over two years ago my girlfriend has always been there for me when I've been anxious, and this is what's tired her, but as long as I'm capable to work I'll endure discomfort from time to time), but overall I am hopeful right now.  Even though being hopeful makes me scared as well. But at least I've identified fear as part of my thought process and perspective, which has lessened its power.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Rurik posted:Thanks, this kind of reassurance means a lot. So many thoughts come to mind reading this, of which very few relate to Buddhism. You should really cross post this to E/N.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Folderol posted:So many thoughts come to mind reading this, of which very few relate to Buddhism. You should really cross post this to E/N. Yeah, the same came to my mind. Originally I planned to say only that I'll attend to the local sangha each week from now on, but then all that other stuff came out as well. I won't be posting about this here anymore, at least if it doesn't relate to Buddhism. I won't be starting an E/N thread now either. I guess I just really valued Buddhists' perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Rurik posted:Yeah, the same came to my mind. Originally I planned to say only that I'll attend to the local sangha each week from now on, but then all that other stuff came out as well. I won't be posting about this here anymore, at least if it doesn't relate to Buddhism. I won't be starting an E/N thread now either. I guess I just really valued Buddhists' perspective. You should absolutely keep posting here, because the perspectives in the thread are indeed very valuable ones. It's just that you could get even more feedback if you *also* have a general thread, since people could reply fully without worrying about creating a derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Folderol posted:You should absolutely keep posting here, because the perspectives in the thread are indeed very valuable ones. I started a thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3573487 I went to the local sangha two days ago. We did metta meditation. I guess it was nice, but there were only five people including me and everyone else clearly knew each other well. There was another man in addition to me, but he left very soon and then I was with three 50-year-old women. We drank tea and ate biscuits after the meditation, but as a guy half their age I felt pretty outsider and uncomfortable. Two previous times I was there the meditation was led by a nice man. The woman who led it this time was nice too, but if it had been that dude I'd have felt more at ease. I hope he's there the next time I go there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I started a thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3573487 Good thread, I often post advice in E/N but the other posters have you pretty well covered. Is this group the only place in your area that offers sitting? Different groups might cater to different people. My Sangha does trend older but there are quite a few people my age (early 30's) and the odd younger person comes to check it out every once in a while. Maybe there's a different community in your area that trends younger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Razage posted:Good thread, I often post advice in E/N but the other posters have you pretty well covered. There are others, I think. At least that location had a note according to which it was used by a few other groups in addition to the one I participated with. I'll have to check out if they are as open to beginners as that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
After several bad experiences (witnessing overt/closet racism and forum politics) on the previous buddhism threads I've hesitated to participate, but i'm glad to see the op (Quantum Fate) nailed alot of good points in his introductory post and this thread looks to be a markedly huge improvement over the previous ones. Maybe off topic but I'll touch up on a couple of things QF pointed out, that would be perhaps helpful for new comers and of course my own take on things. Atheism: Regarding the doctrine Rebirth/Karma, siddhis/iddhis, as has been pointed out especially karma/rebirth form the backbone of metaphysical belief in Buddhism, Buddhism has a hard to ignore mystical element. Being as that people who are not christians/muslims/whatever have been conditioned through schooling and so on since birth to adhere to a hard materialistic paradigm that dovetails very neatly with western science (scientific method/logic etc..) will inevitably take issue with these issues. That's fine it and of itself but molding things to fit to that paradigm when one doesn't like what one sees is a problem. People often point out Zen as an exception, but the problem with that is that it is taken out of context as the pre-dominant beliefs of the ancient Japanese that Zen Buddhism evolved was from Shinto an Animistic and theistic religion not a western style hard-materialistic point of view that served as the background, even though doctrine of Karma / Abhiddhamma etc... were not emphasized in Zen they were absolutely not systematically refuted as fallacy at every turn for very obvious reason. The real conflict doesn't come from Buddhist doctrine or Buddhism itself, the heart of the conflict is clearly the difference in one's own eschatology especially regarding the natural phenomenal world around him/her and "beliefs" regarding it. (of course the distinction i'm making here is between belief and fact as unfortunately too many people would operate on an assumption of fact). Materialists (who we assume to be Atheists) - will regard the natural world only in terms of the 5 senses, what we can taste,touch,see,hear,and of course think. It's fine to operate in a mode of thinking that will only accept evidence based on what one sees, the problem with that is that it is essentially for a lack of a better word a close-minded and narrow way of thinking. As Michio Kaku stated fish in a koi pond can only see left and right in a shallow pond and they percieve the world only in terms of what they see not realizing that humans are looking down at the koi themselves and ignorant of the knowledge of the much greater world outside of the koi pond that exists in more dimensions than one. Even theoretical physics posits the existence of multiple dimensions outside of the physical dimensions we are aware of (string theory); Of course one could point to the standard model and the discovery of the "boson" particle but even that theory has flaws unable to take into account gravitational factors and I think issues with super-symmetry. Even the laws of physics itself completely break down in the singularity of a Black Hole. Certain topics such as psychic phenomena is a taboo topic in the western world especially so in an academic/scientific setting and rarely ever taken seriously, but psychic functioning in Buddhism is real phenomena with real value in the real world and totally interrelated with the doctrine of Karma/Rebirth. There are many instances told in the Sutra's of the Buddha's paranormal abilities, of course I think that maybe some accounts maybe a little too "out" there and there is no way to leap back in time and check to see if it actually happened but for the most part I think one can safetly say that the accounts purport the Buddha to have atleast some psychic ability (the part about where he is able to see his previous lifetimes that form the backbone of the Jakata tales which then transmuted into Aesop's fables once a greek merchant or so caught wind of the story and well..) How does this apply to the modern world? Well of course when you never have personal subjective experience regarding anything strange or paranormal and been told all your life that people who believe in UFO's and psychics are all crazy people (well yes definitely some or arguably alot of them are crazy) and with the stigma associated around these things It is very easy to dismiss anything metaphysically related especially if you didn't grow up in a culture steeped in Buddhist/Hindu religion. But it is easy to look at the fingers and miss the spaces in-between. I can't spend too long writing about this but there are so many unbelievable things out there that so many people are unaware of, for example during the Carter administration a woman in california went into a trance and successfully retrieved the map coordinates of a downed plane crash when a satellite couldn't find it. http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1010/carters_weird_science.html Of course one could could vehemently deny that this ever took place, but to do so you'd have to tell ex-president Carter and the ex-CIA director at the time that they are completely full of s*** , not to mention discrediting the legitimacy of the Politico website as well which is frequented by politicians in the U.S and other people of importance. I've got some quibbles as well regarding "Buddhism" but this is all i've got to say for now, sorry if this is tldr.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
That sorta stuff is in every big mystical tradition, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Islamic, Sikh. Often it seems to be in there more as an acknowledgment of the local experiences and beliefs than a prescriptive path or something. It's also a standard part of what is accorded to Christian (or Islamic, or Hindu) saints, and it seems to have been a troublesome part of life in each case. Interestingly enough, what they found helpful were the same sort of thing that us people with no abilities more magical than that of making GBS threads out fertilizer on a daily basis: taking good care of ourselves, looking out for those around us, love, compassion, honesty, generosity, and some measure of level-headedness or grounding, etc.. Also there was a pretty good quote from a long-dead Buddhist woman (lightly paraphrased), "Why are you so sure that blessings come from gods and curses from demons? Isn't it the other way around? How often do our gifts delay us from doing what is important, while in our struggles we learn who we are and what we are capable of."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Been following the thread for a while and there's a couple things I'd like to comment on in this post. First, I'm not sure why you're mentioning the background of atheists. Some people are raised in the way that you say, this is true. Others are raised in the opposite way, and come to have opposite beliefs. You can even find people in both camps who were raised one way, then later came to adopt the other camp's view. So what? The mere fact that a person got their beliefs by being raised a certain way is no reason to either support or reject those beliefs. It even seems to be in line with the idea of Karma if Karma is understood as cause and effect, as some people in this thread have mentioned. I'm not sure I buy this line that anyone who doubts the more mystical aspects of Buddhism generates a conflict between that person and Buddhism. That seems to imply that several people in this thread who call themselves Buddhists are not actually Buddhists, yet if their conflicting beliefs come from Buddhist sources, then the conflict is indeed within Buddhism itself. The classical five materialist senses are taste, touch, seeing, hearing and smelling. Thought is not a sense in this, and other views, but an activity. I'd be very wary of citing things like theoretical physics in examples unless you have some idea of the math behind them. For example, I understand that since the Higg's boson was found, that wound up invalidating several varieties of string theory, although I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong about that. It is also at this point not known if the laws of physics break down inside of a black hole. The laws of physics as we understand them might break down, but that doesn't mean the laws themselves do. Also, the way in which experiments are carried out kind of flies in the face of this idea that it's narrow-minded. Discoveries get made only when someone stops to consider that there might be something else out there that we haven't noticed before. Why haven't we noticed it? Because we can't directly observe it with the five senses. So we build something that will allow us to detect it, or at least its effects, and then translate the detected results into something we can see. You also mentioned that the standard model has flaws. So? Science does not claim to be the end-all, be-all answer for everything ever. It only claims to be a good process to understand the empirical world. Taking the stance that the empirical world is all there is requires something more than just science to get there. You mention that there is unbelievable stuff in the world. Again, so what? Just because there is no readily apparent material explanation does not mean that there is no material explanation at all. It's also contradictory to claim the unknown, explicitly or implicitly, for your side. If you don't know what it is, how is that support for the existence of psychic phenomenon unless you know or at least have some reason to believe it's psychic phenomenon? All this amounts to is a strange sort of Psychic of the Gaps style argument. Furthermore, what do you mean by 'real' when you say 'real world'? If you mean the physical world, then at least in principle psychic phenomenon or their effects should be observable in some way. Yet in most tests, and especially in tests with strict controls in place, the phenomenon and its effects disappears. Psychic believers have a term for this, though I don't recall what it is at the moment. Basically they're coming up with stuff to justify that their paradigm (real psychic stuff) is the right one, which is something that you yourself cautioned against, and which I agree with. Finally, you don't have to just flat out deny that Politico article to weaken the psychic stance. You can start by pointing out some of the problems I've outlined above (we don't know quite how she did it, so it must be psychic!) or do some research and propose an alternative explanation. Which I'm probably not going to do, because so far there seem to be a lot more Sylvia Browns in the world than genuine psychics anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah I have to admit that I don't quite know what you're on about, ickbar. Buddhism is just a method for dealing with suffering. It's just the Four Noble Truths plus the Eight-fold Path. It's got nothing to do with psychics or quantum physics. And Buddhism has nothing to do with metaphysical materialism. It neither denies materialism nor affirms materialism, and the same is true for other metaphysical concepts, such as idealism or dualism. Buddhism doesn't really say much about the metaphysical nature of reality, with the possible exceptions of impermanence, dependent origination, sunyata, and anatta. And even all of those are just statements of the obvious: things are always changing, everything arises from prior causes and conditions, nothing exists independently of other things, and everything is just a combination of other smaller things that temporarily come together. Those would be equally true and self-evident whether you're a materialist, a dualist, an idealist, a neutral monist, etc., or whether you believe Sylvia Brown must be the most constipated woman who ever lived (because she's so full of poo poo) or not.
Blue Star fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Also there was a pretty good quote from a long-dead Buddhist woman (lightly paraphrased), Wow, this kind of perspective was new to me. I'm currently going through an extremely difficult period of my life and I'm clinging to a dysfunctional relationship and to fear of starting anti-anxiety medication. I've been so full of anxiety, fear, worry and stress that I haven't been able to meditate properly either. It helps to see this as a chance to grow out of my codependency and learn to value myself instead of a life-shattering event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
At one time i sat in zazen, suffering, hurting, and i don't know why, suddendly the first noble truth came to my mind and i felt it sink in me really deep : suffering is a part of life, suffering is something life is made of, suffering IS life itself. I was suffering, and for the first time, i could accept that. I was suffering, and what that meant was that i was alive, i was a human, and i was living a human life as anyone who is human does. Everyone in the world suffers, one way or another, and this is part of the beauty of being human. Sorry, i cannot put it into words very well. This is not a masochistic point of view, "oh it's great that i suffer" ; it's just that when there is suffering, it means everything is normal and you are connected with everything, just as when you are not suffering. From this moment on, everything in the noble truths made sense. This did not stop me from suffering, not at all, but it changed things a lot. I saw and understood that the worst in my suffering was that i did not want this to happen. I did not want to suffer at all. I wanted to be perfectly at peace, perfectly sane, perfectly joyful. In fact, the answer is the total opposite of this attitude : you have to embrace it all, be it suffering or joy. There is nothing extraordinary in suffering, in anxiety, in death, in breakups, in losses, in gains, in joy, in disease, in questions about taking anxiety meds or not. It's life. For the first time, I did not have to be well, i did not have to "not suffer" anymore. Life is what it is, sometimes you suffer more, and that is no big deal. It is what life is. If you meditate every day, and keep on practicing, whatever happens in your life, i'm sure you will feel this. It's really a feeling, a profound acceptance, and not just words ; everyone understands the noble truths, they make sense, but meditation will give you the experience of the noble truths, especially when meditation seems completely impossible. Just sit with it all, stay with your breath and your body, and add nothing to the experience. I found out that despair is great for meditation. When i sit in total despair (it happens from time to time), i have nothing to lose, i sit as if it's "sit or die". And i let everything go because nothing matters anymore. In the midst of this total mess, sometimes i feel a deep happiness ! When you don't hope for a perfect you, for a perfect life, when you abandon all hope of being someone different that the one you are right now, you have the possibility to discover the present moment, the present you, and it's a great present indeed !
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:When you don't hope for a perfect you, for a perfect life, when you abandon all hope of being someone different that the one you are right now, you have the possibility to discover the present moment, the present you, and it's a great present indeed ! We were at a course recently and the instructor was talking about how Chögyam Trunga used the term "hopelessness" and I could tell it freaked a lot of people out. "Hopeless" brings to mind bleak despair. But what you're describing above is what he was talking about. Once we cease to have hope that things are going to be different than they are right now and just accept the present moment for what it is, we can start living life with less suffering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 13:24
|
|
Buried alive posted:Been following the thread for a while and there's a couple things I'd like to comment on in this post. First, I'm not sure why you're mentioning the background of atheists. Some people are raised in the way that you say, this is true. Others are raised in the opposite way, and come to have opposite beliefs. You can even find people in both camps who were raised one way, then later came to adopt the other camp's view. So what? I think his point is that it's different to come from a place where Heaven, God, and an afterlife exist to a place where Rebirth is a thing and there are multiple heavens and hells, than it is to try and accept that from a state of purely secular thinking. I think. Buried alive posted:The mere fact that a person got their beliefs by being raised a certain way is no reason to either support or reject those beliefs. It even seems to be in line with the idea of Karma if Karma is understood as cause and effect, as some people in this thread have mentioned. It is and it isn't though. Karma is basically cause and effect, but where people fall off the Buddhism train is where they try and claim that karma and rebirth is just the actions of your life echoing onto the world around you after you are gone, but you yourself are gone-gone. There's a really really strong textual basis against that argument in Buddhism. Religious scholars, both secular academics and clergy, are in agreement that Buddhism has never been interpreted exclusively as this way in the past. Buried alive posted:I'm not sure I buy this line that anyone who doubts the more mystical aspects of Buddhism generates a conflict between that person and Buddhism. That seems to imply that several people in this thread who call themselves Buddhists are not actually Buddhists, yet if their conflicting beliefs come from Buddhist sources, then the conflict is indeed within Buddhism itself. To be 100% blunt, some of the people who claim to be Buddhist in this thread are not Buddhist. Yes, it's a label. No, there's not some Buddhism police going around and enforcing Santa's List of Buddhists. That said, if you claim to be an Atheist yet believe in God, you probably shouldn't be surprised if people don't take your self-applied label very seriously. Similarly, the purpose of Buddhism was to find a path to escape the endless cycles of birth and death that lead to timeless suffering lifetime after lifetime. If you disbelieve that, then you're saying A: Buddha was full of poo poo and B: That annihilationism is a thing. There's been lots of discussions here (mainly in the old threads) about how this idea that Buddha was speaking down to the poor simpletons of the time and how middle class white people with no knowledge of Pali are the true people he was aiming his teachings at is incredibly offensive and harmful to Buddhists in the west who take it seriously, since it plays an active role in restricting our access to Sanghas and the wider religious community. Like with the karma thing about, historians and religious experts are in resounding agreement that the original texts and the interpretation since have referred to a literal rebirth, and the idea that Buddha was using the 'language of the time' is absurd and offensive, since he commingled with people who believed that death was the end of it and debated them in the Sutras, calling their view wrong. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Full disclosure: I come from a very skeptical background and don't believe in mysticism or superpowers. Having said that, I agree with you wafflehound. I don't define myself as a bhuddist because I'm not taking the full leap and going around believing in things I feel aren't true. However, I do say that I practice some bhuddist teachings because that's not a lie. One thing practicing has taught me is to have a much more profound respect for other people's beliefs. I think it sucks that you are feeling like your access to the worldwide religious communities is being restricted due to intolerant comments by other people. Can you explain more about that has affected you in your life? I ask because I think it's important that everyone understands how the words we speak have consequences. Right speech. These people might have had good intentions in dispelling mysticism to make bhuddism more accessible to a science based culture, but it does have consequences. For my part, I think it's better to listen to people's views non-judgementally and allow anyone to experiance the teachings as is right for them. That might mean going against things in the sutras. If something isn't workable for someone, but the general practice and belief system is a benefit, then I see that as a positive. I think that these people should be allowed to participate in sanghas too, because as you have pointed out, it sucks to feel excluded from things because of intolerance and I don't wish that on someone (a small cavat can be made here if they're actively disruptive or something like that)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:To be 100% blunt, some of the people who claim to be Buddhist in this thread are not Buddhist. I don't know if you've read my posts, but i have a feeling I might be one of those folks on your list of Non-Buddhists. I am still new to Buddhism, though. I agree with you that the Buddha never preached annihilationism, and I think it's lovely and condescending that a lot of Western Buddhists try to "claim" Buddhism by saying that they have the correct interpretation of things such as rebirth and karma. From what I understand, the Buddha denied both annihilationism and eternalism because both of those ideas are egocentric. They assume that we have an essential and unchanging identity, a true self, which exists at the core of our being and which defines who we are. But Buddhism denies that we have this: we're just a temporary combination of attributes which are always changing. We're not the same being from one moment to the next, let alone over the course of years and decades. The Blue Star that is typing this post is not the same person as the Blue Star of yesterday or 10 years ago, and tomorrow this Blue Star will not exist. This Blue Star will neither be annihilated upon death nor float up into some magical afterlife. But that's just how I understand it, so correct me if I'm wrong. But as for rebirth, I admit that I've heard all kinds of things from all kinds of sources. I'm not even sure what literal rebirth is, to be honest. People have come into this thread asking about rebirth/reincarnation, and I've said that they're different because reincarnation assumes you have a soul that is placed into another body, whereas rebirth is more like your body decomposing and all of your organic molecules being recycled back into the ecosystem. What was once "you" gets remade into other things, but it's not a one-to-one transformation like with reincarnation. I thought this was literal rebirth because I don't see how it can be any other way. If we don't have an atman, what gets reborn? What travels from one body to the next? The only way I can think to reconcile it is to evoke nonduality: that we're not separate beings within a universe that is fundamentally alien to us, but that we're all one gigantic...thing that is experiencing itself from countless subjective perspectives, each one being a sentient being. But that's too close to the Hindu idea of Brahman, so...yeah, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Wafflehound, can you help me better understand the separate realms? I see some people in the thread claiming that Buddhism can be done from a secular/atheist perspective, but I don't know how that'd be possible with the multiple realms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:Wafflehound, can you help me better understand the separate realms? I see some people in the thread claiming that Buddhism can be done from a secular/atheist perspective, but I don't know how that'd be possible with the multiple realms. The idea of separate realms is talked about sometimes as a metaphor for your mind; states for your mind to be in. (Even CTR mentions this in one of this talks about the realms in "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" which I read again recently (and so should anyone interested in this stuff IMO)). Chögyam Trungpa posted:The six realms are: the realm of the gods, the realm of the jealous gods, the human realm, the animal realm, the realm of the hungry ghosts, and the hell realm, The realms are predominantly emotional attitudes toward ourselves and our surroundings, emotional attitudes colored and reinforced by conceptual explanations and rationalizations. As human beings we may, during the course of the day, experience emotions of all of the realms, from the pride of the god realm to the hatred and paranoia of the hell realm. Nonetheless, a person's psychology is usually firmly rooted in one realm. This realm provides us with a style of confusion, a way of entertaining and occupying ourselves so as not to have to face our fundamental uncertainty, our ultimate fear that we may not exist. I think, personally, there's no need to buy the Buddhist goods whole cloth right off the bat. Reading, studying and learning with open-minded and smart people will reveal certain things to you that you never would have previously considered months before just because you are always working with your mind in meditation practice etc. Don't feel bad about not believing in rebirth or karma. Just leave them as open questions and practice the part that matters -- being a good person. You can argue that the Buddha said this and that in a sutta thus proving thus and such but there was a reason he often pushed the questions about karma and rebirth away; You need to be a good, kind person. That's basically the most important part. If you do that, the rest doesn't really matter so much. People in this thread (and the old versions of this thread were downright poisonous with it) will generally tell you that you need to believe it all or you're a closed-minded simpleton. I can say that, after doing this a while (and being scared off of "Buddhism" "buddhists" and this thread in the past), that type of dogmatism is something I've never experienced from Buddhists practicing for 40+ years yet is something I see regularly from posters in these threads. It's baffling but I guess not completely surprising since we're talking goons here. So don't get scared off. Just read books and take classes from smart people and things will start to make sense. Leave karma and rebirth as open questions and get about the business of being kind and keep turning the mind back to the four noble truths when you have some sort of question or conflict.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 13:36
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:Wafflehound, can you help me better understand the separate realms? I see some people in the thread claiming that Buddhism can be done from a secular/atheist perspective, but I don't know how that'd be possible with the multiple realms. Buddhism can't be done through a secular/atheist lens, but Buddhist practices absolutely can. They're also skillful, though the point of Buddhism is lost on the mind a bit. At the same time, Buddhism is a religion more than a philosophy, though it is a religion strongly governed by an underlying philosophy. If that makes sense. Pepsi-Tan posted:I'm not even sure what literal rebirth is, to be honest. Actually, you seem to really have a good grasp on it: Pepsi-Tan posted:From what I understand, the Buddha denied both annihilationism and eternalism because both of those ideas are egocentric. They assume that we have an essential and unchanging identity, a true self, which exists at the core of our being and which defines who we are. But Buddhism denies that we have this: we're just a temporary combination of attributes which are always changing. This is a totally spot-on way to think about rebirth. Our karma continues on into another life, continuing "us" in a way that is totally separate from any egocentric "us". Since we are essentially entirely products of our environment and physiology, whatever iteration exists in our next birth is wholly dissimilar from ourselves as we exist now, as much as we feel attached to this life, we surely felt attached to the last one, and will to the next. Only our karma continues through. Pepsi-Tan posted:The Blue Star that is typing this post is not the same person as the Blue Star of yesterday or 10 years ago, and tomorrow this Blue Star will not exist. This is a very useful thought, and it's very accurate. But it's important to understand that this isn't the teaching on rebirth in its entirety. Rebirth historically absolutely was seen as a literal cycle of death and birth, a fact which secular historians of religion are in agreement on. I have, however, heard monks give teachings on what you brought up, and it's a very useful teaching. Often it's used as an 'introduction' to rebirth for those who aren't quite at the point of believing rebirth yet, since it explains a complicated concept in an easy to grasp way that later, with practice, can be expanded on into the more difficult-to-believe bits. Pepsi-Tan posted:I thought this was literal rebirth because I don't see how it can be any other way. It is a rebirth, but not the one Buddha spoke of. An easy way to examine this without even needing to jump back into piles of sutras is to simply think of the fact that Samsara is a cycle of death and rebirth that cannot be escaped by actual bodily death, since that would be a violation of impermanence. Pepsi-Tan posted:If we don't have an atman, what gets reborn? There's a couple of different philosophies on this, but the short story is our mindstream and/or karma. I'd really like to leave that one to a couple of the other posters in here since it's a long topic. I always explain this to people as a bit like Buddhism's version of transubstantiation, There's a big "sort of, but not" here that is the subject of some of the most complex and hard to grasp Buddhist philosophy, on which volumes and volumes have been written. There's a book, "Living Yogacara" that outlines one of the schools of thought on this (that myself and quantumfate follow) which involves what's called a "basal consciousness" and is probably one of the most gentle introductions to this philosophy, though I'll admit it's one sided and not really interested in addressing the other side at all. Razage posted:If something isn't workable for someone, but the general practice and belief system is a benefit, then I see that as a positive. I think that these people should be allowed to participate in sanghas too, because as you have pointed out, it sucks to feel excluded from things because of intolerance and I don't wish that on someone (a small cavat can be made here if they're actively disruptive or something like that) I actually agree that if it's a benefit then it's a positive. Dharma practice without belief is still better than no practice or dharma. That said, I'm going to address this specific point in light of your question regarding how it has impacted my life as a dharma practitioner, since I actually deeply disagree that people who either reject or distort the sutras (not are uncertain of them!) should be allowed to participate in Sanghas as a regular thing. I say this, because many many Sanghas feel very very strongly about this issue. In many parts of the world, there exist community-run Sanghas that are designed part as outreach and part as spiritual safe space. Shambhala does a fantastic job at this, where it ranges across spiritualities and is fairly intentionally welcoming of everyone. It's designed as a teaching space for Buddhism where people are welcome to bring whatever spiritual baggage they may have with them. Many Sanghas aren't in that business, they're into providing religious services for people who belong to a certain faith. The impact of this is that a lot of sanghas become reclusive and shut out outsiders to varying degrees, I've seen this in both ethnically oriented and non-ethnically oriented sanghas. For example, some Theravada sanghas in North America are really gunshy about having foreigners there, and you have to go through quite an ordeal to demonstrate to them that you're not basically a new age hippie or someone just tagging along for the meditation without the beliefs before you stop getting the stink eye any time you step foot there. This isn't a small problem, either, it's fairly widespread. It turns out that both monks and lay folk who support the sanghas aren't too happy with people dropping in who not only don't believe their faith but disrespect it by claiming to have some deeper understanding than thousands of years of oral and scriptural transmission. There's an important distinction here between people who are still questioning on something and people who actively disbelieve something. I've also seen Zen sanghas catering to a primarily western crowd that divide their services in two, one open to the public which is generally taught as more an introduction to meditation and Buddhism, and the other as serious Buddhist practice. The former is usually held in a community space and open to all, the latter is held in a sangha and closed to people who aren't members; and membership requires a demonstration of your understanding of the Dharma which pretty heavily excludes people who try and reinterpret what Buddha taught. Buddhism as a whole tries to be fairly welcoming, in my experience, but it's very easy for Buddhist religious communities to get overrun by secular 'buddhists' and new-age types who basically shut their ears to a huge amount of the teachings, which serves as a great source of frustration to those who take it seriously, not just in part because of how it comes across when you sit in front of someone who has dedicated their life to the Dharma and think "I know this to be a fairy tail, I am more aware of the Dharma". In the end, you just get the situation you have now, where people assume certain things converts and just shut their doors until people can demonstrate they're not just treating it like secular meditation sessions with a particularly religious-feeling setting. On a similar note, people who reinterpret Buddhism beyond what it historically has been and then present themselves as Buddhist, then the public understanding of what Buddhism is becomes influenced by this. If you pull a bunch of strangers off the street and ask them "What is Buddhism?" I think you'd get a lot more answers about meditation than you would about Dharma. Meditation is good practice, but it isn't the entirety of Buddhism. This becomes a bit of a problem when you get two strangely non-Buddhist groups representing Buddhism in the west; new agers and atheists. This is common enough that the number of people who associate Buddhism with stoners is staggering, and most people are stunned to learn that Buddhism has a prohibition on intoxicants built into the precepts. Hell, I've had people who identify as Buddhist who were shocked to find that out, and then tried to justify their way around it. I'm really a fan of not proselytizing, but the dilution of the Dharma or worse, in the case of people who say "Buddha actually meant it this way" the spreading of false Dharma is a harmful thing to Buddhism, and I wish more people could understand the impact that has on the lives of practitioners. Seriously, I know I'm not the only Buddhist in this thread who shocked people that they are Buddhist and not permanently (or ever) stoned as hell, since every other person who presents themselves as Buddhist to them is. he1ixx posted:The idea of separate realms is talked about sometimes as a metaphor for your mind; states for your mind to be in. Both correct and incorrect. This is kind of like the rebirth example Blue Star brought up, where it's accurate in some ways and a very useful thought exercise, but it is never intended as an exclusive thing to the exclusions of literal realms. I hear this one a lot, where people go "Oh, Tradition X doesn't hold them to be literal places but to be simply states of the mind" and then I dig through teachings from that tradition and find the same teacher that was giving a talk on states of the mind talking about very literal rebirth in these realms in a different teaching. These are somewhat introductory teachings, in a lot of ways. They're kind of meant to show you a door to a very complicated thing, but you're still meant to open and go through that door, not just look at it and go "That's one mighty insightful door". he1ixx posted:I think, personally, there's no need to buy the Buddhist goods whole cloth right off the bat. This is a really important thing. I've never heard of a tradition that was okay with people just coming in and blindly believing everything from day one. Buddha encouraged people to probe his findings for themselves, but at the same time there's an understanding in Buddhism that you'll come to the same view the Buddha held. If you don't, that's fine, maybe next life. Rev. Kusala of Urban Dharma puts it pretty well when he says you're better off karmically trying to be a good person in your own way in succeeding than trying to be a Buddhist and doing a bad job of it. I personally take the view that you shouldn't take Refuge until you can at least see the four noble truths, which include the impermanence of death. Without refuge you're not a Buddhist, so that's where I'm coming from on that angle. I just think it's dishonest to go "I take refuge in some things the Buddha said, select portions of the Dharma, and I'll hang out and meditate in the Sangha". he1ixx posted:Don't feel bad about not believing in rebirth or karma. Just leave them as open questions and practice the part that matters -- being a good person. I'm assuming I'm one of the people you said was being poisonous with this in the old threads, so I want to address this right here: I entirely, 100% agree with you. On the part I said above about people being able to go to the Sangha if they don't believe things, I'm not talking about people who think like this. It's perfectly reasonable from the perspective of Dharma not to accept everything right away. Maybe you'll never come to accept things. The important thing is to keep your mind open to the Dharma, not to say "This is wrong. Buddha was wrong when he said this" or worse, "Buddha wasn't speaking to those poor ignorant orientals, he was speaking to me, the monolingual white guy convert whose atheist mind is better capable of understanding the Dharma than those poor eastern ignorants who are stuck in their silly superstitious ways". Uncertainty is absolutely acceptable and healthy, but if you are certain that Buddha was wrong, or if you are willing to ignore all existing understanding of Buddha's teachings in favour of a view founded in Orientalism and Imperialism then you probably shouldn't feel that you should intrude on the religious settings of others. Again, I think there's a difference here between hanging out with Buddhists in a monastery or religious setting and learning from them and saying "I have full faith in the Buddha, and desire to take refuge in him." I also fully recognize that this is just an opinion, and that some schools are perfectly happy to accept people who are still questioning but believe what they see in Buddhism and have an open mind to the rest. My real problem is someone who takes refuge, claims to be a Buddhist, and actively refutes what the Buddha taught. he1ixx posted:People in this thread (and the old versions of this thread were downright poisonous with it) will generally tell you that you need to believe it all or you're a closed-minded simpleton. I think you're misrepresenting the argument a bit. If you believe Buddha was onto something, then you need to be willing to examine what he said. If you feel he was wrong, keep the practice that works for you, but shed the label. If you never come to an understanding, but don't believe he was wrong, then that's different. It's like talking about string theory; I'm a geologist. I don't get string theory. But because I don't understand it doesn't mean I reject it. There are people out there who have a better understanding than me and reject it. There are people out there who have a better understanding than me and accept it. I can have a general understanding of both sides of the argument and feel "Yes, I believe string theory, and that with time I will gain experience that better helps me understand it" and even without a strong, hard fast understanding of the reality or unreality of the thing can bring myself into accord with those who know more. I believe the Buddha knew more, and I believe he was onto the truth, therefore I can say "I believe rebirth, I do not fully understand it and I may never fully understand it, but I believe with practice I can increase my understanding." Does that make sense? I have no problem with and see no conflict with open questions. I see people who identify as atheist as wrapping part of their identity in a rejection of dharma, and thus it is incompatible with the rest of Buddhism. I hope that makes sense and didn't come across as too dickish. edit: Looking at the size of this post is appears I am become Paramementic/quantumfate, destroyer of brevity. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:Wafflehound, can you help me better understand the separate realms? I see some people in the thread claiming that Buddhism can be done from a secular/atheist perspective, but I don't know how that'd be possible with the multiple realms. For example, when the Buddha was asked about how to realize a world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa, i.e. "heavenly realm"), this was his response: quote:Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 19:17
|
|
ad infinitum posted:For example, when the Buddha was asked about how to realize a world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa, i.e. "heavenly realm"), this was his response: Later in that very sutra though... Cuulasakuludaayisutta posted:When the mind is concentrated, pure, free from minor defilements malleable workable not disturbed, he directs the mind for knowledge of the disappearing and appearing of beings. With the purified heavenly eye beyond human, he sees beings disappearing and appearing unexalted and exalted, beautiful and ugly, arising in good and bad states according to their actions. These good beings misbehaving by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, with the wrong view of actions, after death are born in loss, in decrease, in hell. As for these good beings, well behaved in body speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, with the right view of actions after death are born in heaven. I'm not really sure how you're reading that sutra as a mind state, it seems pretty clear that the point is monks asking about if they can shape their karma to be intentionally reborn in a heavenly realm. I could be misreading it though!
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Later in that very sutra though... The Buddha is saying that there is a path for experiencing the heavenly realm, and it is through practicing the jhanas that one realizes this realm of only pleasant feelings, now, not in a future rebirth. The non-formless jhanas are often described as a greater pleasure than the greatest sense pleasure. So it's clear that this is a mind-realm that is being realized when practicing the jhanas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
ad infinitum posted:The Buddha is saying that there is a path for experiencing the heavenly realm, and it is through practicing the jhanas that one realizes this realm of only pleasant feelings, now, not in a future rebirth. The non-formless jhanas are often described as a greater pleasure than the greatest sense pleasure. So it's clear that this is a mind-realm that is being realized when practicing the jhanas. Jhanic attainments beyond the first four, mundane jhanas are directly linked to rebirth in what are called the "formless realms". These higher jhanas (arūpajhānas) are descriptive of mental states that can be attained in this life, but it is also stated that those with mastery of these particular jhanas are likely to be reborn into the corresponding formless realms, after death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is a really important thing. I've never heard of a tradition that was okay with people just coming in and blindly believing everything from day one. Buddha encouraged people to probe his findings for themselves, but at the same time there's an understanding in Buddhism that you'll come to the same view the Buddha held. If you don't, that's fine, maybe next life. Rev. Kusala of Urban Dharma puts it pretty well when he says you're better off karmically trying to be a good person in your own way in succeeding than trying to be a Buddhist and doing a bad job of it. I personally take the view that you shouldn't take Refuge until you can at least see the four noble truths, which include the impermanence of death. Without refuge you're not a Buddhist, so that's where I'm coming from on that angle. Yeah, I'm totally on board with this actually. And I would hope that the folks giving the refuge vow would only be giving it to people who have shown some understanding of the concepts and, at the very least, an open mind about them if not some indication that they're heading down the path to a deeper understanding. That said getting people "in the door" and learning the dharma is also a really important thing and also how people wear their labels is a malleable thing too. I think taking refuge formalizes it for some people (and in the eyes of other people) but its totally possible to have a person who believes this stuff (I'm being hesitant in calling them a "good Buddhist") and hasn't taken refuge. Of course maybe that wouldn't care about the label anyway  WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'm assuming I'm one of the people you said was being poisonous with this in the old threads, so I want to address this right here: I entirely, 100% agree with you. On the part I said above about people being able to go to the Sangha if they don't believe things, I'm not talking about people who think like this. It's perfectly reasonable from the perspective of Dharma not to accept everything right away. Maybe you'll never come to accept things. The important thing is to keep your mind open to the Dharma, not to say "This is wrong. Buddha was wrong when he said this" or worse, "Buddha wasn't speaking to those poor ignorant orientals, he was speaking to me, the monolingual white guy convert whose atheist mind is better capable of understanding the Dharma than those poor eastern ignorants who are stuck in their silly superstitious ways". Uncertainty is absolutely acceptable and healthy, but if you are certain that Buddha was wrong, or if you are willing to ignore all existing understanding of Buddha's teachings in favour of a view founded in Orientalism and Imperialism then you probably shouldn't feel that you should intrude on the religious settings of others. That is totally reasonable and I get that. I don't remember if you were one of the ones back in those old threads, to be honest, but I remember the whole conversation took a tone that made me run screaming even though I have an open mind about this stuff. You have been doing this long enough to know that there's a process to the path. People who come to this thread are looking for pointers and guidance on specific tenets. That's great because there are some amazing practitioners in here with a wealth of experience and reach across many different schools (theravadan, tibetan, shambhala, zen, etc). I think answers that guide and mentor tend to pull people into the conversation much quicker. I think the inclusive, patient nature of the thread so far has really yielded not only some good answers but some really good questions! WAFFLEHOUND posted:I think you're misrepresenting the argument a bit. If you believe Buddha was onto something, then you need to be willing to examine what he said. If you feel he was wrong, keep the practice that works for you, but shed the label. If you never come to an understanding, but don't believe he was wrong, then that's different. That makes sense to me and I'd agree with that. That said, if a Buddhist provides me with a really good argument for why they believe that karma or rebirth aren't an actual thing (as much as anything can be ) or that's not what the Buddha said and gives me good reasons to believe him/her (differences in translation, theory around the state of the world during that time that led to why certain suttas were written etc) then I'm just as OK with exploring that as a viable thing. I like the string theory analogy because its possible at some point that some mathematician presents a theory stating that it was decidedly false. As the Dalai Lama said, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." I think he's probably a "good Buddhist" and probably believes very much in karma and rebirth but his open mind serves as a great example for this type of discussion.  My teacher always says, however, that "many brilliant minds have studied this for 2500 years and none of them disagree on the fundamental principles of the mechanisms of karma and rebirth." I don't know how totally accurate that is but its certainly food for thought.You reply didn't come across as dickish at all. It was all really good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Thanks for this discussion, it is really interesting. It's funny because in most zen literature (even if Dogen's Shobogenzo really gives a strong perspective on life, death, time, etc), those questions about rebirth are not important at all and not really debated. It's more about living your life here and now, and not asking questions that add weight to your life instead of making you feel lighter. And i can't help but feel that really, asking myself if i'm a buddhist, if i believe in this or that, is just unnecessary weight. That said, of course, reading about buddhas teaching and studying buddhism is really incredibly interesting, and more often than not, practice allows to feel deeply the truth of some teachings. It's great and rewarding, and it makes me happy to read the posts above in which you say that what is important is to study with an open mind, without blindly rejecting or blindly accepting what is said ; this way, you give yourself a really good chance of understanding things deeply. But i would always keep in mind that in the end, it's just me, sitting there and having to live my life. No one else can do it for me. Maybe it's a bit naive, but i think that what matters is what you do, it's your life, it's not the set of beliefs you have about it. So really, i don't see how can anyone be offended if some guy says that he understands rebirth better than anyone, and is an atheist, and claims he is a buddhist. So what ? If i am okay with myself this should not bother me ; i think there is a problem if it does, because it would mean that "buddhism" then is just another strong identity i would cling to. I really have a strong faith in sitting practice. A guy who thinks buddhism is something for stoners, or hippies, or something new agey, will change his mind if he sits regularly. And anyone who thinks he understands everything about karma, rebirth, buddhas teachings, or string theory, etc, if he sits regularly, will also change his mind. For me (maybe i'm being naive again though, but it has been my experience so far), you can't go wrong if you sit "seriously" (meaning having a regular sitting practice). You can't go right, either, ahah ! About atheism etc, Brad Warner's last book, "There is no god and he is always with you", is really interesting, giving a good general zen buddhism perspective on atheism and "god".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 23:51
|
|
Ugrok posted:those questions about rebirth are not important at all and not really debated. Generally, I'd say, because they're taken for granted as true. Not because they're not important. Ugrok posted:So really, i don't see how can anyone be offended if some guy says that he understands rebirth better than anyone, and is an atheist, and claims he is a buddhist. So what ? Did you catch this part? WAFFLEHOUND posted:I say this, because many many Sanghas feel very very strongly about this issue. In many parts of the world, there exist community-run Sanghas that are designed part as outreach and part as spiritual safe space. Shambhala does a fantastic job at this, where it ranges across spiritualities and is fairly intentionally welcoming of everyone. It's designed as a teaching space for Buddhism where people are welcome to bring whatever spiritual baggage they may have with them. Many Sanghas aren't in that business, they're into providing religious services for people who belong to a certain faith. The impact of this is that a lot of sanghas become reclusive and shut out outsiders to varying degrees, I've seen this in both ethnically oriented and non-ethnically oriented sanghas. Ugrok posted:I really have a strong faith in sitting practice. A guy who thinks buddhism is something for stoners, or hippies, or something new agey, will change his mind if he sits regularly. But I was talking about public perception and understanding, not about an individual coming into Buddhism
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer and the article ! I still don't understand why some communities would, as you describe, have two sets of practice, one for "real buddhist who believe in all that they should believe in", and one for "people who think they know better than everyone else" (sorry for the caricature). I'm not from the US so maybe it's different there. But where i live, anyone can come to the zendo and sit as long as they follow a few simple rules. That's all there is, so there is no room for philosophical arguments. If, as you say, quote:It turns out that both monks and lay folk who support the sanghas aren't too happy with people dropping in who not only don't believe their faith but disrespect it by claiming to have some deeper understanding than thousands of years of oral and scriptural transmission. I think these monks and sanghas have a problem. In my mind (maybe i'm wrong, as some obviously disagree), a zen buddhist (i don't know about other schools) will sit with anyone, even with someone who disrepects him or does not believe in anything. I imagine if someone would come to our zendo and claim he knows everything better than everyone, he would just be asked to sit quietly as everyone else, and i don't see how this could cause a problem. Then if it does, he just won't come back. A buddhist monk "should" (in an ideal world, of course ; i totally understand the disturbance, i would be disturbed too - but it's one thing to be disturbed, taking it to an institutional level where you exclude practicioners based on this disturbance is another thing) not be disturbed by what others say about his practice. Disrespect is only possible if you attach a lot of importance to thoughts, ideas, identities, etc ; and for me, practice (i don't use "buddhism" here as i'm not clear about what is buddhism) is about getting rid of all this, not about enforcing them and feeling threatened when anyone says something else that what i'm supposed to believe in. Rejecting someone who is arrogant and claims he knows better is just enforcing both his arrogance and my frustration, it just builds more and more defenses when the point is to be totally defenseless. Frankly, if someone thinks he understands the dharma or anything better than me or better than my teacher or whatever, what is the problem ? Good for him, maybe i can learn from this situation one way or another ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 11:49
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Buddhism can't be done through a secular/atheist lens, but Buddhist practices absolutely can. They're also skillful, though the point of Buddhism is lost on the mind a bit. At the same time, Buddhism is a religion more than a philosophy, though it is a religion strongly governed by an underlying philosophy. If that makes sense. I have seen many people say that Bhuddism is compatible with all religions, and when I look at all the concepts even I can see that that's not true. To be accepted by very serious practitioners it sounds like one wouldn't be able to believe in any other religion. I wonder if there's some dishonesty here, a bait and switch. Like if we get people to meditate then they'll dump their old faith and join ours. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I actually agree that if it's a benefit then it's a positive. Dharma practice without belief is still better than no practice or dharma. That said, I'm going to address this specific point in light of your question regarding how it has impacted my life as a dharma practitioner, since I actually deeply disagree that people who either reject or distort the sutras (not are uncertain of them!) should be allowed to participate in Sanghas as a regular thing. There's a lot here, and for some more disclosure, I am Shambhalian so probably the loosest practice you can get on Bhuddism. Speaking in that vein though, I think there is a larger issue here though. This looks a lot like close-mindedness and attachment. I'll start off by saying that there are many points in life when we have to deal with close-minded people. Some are even close friends of mine and even in the context of that relationship I had many problems relating to them when it came to their pet issues. These things often take the form of belligerence, ignorance, and a refusal to acknowledge other points of view. A very mono-perspective to the world that's full of me me me. It's frustrating to encounter that in daily life. I mentioned before that I keep an open mind on things I don't believe. I still do, and even in this thread have talked about Karma and Rebirth with other posters and shown an interest in learning these concepts. I do this because even though I don't believe in them myself, I feel that have important value and can be used as a lens for an outlook on life and the world. I sometimes talk about these things in Sangha too, usually in a non-judgemental open-hearted manner and I think people probably know I don't buy into these things 100%, but I don't think they care because I'm not coming at them with a judgement on their beliefs. I've noticed the two sittings thing too, and I understand the reasoning behind it. Not everyone that goes is going to be a perfect bhudda and be able to react in an open hearted manner to some atheist/evangelical/stoner loudmouth in Sangha. That's the last place one would think to encounter this and in our culture such behaviour is more often rewarded then punished. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Because judgement is something I am personally working on I try to encounter these people in an open-hearted and non-judgemental way and I find it does a lot to soften them and allows them to open up a little bit. I think if they encountered this behaviour more in everyday life, these insecurities and projections of confidence would disappear. I think the two sitting solution is an okay solution, in that it allows people to discuss their beliefs without reprisal. However, I think these discussions could always benefit from more perspectives, and perhaps those practitioners can gain those perspectives in their everyday lives. It's remarkable how shy people can be in our society and I could only imagine how much people would clam up if they felt there was a critical loudmouth in the room that was going to call them out on something. Even in Shambhala, I've noticed our discussions in Sangha can be limited if people are feeling nervous. As for the wider reaching consequences of loud-mouths mis-representing Dharma. I feel for anyone that suffers consequences arising from false speech. Unfortunately ignorance can cause a lot more close-mindedness. For my part, I just regard everyone with an open heart and let my actions define my beliefs. Some might say I am a Bhuddist, some might not. I don't confirm or deny these things when asked, because I don't really believe labels are that important. I find labels are another form of judgement, and something I am moving away from in my practice. I found the article interesting too, and I agree with many of the author's points. I do disagree that discussion cannot be had with people of different beliefs. I discuss things meaningfully with people of different beliefs all the time, be they spiritual, political, or something else. I've noticed that close-mindedness is more at play here then what someone really believes. The neat thing is, in my experience, usually there is some common ground if I'm willing to listen and even allow them to take a shot or two at my beliefs if they so choose. Eventually, given space, they realize that I'm not here to judge them and then they see that it's safe to lower the barriers some and we can have a very meaningful discourse. I've by no means mastered this yet, and I still catch myself having strange defensive reactions from time to time, but I can monitor and experience these without lashing out which is a significant improvement over how I used to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Not to poke the hornet's nest too much, but where would that leave someone such as me? I do believe in a literal rebirth, have been practicing for around a year, but am not part of any sangha due to geographic distance. Am I a real Buddhist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Tubba Blubba posted:Not to poke the hornet's nest too much, but where would that leave someone such as me? In my opinion you do not need a localized sangha to take refuge, so I think you're just fine. But I would not let it worry you either way. There are plenty of monks who practice in complete seclusion for years or decades. I'd call them real Buddhists also. Solitary practice has a very real and direct presence in the Suttas. Of course they usually refer to people living in caves, but still. No local sangha. edit to clarify: The refuge in the Sangha does not specifically apply to your local sangha, or a group you sit with or associate with. Venerable Nyanaponika Thera posted:
From Nyanaponika Thera's The Threefold Refuge. Lots of detail and commentary about the Triple Gem. People Stew fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 17:59
|
|
Tubba Blubba posted:Not to poke the hornet's nest too much, but where would that leave someone such as me? I don't think that this is stirring up a hornets nest at all, though Prickley Pete has you covered, I'd say. By the way, there's a few Zendos that do webcam-based sits, depending on your timezone. Razage posted:I have seen many people say that Bhuddism is compatible with all religions, and when I look at all the concepts even I can see that that's not true. To be accepted by very serious practitioners it sounds like one wouldn't be able to believe in any other religion. I think it's less a bait and switch and more a common trend among teaching Dharma in the west. It's really common for people to start teachings with the more basic things, such as meditation and practicing being skillful. People get to this point, say "this is compatible with my pre-existing belief system" and kind of stop there, rather than realize it's a stepping stone. It's the same kind of thing you see with the "rebirths are a state of mind" teachings, they're stepping stones but people handle them as the end result. I know a few people who claim to be Buddhists Christians, and while they identify as Buddhist they don't know that impermanence explicitly expands to Gods or that Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna include "We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God." Razage posted:There's a lot here, and for some more disclosure, I am Shambhalian so probably the loosest practice you can get on Bhuddism. Speaking in that vein though, I think there is a larger issue here though. This looks a lot like close-mindedness and attachment. I hear this counterargument a fair bit, and it always blows me away. Please keep in mind I don't mean to attack you or your beliefs personally, and I'm not trying to be offensive here. There's been discussion in the past about how secular 'Buddhism' is to a degree an imperialistic construct, where people from the west with a limited understanding of the language or culture that originated Buddhism claim it as something that is their own and unilaterally declare that their way is legitimate. The thing that I have a really hard time with on the culture argument is that it's a few people who are clearly twisting the faith of millions of people, who when called on it, respond "You are doing your faith wrong, stop being so attached." Clearly non-attachment is a good thing, but I cannot think of a single other instance of Westerners taking a cultural behemoth central to the religious life of millions of people around the world, reinterpret it through a lens that is undeniably at historical odds with the teachings in the first place, and then throw it back in the face of the faithful. It is totally unfair to with one breath claim the Dharma as your own and with the other reject those with far more knowledge and expertise, using the very Dharma that has been picked and chosen from in the first place against them. You can't say "The Dharma says don't be attached to things" and then just ignore it when someone points out that the Dharma also says that believing in death without Rebirth is wrong view and, in the Buddha's words, ignorance. Razage posted:I've noticed the two sittings thing too, and I understand the reasoning behind it. Not everyone that goes is going to be a perfect bhudda and be able to react in an open hearted manner to some atheist/evangelical/stoner loudmouth in Sangha. That's the last place one would think to encounter this and in our culture such behaviour is more often rewarded then punished. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Because judgement is something I am personally working on I try to encounter these people in an open-hearted and non-judgemental way and I find it does a lot to soften them and allows them to open up a little bit. I think if they encountered this behaviour more in everyday life, these insecurities and projections of confidence would disappear. The problem is that not every religious setting should have to be a safe space for everyone of all beliefs. Buddhism in the West is a small faith, many of us are sensitive to how Buddhism is presented to the public not because we grasp some ideal label for ourselves, but because we view the Dharma as a vitally important thing to the world. Combine this with the fact that many of us (I'd wager most) have no interest in seeing Buddhism become a proselytizing faith, it's a bit horrific and watch something we hold very dear to ourselves and the entire world be reduced to nothing more than a meditative philosophy or an affectation for stoners. I think this is the huge point that "Buddhist Atheists" miss, it's not that we're attached to a label, it's that we value the Dharma dearly, and the view of Buddhism without rebirth had been resoundingly rebuke within Buddha's lifetime, so it's not only wrong view but it's actively spreading False Dharma. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I think it's less a bait and switch and more a common trend among teaching Dharma in the west. It's really common for people to start teachings with the more basic things, such as meditation and practicing being skillful. People get to this point, say "this is compatible with my pre-existing belief system" and kind of stop there, rather than realize it's a stepping stone. It's the same kind of thing you see with the "rebirths are a state of mind" teachings, they're stepping stones but people handle them as the end result. How do you react to these Bhuddist Christians when you get into spiritual matters with them? WAFFLEHOUND posted:I hear this counterargument a fair bit, and it always blows me away. Please keep in mind I don't mean to attack you or your beliefs personally, and I'm not trying to be offensive here. There's been discussion in the past about how secular 'Buddhism' is to a degree an imperialistic construct, where people from the west with a limited understanding of the language or culture that originated Buddhism claim it as something that is their own and unilaterally declare that their way is legitimate. Hmm, I'm sorry if my posts are coming off as some kind of attack on your practice or the practice of faithful bhuddists. I didn't intend it that way, as the closed-mindedness and attachment comments are more so directed at the people that do mis-interpret the Dharma and then are unwilling to discuss their interpretations in an open way. It sounds like there are some serious differences in the spiritual communities here, and I do hope that maybe at one point these two sides can talk to each other about them. WAFFLEHOUND posted:The thing that I have a really hard time with on the culture argument is that it's a few people who are clearly twisting the faith of millions of people, who when called on it, respond "You are doing your faith wrong, stop being so attached." Clearly non-attachment is a good thing, but I cannot think of a single other instance of Westerners taking a cultural behemoth central to the religious life of millions of people around the world, reinterpret it through a lens that is undeniably at historical odds with the teachings in the first place, and then throw it back in the face of the faithful. I agree that it's unfair. There are a lot of things that are unfair in this world. Many people are hippocrits or apply double standards without even realizing it. The culture argument I was referring to, wasn't an argument. It was an observation that in western countries, belligerence and ignorance are often rewarded with money, promotions, respect, and many other things that many people would view as positives. It comes as no surprise, then, that these people are doing the things you say. WAFFLEHOUND posted:The problem is that not every religious setting should have to be a safe space for everyone of all beliefs. Buddhism in the West is a small faith, many of us are sensitive to how Buddhism is presented to the public not because we grasp some ideal label for ourselves, but because we view the Dharma as a vitally important thing to the world. Combine this with the fact that many of us (I'd wager most) have no interest in seeing Buddhism become a proselytizing faith, it's a bit horrific and watch something we hold very dear to ourselves and the entire world be reduced to nothing more than a meditative philosophy or an affectation for stoners. I think this is the huge point that "Buddhist Atheists" miss, it's not that we're attached to a label, it's that we value the Dharma dearly, and the view of Buddhism without rebirth had been resoundingly rebuke within Buddha's lifetime, so it's not only wrong view but it's actively spreading False Dharma. Yes, I can see why you would be angry about people claiming things that run contrary to the Dharma. The main thrust of my post wasn't disagreeing with this at all, so I don't know where that came in. Maybe I didn't make that clear. The point of my post, is that I just don't see how tearing these people down is supposed to accomplish anything, except give them good reason to be angry with you? And I agree with them in that they might be angry, because they might be attached to their world view as well. I don't disagree that they might be wrong about that world-view, but people are wrong about a lot of things, and anger doesn't care about weather someone is right or wrong, it only sees 'the enemy' and to me it looks like both sides in this discussion have a clear enemy. Which means there's a lot of anger and suffering to go around, I am definitely not on board with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Can anyone provide a short example of something that would be considered a Vipassana meditation and a Shamatha meditation? I've tried to do some reading on them but I've having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
There is no difference. They're seperate things and incomparable really. Samatha is something that's cultivated, and it means a sort of unifying calmness. Any meditation that focuses on unifying practise and wisdom is samatha. Vipassana is insight into the underlying non-nature of things. If you're sitting dhyanayoga you're probably doing one, or both. Though if you do both, then it's just called samatha. Vipassana meditation is when the meditation is more insight oriented than calmness oriented. Both things go hand in hand, and cultivated, not practised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Can anyone provide a short example of something that would be considered a Vipassana meditation and a Shamatha meditation? I've tried to do some reading on them but I've having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around the distinction. This is all from a Theravada point of view and I'll try to cite directly from suttas. To expand on this, samatha is usually considered absorption meditation: The mind is fixed on one object (The sensation of the breath as it enters the nostrils, a kasina, metta meditation, or anything that can be focused on intently), until thoughts are calmed, quieted, and one-pointedness of mind is achieved. This state can be helpful for then turning the focused mind toward insight into the impermanent nature of things. Both samatha and vipassana come up in the suttas, and the debate over whether or not they are actually two different kinds of meditations flares up from time to time. There is a Sutta where the buddha compares four different kinds of meditators, and describes those who only practice insight versus those who only practice samatha, so I'm kind of inclined to think they are different practices, but ones that should be developed together and complement each other. Samadhi Sutta (AN 4.94) quote:"Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? etc... There are also a few other suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya (Yuganaddha Sutta) that talk about developing both insight and concentration in tandem, and how one can first focus on samatha, then vipassana, or instead start with insight, then focus on the absorption, and so on. In many of the examples in the suttas that I can recall, they are discussed together, but as though they are in fact distinct practices that produce different fruits. The last few decades have seen vipassana come forward as the main practice of most Buddhist groups in the west, and you'll rarely hear about samatha meditation it seems. I think part of this is due to the prevalence of teachers who favor the "dry insight" method (Goenka, Mahasi Sayadaw, and others), in which insight/vipassana are the entire focus of the practice. Bhante Gunaratana (the author of Mindfulness in Plain English) actually has a second book called Beyond Mindfulness in Plain English that focuses specifically on samatha meditation and jhana. It is every bit as good as his first book and I recommend it strongly. Samatha meditation is extremely helpful in calming and focusing the mind, and turning toward vipassana after reaching those states of calm has been a huge help for me, since my tendency toward scattered thought made vipassana almost impossible when I first started meditation, even after trying for weeks and months to power my way through it. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has a good piece on the differences between the two and where they exist in the suttas which might be of interest to you. I also have a short writeup that Venerable Analayo did on the subject that is in pdf form. If you are intested PM me and I'll email a copy your way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
I feel as if my concentration isn't strong enough to keep focus on my breath and I've read about practicing concentration in Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, linked in the OP. I took a glass and put it on the clean table and just stared at it for 10 minutes. I was surprised when time passed: I thought I had been sitting only 5 minutes. At some point the glass and the table also started to seem very large. Regrettably I have repeated this exercise only once and with a different object (life had happened after that) and it didn't feel the same. Perhaps the object wasn't featureless enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I feel as if my concentration isn't strong enough to keep focus on my breath and I've read about practicing concentration in Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, linked in the OP. I took a glass and put it on the clean table and just stared at it for 10 minutes. I was surprised when time passed: I thought I had been sitting only 5 minutes. At some point the glass and the table also started to seem very large. From your other thread it sounds like you're going through a lot right now so it might be really difficult to meditate. I don't mean this to say stop, definitely don't do that. Is there any activity in your life that is calming? Watching a show or reading a book or something? You could try that and then meditating right afterwords. If it's anything like my experience doing this, your mind will be full of thoughts relating to that activity rather then the jumble of important things you have going on. These thoughts will be easier to let go of and allow you to meditate. It's something Sakyong Mipham recommends in, "Turning the Mind Into an Ally." When there are severe difficulties distracting your mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Thanks! I guess my main concern is trying to be as thorough as possible. I attend a Shambhala center weekly and the leader of the group usually refers to the practice as Samatha, although lately I've also been visiting a Zen center and practicing Zazen. For the last couple of weeks when I sit I've just been sticking with Zazen and counting my breath in order to bring some sort of consistency to my meditation practice. I'm not sure where Zazen really falls into this whole continuum, but I'm guessing if I just continue with my practice and continue to interface consistently with a teacher, I won't have to worry too much whether I'm doing the "right" kind of meditation. Edit: I almost want to say that the Zazen I'm doing right now seems to fall more in line with Samatha, and then stuff like Koans or Shikantaza are more in line with cultivating insight. I know there's no real benefit in intellectually trying to categorize all these things, but it's nice to at least see the structures and similarities and have some direction to work towards, rather than just aimlessly sitting (But then again there's the whole thing about not having expectations while meditating and what not, but you know what I mean). reversefungi fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 19:38
|
|