|
I think we should move on and chalk this misunderstanding up to semantics and stubbornness, on everyone's part. Including me.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:-Emotions are pain, or rather, suffering These points in particular are where the disagreement stands. In order of appearance: 1) Emotions are pain/suffering. This is problematic because emotions are just another phenomena. The sun rising in the morning is neither pain nor suffering. A wave crashing on a beach is not in itself pain or suffering. The experience of these can be considered to be part of the all-pervasive suffering of conditioned reality, because the experience of them generates causes for future experiences. That is not to say that the phenomena themselves are suffering, but rather that experiencing them through conditioned states leads to their further generation through conditioned states. However, a thing cannot be its own cause! So the suffering of emotions, the sun, trees, wind, etc. is not inherent to those things arising and falling. Rather, it is a process, something we do with those things through our conditioned samsaric state, that makes them suffering, not the things themselves. 2) The four marks of existence state that everything is impermanent and full of suffering. Yes, this is true, but they are markedly two separate statements. Everything conditioned is impermanent. All tainted things are suffering. Those are both true statements, but the combination, that everything is condition and is suffering, is not. Again, suffering is not an intrinsic property of anything. Suffering is a mental appellation, it is added on top of things, not inherent in them themselves. Consider it like paint. You can paint a table red, but the table is not red, rather, it only appears red, having a layer of red paint on top. Break the table apart and you will see the constituent parts are not themselves red! It is merely our experience. Or with sunglasses, for example, that are polarized. They block out certain colors and enhance others, but they don't change anything fundamental about the thing. 3) Emotions are suffering, because an emotion is experienced by someone. . . Then emotions are not suffering. Ultimately, the whole argument reduces to a very madhyamaka line of reasoning that everything is empty, but without even having to play the Nagarjuna card, we can look at this particular example plainly and see it. Emotions are suffering is a statement of equivalency. This is simply not true. You can phrase it other ways and it is utterly accurate. For example, all experiences of afflictive emotions by conditioned beings are suffering, or all experiences of afflictive emotions are a cause of suffering, because all experiences of afflictive emotions do those things, but it is not an inherent property of emotion, rather, it is a conditioned property of taintedness that results from the skandhas and conceptual thought. In other words, the result of those experiences by non-enlightened beings. Enlightened beings, free from conceptual thought, or rather, attaining of non-conceptual thought, do not generate taint. However, many of these beings still have physical bodies and still exist among other beings still bound by samsara. These beings, in their nirmanakaya forms (the manifested body of a Buddha), experience impermanent things, however their experience is markedly different, being free from conceptual thought, and so being able to perfectly see things as empty. As a result, they do not cause taint, and therefore, do not generate the karma of future experiences. The Dalai Lama can choose to manifest or not to manifest. It is not part of his karma, or a karmic effect, because liberation means liberation from karma. Still, he appears (to us) to experience emotions. There is no doubt that his experience is markedly different, because he has a profound experience of non-conceptual thought that most people have never experienced, and a very few have only experienced briefly. So, again, to use the statement of identity "emotions are suffering" is false. Even the slightest qualifier "for non-enlightened beings" or "when experienced conceptually" would make the statement far more defensible, and perhaps even true, but unfortunately we were not able to reach that point for whatever reason. quote:Saying "a person that's enlightened still feels emotions" is making a really strange statement. Enlightenment exists outside a personal narrative, outside of conception of emotions and other phenomena. Emotions are inherently suffering because they are not outside of conception. Everything is outside of conception by nature. That's kind of the catch to the whole thing, and in fact is a point of doctrinal debate, so totally legitimate. From the perspective of Madhyamaka, the world we live in really exists, and there is no point to argue that it does not. All conditioned things within it are impermanent, but they are also interdependently arisen, and as a result, existent and empty at the same time. They exist relatively, but are absolutely empty. Emotions are just a phenomena, like any other phenomeona, and therefore emotions exist. They happen, they arise. But, as all things must, they also cease, they fall. So, they exist, but are ultimately empty. This happens with or without conception. Conceptual thought is an appellation, it's a thing that samsaric beings apply. It is taint. Emotions are inherently suffering is a false statement simply because emotions are ultimately emptiness. Nothing is inherently anything. Everything is primordially pure, it is all primordially empty. Emotions are suffering when they are tainted by conceptual thought, of course, but they are not inherently anything. quote:From one of Trungpa's books "Since enlightenment is based on dissolving the ego and its expectations, it has been said that you cannot watch your own burial, and you cannot congratulate yourself on becoming the first buddha of the age or the first buddha of New York." This is very much true, but I find it interesting that this is a series of people trotting out Trungpa. I suppose it follows that with Shambhala being a very large exporter of Buddhism to the West, a lot of people would be following this particular line. quote:In other words, yeah the Dalai Lama still feels sadness and still feels hurt, of course, but that awakened nature exists outside of the personal narrative that involves subject and object, or a self that experiences emotions. Does any of this sound completely off the mark? I'm still pretty fresh to the Dharma but this is my take on the whole original issue. Samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand. It's the same reality. Nirvana is that reality as it exists, primordially pure, primordially empty, experienced by a being free from conceptual thought, able to approach it with "ordinary mind" in Mahamudra or "rigpa" in Dzogchen. Samsara is that same reality, experienced by unenlightened, samsaric beings through the taint of conceptual thought. As to how HHDL experiences emotions, it's a tricky question. His nirmanakaya, his physical body manifestation, experiences emotions, but that is just another thing that arises and falls, and is not "him" any more than anything else is. Ultimately, he, too, is primordially empty. "He" is the primordially aware Buddha-nature, which we all share and are all part of. So it is true, it is ultimately unsatisfying to pursue that line because yes, he does, but no, he doesn't. Not unlike you and I, so I'm told.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think we should move on and chalk this misunderstanding up to semantics and stubbornness, on everyone's part. Including me. You're right, this is probably for the best. It was, ultimately, Wittgenstein's fault from the onset, haha. I'll say no more on this subject in the thread (unless it comes around long after we've forgotten this episode).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
I don't know why people keep saying samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand or coin or reality, whatever. I think it's horseshit. If you haven't experienced nirvana, how can you say a thing about it? Primodially this, blah-blah that. And if you have experienced nirvana, how can you say a thing about it? because it is not in 'thingness', thingness including mind and mind's tools of description. This is my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Thanks for all this! So it seems like part of the issue seems to be from the absolutist translation of that seal, which misses a whole load of points and essentially leaves the understanding in an incomplete fashion? Could you reduce " all experiences of afflictive emotions by conditioned beings are suffering, or all experiences of afflictive emotions are a cause of suffering" to even just "all experiences by conditioned beings are suffering"? Paramemetic posted:This is very much true, but I find it interesting that this is a series of people trotting out Trungpa. I suppose it follows that with Shambhala being a very large exporter of Buddhism to the West, a lot of people would be following this particular line. What seems to be the consensus on Trungpa? For a while on this thread people seemed to appreciate him but in the last couple of pages there was definitely some lashing out against him and apparently his whole body of teachings? I attend a local Shambhala sangha which envelops most of my practice, but I try to supplement it all with sutra readings and writings by authors from different traditions (mainly Zen, Theravada, and other Tibetan schools). Still, I enjoy what I've read by Trungpa even if he isn't exactly role model material, but I don't want to head down a path of pure delusion either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I don't know why people keep saying samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand or coin or reality, whatever. I think it's horseshit. If you haven't experienced nirvana, how can you say a thing about it? Primodially this, blah-blah that. It's a fair cop. And it is a failing of language, of course. You're right, we can't say a thing about it. We can only dance around it within the limitations of language. I have not experienced it myself. I have been taught this by my Lama. For scriptural authority on this teaching, I'll type up a passage from Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, translated by Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche. Gampopa posted:Explanation of the Sixth, that the Nature of Liberation is the Nature of Nirvana. If all phenomena of samsara are neither existent nor nonexistent, then is nirvana something existent or something nonexistent? Some who objectify it think that nirvana is something existent, but it's not like that. The Precious Jewel Garland says: (Redundancy in the original) This I believe is the basis for the statement "samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand." Specifically, the idea that there is nothing to remove or add, nothing to change. What you see is what there is, liberation is wishing for nothing else. The Dark Wind posted:Thanks for all this! So it seems like part of the issue seems to be from the absolutist translation of that seal, which misses a whole load of points and essentially leaves the understanding in an incomplete fashion? Could you reduce " all experiences of afflictive emotions by conditioned beings are suffering, or all experiences of afflictive emotions are a cause of suffering" to even just "all experiences by conditioned beings are suffering"? Possibly so, though I don't know where this leaves nirmanakaya manifestations of Buddhas, which have material form and therefore are conditioned, but which are not afflicted by suffering. For example, the historical Buddha, before passing into parinirvana, still had experiences, but did not generate karma. So I don't know that this further reduction would work. "conditioned beings" is a clumsy phrasing to parse though, so I might not be following the words, and if the words are meant differently than it could very well be accurate. quote:What seems to be the consensus on Trungpa? For a while on this thread people seemed to appreciate him but in the last couple of pages there was definitely some lashing out against him and apparently his whole body of teachings? I attend a local Shambhala sangha which envelops most of my practice, but I try to supplement it all with sutra readings and writings by authors from different traditions (mainly Zen, Theravada, and other Tibetan schools). Still, I enjoy what I've read by Trungpa even if he isn't exactly role model material, but I don't want to head down a path of pure delusion either. There is not likely to be a consensus. He did some way out there things. He had blessings from some very high teachers. Some people have said he caused considerably suffering, others have said he demonstrated "crazy wisdom," that is, he demonstrated the Dharma in non-traditional ways. Not having any direct knowledge of him, or even any real knowledge of any of his teachings or writings, I have no judgment at all. I just thought it was interesting that he'd come up twice now in the same subject line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think we should move on and chalk this misunderstanding up to semantics and stubbornness, on everyone's part. Including me. To debate, to argue, isn't it really a futile battle against our own perceptions? You're never going to change someone's mind unless the person you are trying to change respects and trusts you anyway. So isn't it better to always use our speech as a tool to train ourselves to be more compassionate, to be more kind, especially towards people who we think are saying 'the wrong things'? This is in no way meant as criticism of you personally, just a general remark on postin' on forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:To debate, to argue, isn't it really a futile battle against our own perceptions? You're never going to change someone's mind unless the person you are trying to change respects and trusts you anyway. So isn't it better to always use our speech as a tool to train ourselves to be more compassionate, to be more kind, especially towards people who we think are saying 'the wrong things'? Well put.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Isn't it interesting to observe your own mind when debating on an internet forum? Who are you debating against? You cannot even see the other person, you only have your own perceptions and beliefs about that other person; "this person has that opinion" - but you cannot know the opinion of the other person, you only have your own perception of another person's opinion, which is actually your opinion. It is very true. Amazing how much we can suffer when our own views are challenged. I certainly did. There is a sutta I was specifically looking for after the fact that addressed this kind of mind state. One of the many in which the Buddha debates a young brahmin so of course it was hard to find. I think it is a good chance to revisit the ideas of "views" in general, as well as the idea that one can just as easily become attached to them and experience suffering. Ajahn Thaniassaro brings this up a lot, referring to the "thicket of views" that the Buddha talked about in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. I personally think this is one of the most important suttas in the entire canon. A wandering monk asks the Buddha a series of questions and is angered when the Buddha won't answer them with a firm position of his own: quote:"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?" quote:[These positions are]a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. I think internet forums lend themselves to arguing about things that aren't useful to the ending of suffering, just as much as they can be useful in the clarification of Dharma. second edit: I just used that parallel table at Sutta Central and it says the Tibetan version of this sutta is Up 3.057. Not sure if anyone can look that up in an English translation but it'd be fun to compare. People Stew fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Question for the converts: how did you guys ultimately decide on what school of Buddhism you would follow? And how large are your classes with your instructor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Rhymenocerous post reminds me; was it mentioned earlier that there was some kind of formal, institutionalized debate in some schools of Buddhism? Or did I make that up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
I think there is some kind of formalized debate structure within Tibetan Buddhism but I'll defer to other people in this thread. I remember listening to a lecture by Dr Malcolm Eckel talking about this kind of debate and I think he talked about it in terms of Tibetan lineage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Question for the converts: how did you guys ultimately decide on what school of Buddhism you would follow? And how large are your classes with your instructor? I found Theravada while looking for good collections of suttas and ended up finding Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations. Later I found some writings by Ajahn Chah and other Thai Forest monks that really resonated with me. I was lucky enough to end up living near a very active Thai Forest sangha so that really sealed the deal. There is a monastic hermitage close to Portland, so the monks come once or twice a month to our center to give teachings and talks. I'd say that there are usually around 30 or 40 students present when the monks give talks, and around 20 or so when the talks are given by a layperson who facilitates the sessions. When a more well-known monk visits, like a monk from Thailand (either a Thai monk or a western monk who has spent a time ordained in Thailaind), the local Thai community comes out in good numbers. People Stew fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Rhymenocerous post reminds me; was it mentioned earlier that there was some kind of formal, institutionalized debate in some schools of Buddhism? Or did I make that up? Yes and it's awesome. I'm on my phone right now but I'll hopefully remember to get you some material on that. Edit: Examinations and the Organization of Debate Procedures and Rules of Debate The debate is basically a formalized procedure where they are questioned on and have to prove points pertaining to texts or ideas. There's a pretty neat accompanying "martial art" that involves gestures and clapping when points are "scored." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77BR567yEMM All in all it's a pretty neat aspect of Tibetan Buddhism. So far as I know, it does not appear in any other forms of Buddhist study. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Question for the converts: how did you guys ultimately decide on what school of Buddhism you would follow? And how large are your classes with your instructor? All the dhamma talks can be found on the Buddhist Society of Western Australia channel. Weekly meditation class by the same people can be found on the Dhammaloka channel. Live streamings at http://dhammaloka.org.au/, but it's a bit hard to follow since Australia is a way different time zone, so I usually just watch on youtube. I think it's wise to keep an open mind about what schools to follow, because they're all equally important perspectives on the dhamma. There's no school you can't learn something from  PrinceRandom posted:Rhymenocerous post reminds me; was it mentioned earlier that there was some kind of formal, institutionalized debate in some schools of Buddhism? Or did I make that up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yes and it's awesome. I'm on my phone right now but I'll hopefully remember to get you some material on that. I was there a few months ago and it is a super vibrant exchange happening between at least 100 monks. Some monks are only practicing the firm while others are actively debating. It's interesting because it's very much a tourist destination at this point, but they have done it exactly the same regardless of season for hundreds of years. Good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:but they have done it exactly the same regardless of season for hundreds of years. My Lama told me once about how depending on your teacher, some would let you wear a jacket and others wouldn't. His group opted not to wear jackets during the winter months because they wanted to be hardcore. I love that, that teenage Tibetan monks are not immune to the desire to be hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yes and it's awesome. I'm on my phone right now but I'll hopefully remember to get you some material on that. This is amazing. I had never thought to look it up so thanks for sharing. So much of the early sutras consist of doctrinal debates between the Buddha or his disciples against other ascetics, it is great to see this tradition still alive. Do you know of any English translations of a debate like this? Translations of the lines of questioning that might be asked, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I want to address the Tibetan debate thing a little bit, because I think it's being overly mystified. There's been a lot of discussion since the early 20th century about Tibetan debate, both from within the Tibetan religious community and from those who are not ethnically Tibetan who joined it. Tibetan debate isn't what you are probably used to thinking of as "debate", it's not designed to critically examine held beliefs in any meaningful way. It's designed pretty much to reinforce pre-existing teachings and, more importantly, to test the actual knowledge of the participant. For example, Gendun Chöpel pretty much got run out of Tibet in part for his attempting to debate in a way we'd consider debating. He eschewed normal structures and actually countered his debate partners with things like contrary teachings that made what him and his partner were discussing look flawed; which was dangerous. The point was to challenge the knowledge of the participants, not to actually challenge the material being 'debated'. I've read similar things from some modern sources, particularly from early Westerners to become Buddhist monks, that people who were considered "masters" at debate had simply got their memorization of the sutras down really well. It was still expected that if you 'debated' them that you obeyed the strict structure of Tibetan debate and didn't truly challenge the understanding of the teachings or, more importantly, your guru. This exact relationship has turned a lot of people who come to learn Tibetan away from Tibetan Buddhism, where in many cases what seems at first glance as true wisdom is nothing more than rote memorization once the language barrier is fully broken down. I've actually read accounts that at least until the early 70s the Dalai Lama had a similar problem, where his knowledge of the Dharma was incredible but his ability to think about it abstractly in a way we associate with wisdom wasn't that great. Clearly he's since developed that particular skill to an insane degree, but I think that's an important thing to realize. Tibetan debate is probably one of the weakest points of Vajrayana to most outsiders who learn about it, simply because we have this mental image of debate bing used to further understanding and the Tibetan style of formalized debate served the purpose of aiding memorization. For anyone interested, one of the books I've read recently that's really interesting if not very Dharma affirming is "The Novice", which is a pretty fair telling of a British hippie who ended up ordaining and later leaving Buddhism, though not until after he became fluent in Tibetan. I don't agree with some of his conclusions, but I think it's actually kind of an important work in terms of de-mystifying teachers and in helping people understand that a lot of what we perceive as "wisdom" is simply Orientalism through the lens of a strange accent. I also highly recommend Angry Monk, which is an older perspective on this from a Tibetan monk who ideologically was very similar to HHDL and yet was essentially run out of Tibet and later imprisoned for being a heretical radical. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. So they are quizzing each other rather than actually trying to sway the opponent to their position. I'll take a look at that book you mentioned.Rhymenoceros posted:I stumbled upon Ajahn Brahm on youtube, he's a monk of the thai forest tradition. He usually does a live dhamma talk every friday (everything is on youtube), and he always talks about how to apply buddhist principles in daily life. Ajahn Brahm was actually my first exposure to Dhamma talks now that I think about it. I think that is how I found out about the entire Ajahn Chah lineage, as he spent his early years at Ajahn Chah's monastery before returning to Australia. I am pretty sure I followed that trail to Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Jayasaro. Ajahn Sujato, who I mentioned previously in that early-buddhism post, is also Australian and I think he was a student of Ajahn Brahm for a while. There is something really calming and sensible about the Thai forest monks that keeps me coming back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Thanks for the clarification. So they are quizzing each other rather than actually trying to sway the opponent to their position. I'll take a look at that book you mentioned. It's less quizzing and more... a play? A play with a winner. I don't know, it's hard to describe.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:It's less quizzing and more... a play? A play with a winner. I don't know, it's hard to describe. I think the link I posted describes it very well, actually. It's a learning play, a game, wherein both parties agree to a conclusion. The questioner then challenges the defender by proposing a series of questions and lines of reasoning meant to cause the defender to fail to defend the already accepted conclusion. If the defender is forced to accept a position wherein he contradicts the agreed upon conclusion, the defender has lost, and there's a mocking jeer and so on. If the defender forces the questioner to fail, then that's humiliating to the defender. The point of the game is to reinforce people's knowledge of things they know to be true, but may not have considered all the avenues in which they know it was true. The tradition is not debate with the purpose of investigating or "winning" a debate. Both participants are Buddhist monks, usually from the same tradition, often from the same monastery. They both mutually agree on a basic tenet of Buddhism, such as the impermanence of all things, or the cause of suffering, or whatever. Then one starts to find ways to pick at it, and the other has to defend it, but must clarify the type of response to each point, being either agreement, disregarding it as irrelevant, or disagreement. It forces the monks to learn syllogistic modes of logic, to be able to defend points and know on what grounds they are defending them, and to think deeper and learn deeper ways to affirm the points they already know. It is somewhat disappointing, perhaps, to someone who is expecting this to be akin to Socratic debates in the agora, where two opposing viewpoints clash and only one remains, distilled and pure. It is not at all disappointed when it is recognized that the point is not to determine whether or not something is true, but rather to learn and develop reasons why it is true. The truth of the point is a foregone conclusion, and yet it is not unusual for the questioner to "win" by disproving the point through his questions. That does not stand to refute the truth, but rather signals that the defender ought to study his Dharma better, because he was unable to defend that Dharma. It is generally poor form to use any sources at all, for example, in these debates, because the point is that each monk should be able to defend a point of Dharma through reasoning alone, because the Dharma is ultimately reasonable. I see no reason to be disappointed in this, nor to mystify it. It is an excellent mode of training that I think would be well at home in any learning environment where one ultimately has to come to a conclusion that is already known, but may have to defend that conclusion. Consider it closer to a thesis defense than a debate. The thesis may be true, but that's not what's under examination, rather, it is the skill of the student in demonstrating that thesis that is at question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Rhymenocerous post reminds me; was it mentioned earlier that there was some kind of formal, institutionalized debate in some schools of Buddhism? Or did I make that up? Asking questions is an absolutely fundamental part of the teacher-student relationship in Buddhism. Each tradition has its own form and protocols around it. Some are very formal others very informal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 21:57
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Then one starts to find ways to pick at it I disagree with this, there's nothing I've seen or heard from Tibetan debate that implies anything meaningful from "picking at it", it's not designed to challenge a thinker as much as challenge their memory. Again, look at the Chöpel example, where he actually did pick at something and in turn pretty much died in prison. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I disagree with this, there's nothing I've seen or heard from Tibetan debate that implies anything meaningful from "picking at it", it's not designed to challenge a thinker as much as challenge their memory. Again, look at the Chöpel example, where he actually did pick at something and in turn pretty much died in prison. It's very much meant to pick at it, the questioner challenges the defender by picking at the point as best as possible. His entire goal is to get the defender to backtrack on or force the defender to logically defeat the point they agreed upon at the beginning. Only, the questioner actually agrees with what he's picking at. It's a learning drill. That the first stage of the debate is making sure both parties firmly agree on the truth of the statement being defended should make that clear. It's also why there is not much formalized debate between traditions, because it is extremely difficult to get to the point where both questioner and defender can go "okay, we both agree on this point exactly."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:06
|
|
This was meant to be a new post, not an edit:The-Mole posted:Asking questions is an absolutely fundamental part of the teacher-student relationship in Buddhism. A lot of Buddhist traditions distinguish asking questions of your teacher and challenging your teacher's knowledge. I've never met a Buddhist teacher in the West who didn't fundamentally grasp that the way Westerners view a student-teacher relationship is that it's question-heavy and not just knowledge-bombing you, and this obviously doesn't apply to all traditions. Still, it's a really hard line to draw for those of us who not only grew up thinking but still believe that all questions are good. The idea that there's a distinction between asking a question of your teacher and challenging your teacher's authority in a bad way is really hard to grasp, and is one of the bigger problems I have with Buddhism. It's one of the very few places I'm glad to have seen something akin to syncretism since I think all Buddhists benefit from it, and in the specific case of Vajrayana HHDL has been shoving it down the throat of Tibetans in a way that makes (or made) many people uncomfortable since he started hanging out with Heinrich Harrer. That said, from the book I mentioned: quote:Every significant term in every branch of study is defined in each monastery’s textbooks, and debate is largely about these terms and their relationships. I was therefore disconcerted to learn, for example, that a valid cognition is defined as “any cognition that apprehends a valid object,” and avalid object as “anything apprehended by a valid cognition.”
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
This is a really interesting thing to consider. I've seen two sides of this issue in my experience in a Thai Forest sangha. I have seen teachers questioned by western students in pretty substantial ways which demanded detailed answers and the teacher-student dynamic felt more like a college class than a religious setting. I have also seen the exact opposite, where a teacher ( a monk) reacted in a very short, almost annoyed way at being questioned about something they said (it was a question about anatta after the monk had made a statement that seemed contradictory to some suttas). I think in that case the teacher felt challenged instead of being in a position to clarify a point of doctrine. I have also noticed that western lay practitioners seem much more forward, almost aggressive in the way they press monks for answers on questions about doctrine - not in a mean spirited way but it is distinctly different than the way our Thai members interact with the monks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
It's probably a convert thing; "More Catholic than the pope" If you have converted to a religion then you are probably came to it through extensive research and you probably want more. Maybe a cultural thing too though I'm less sure about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I have also noticed that western lay practitioners seem much more forward, almost aggressive in the way they press monks for answers on questions about doctrine - not in a mean spirited way but it is distinctly different than the way our Thai members interact with the monks. Its also a difference of cultural institutions. From what a cultural anthropologist who did all of his field work in Burma and Thailand told me, in Thai Buddhism and it's regional Sangha, if not concurrently than up until recently, joining the Sangha and becoming a monk is a part of every boy's schooling and socialization. They become "monks" for a short period of time, and then eventually leave the sangha to resume normal Thai life as they come of age, with some remaining in the sangha and becoming more typical models of institutionalized monks. They're pillars of society and involved in socialization to such a degree that most Thai people are not going to be so direct and caustic with monks, who many of them have acted deferentially towards since a very early age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused on the Tibetan debate thing. I understand that the particular form of debate is an exercise for learning the religion. Do these monks ever practice having their views actually challenged so the can experience that? Because once anyone leaves the monastery it's probably going to happen a lot. I'm not even a monk and sometimes when I'm talking with people about stuff there's some grit because we don't agree on something. It's a valuable experience that, with mindfulness, helps me see how I react to things. I imagine this would be an important experience for a Monk or Nun as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
A competent questioner makes challenges that have been historically used against whatever point they are debating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
"Relating to Spiritual Teachers" (available online at http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1305527811.html ) is a good book about the ways the relationships between student and teacher in (I believe Tibetan Buddhism) are understood to optimally work. I'd be curious to hear some of y'alls perspectives on it, since what I read of it seemed to do a good job delineating the difference between asking meaningful, useful questions (that both help one's self, and others, as well as stimulate the memory of the asked).Razage posted:I'm a bit confused on the Tibetan debate thing. I understand that the particular form of debate is an exercise for learning the religion. Do these monks ever practice having their views actually challenged so the can experience that? Because once anyone leaves the monastery it's probably going to happen a lot. I'm absolutely not a scholar on Tibetan Buddhism, so take what I say with a helping of salt: Tibetan Buddhism isn't really a 'go get trained in a monastery and then leave and go out and preach to the masses with the goal of converting them to your right way of thinking.' Among vow holders/takers, there's a serious expectation of respecting the secrecy (for lack of a better word) of certain practices. Outside of a fellow practitioner, one probably isn't going to talk about some practices more than once or twice a year, if even that often. So a practice place is more of a place one goes specifically to run into fellow practitioners who could even make sense out of what is being talked about. To put it in a somewhat different way: many people seem to imagine that Tibetan Buddhist path are much like the Christian path: go to seminary or divinity school, get ordained, shepherd a congregation, conduct weddings, visit the sick, oversee a bit of charitable stuff. All that is great, don't get me wrong, but the emphasis and expectation of needing always more quantity of students/members of a congregation etc. is not absent in Tibetan Buddhism, but not nearly as primary. Once one is talking about the Yogic traditions, the emphasis is pretty solidly on developing the quality of one's practice and not on simply filling a lot of robes with warm bodies. The reason for this focus that apparently is a little counter-intuitive to our good ol' western sensibilities is that the actual 'activity' that 'fully trained' Tibetan Buddhists generally engage in (I put those in semi-quotes because you'll likely never hear those words from them) are almost specifically intended to be, by and large, passive. Speaking of the role of questions, by the way, someone once asked, "how do the thousand [transformative, helpful] arms of Avalokitesvara work?" The reply was, "Just as a sleeping person adjusts a pillow without waking." The idea is that certain practices, while not done openly, combined with a person diligently following precepts will be of real, meaningful service to those around them without ever having to preach to a single congregation, ever. So extensive debate is not considered exactly necessary since being kind, patient, compassionate, honest, peaceful, and generously helpful requires no debate to develop. It is generally understood that one is better off developing those qualities than intellectually learning a bunch of stuff that will never be put into practice without the support of the basic practice of being a decent human being to one's fellow man. To those dedicated to being of service to humanity, there is much room for debate about how best to accomplish that goal and what all to watch out for. Does that make sense? Again, I'm no scholar, anyone who is more familiar with Tibetan branches of Buddhism is utterly welcome to jump in and correct all the things I probably got wrong in that. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A competent questioner makes challenges that have been historically used against whatever point they are debating. Yes, but it's a bit different when the guy your debating against is on your, "Side," So to speak. He will probably accept things that the Hard-nosed-Fedora-wearing Athiest won't. So if, as the reason for why Rebirth is real, Sutta xyz is given, the formal debater would accept this, the Athiest would not. This occurrence of hard opposition and stubbornness is very educational I think, and I wonder if Monks or Nuns ever train or practice something like this to learn more about themselves. To me, this kind of thing is where the practice really shines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
I recently started reading this book which goes *very* in depth about the Tibetan scholastic and monastic traditions, how they work, where they originated from and centrally focused on the role of debate. The writer was a Westerner who moved to Tibet to join a monastery and knew the Dalai Lama. It's an interesting book, if not a little dry: The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. It's worth a look if you're really interested in this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:55
|
|
Razage posted:Yes, but it's a bit different when the guy your debating against is on your, "Side," So to speak. The reason I take issue with the debate tradition is it's not only someone on your side, but finding interesting loopholes in the material itself is verboten. You're only meant to look for flaws in the actual arguments made. This basically lead to a few hundred years of really really dumb beliefs (nothing can go taller than Mt. Meru, therefore either the space program was faked or the results were faked and the winds actually destroyed the shuttles/probes/Sputnik/whatever) and an inability to critically examine their own tradition that extends to the point that it's actually not as strong as it could be.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Argh. I'm still fixated on how rebith is possible. Doesn't it depend on some kind of consciousness that trancends the brain? I was reading Susan Blackmore , a Zen practitioners who says that idea flies in the face of all we know in neuroscience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Argh. I'm still fixated on how rebith is possible. Doesn't it depend on some kind of consciousness that trancends the brain? I was reading Susan Blackmore , a Zen practitioners who says that idea flies in the face of all we know in neuroscience. ....thinks about case [3] [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Are you really dense, or what. Yes, it depends on consciousness that transcends the brain, that's the whole loving point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Is it wrong to laugh at this? Please enjoy this opportunity to meditate on the following koan: What is the sound of one person not posting? User loses posting privileges for 3 days. Because its right up there with the Blue Cliff Record koans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:16
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Argh. I'm still fixated on how rebith is possible. Doesn't it depend on some kind of consciousness that trancends the brain? I was reading Susan Blackmore , a Zen practitioners who says that idea flies in the face of all we know in neuroscience. Welcome to religion, if we could prove scientifically every claim we make it'd be science. Mr. Mambold posted:Please enjoy this opportunity to meditate on the following koan: Art.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Argh. I'm still fixated on how rebith is possible. Doesn't it depend on some kind of consciousness that trancends the brain? I was reading Susan Blackmore , a Zen practitioners who says that idea flies in the face of all we know in neuroscience. What else did she say about it? Is she a zen practitioner who denies rebirth? Does she have some sort of way of reconciling this very core idea of the Buddha's teaching with her own modern understanding? It comes up a lot so I am always interested in seeing how people address this issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:23
|
|