|
I'm not touching it, but you have been rather incisive in your language towards others, bordering vitriol. You faux-pas about anti-psychotics and mood stabilizers is incredibly worrisome and in poor taste here- there are tons of people who come into buddhist groups as part of their therapy, secular meditation like vipassana is hugely helpful. To encourage noncompliance with medication in a setting where someone might be in a poor place to handle that, or in genuine need, is pretty dangerous, dude.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Quantumfate posted:
There's a saying "shop around for doctors". Psychiatrists are not gods nor particularly wise on the whole. In fact, according to a clinical psychologist I've known all my life, they've (and this is a generalization) gotten pretty drat promiscuous in the last 30 or so years in prescribing powerful drugs that they really don't know all the effects of. The subject of mental illness is maybe not covered in depth or at all in original buddhism....and there are as many flavors of mental illness as there are people. Don't think that because you're functional in society, you're not mentally ill. It takes a very honest person to admit that they are ill and need a 'doctor' of some sort. The Buddha called himself a doctor, and he was. I'm kind of rambling here, but my points are that a person can be called 'mentally ill' for a number of reasons- a label does not a thing make...and that Western society has a different attitude toward the 'strange' than in the East. In India especially, there is much more tolerance. There are beings there that live naked on trash heaps or in gutters and appear totally mad to the superficial eye, but who are in fact, more spiritually advanced than anyone you'll ever meet. Our Western society is extremely conformist and behaviorally repressive as a result, quick to label and judge. This is mind and spirit killing, and its eagerness to prescribe powerful psychotropic drugs to treat virtually any aberrant behavior is quite brutal and reactionary IMO. In other words, some people who have been labeled and branded as mentally ill are in fact not as ill as the people who have labeled them that- they are rather explorers of their own worldviews.. /  Quantumfate posted:Anyways, Guildencrantz! You bring up a very good question, there isn't a good general conception of heresy, which has caused problems before in buddhist communities- Japan in ww2, the ikko-ikki, nichiren, thai anti-muslim animus, etc It's a very interesting thing to me that one of the amazing things about buddhism was that it was available to the untouchable caste and offered an amazing societal release from the crushing fate of being lower than a dog in that society 25 centuries ago. It gave the poo poo-people a way out of a very rigid...lovely life. Gautama paradoxically made his dharma available to all including untouchables, after some cajoling, but in fact, I think all his disciples and closest attendants were from the well born kshatriya caste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:35
|
|
RESPONSIBLE NOTE
|
Neither the time, nor the place to be having this discussion. If you want to discuss buddhism in the context of cognitive behavioural therapy, or the neurology of buddhism, that's a different matter. Yes, there are people who live in piles of garbage while smiling and happy with themselves, yes there is a slight overmedication in some respects- But bringing it up like that reads as an excuse for not seeking the help needed. Like you said, takes a very honest person to admit they need to seek redress, let's not throw more on the pile keeping people from doing so? More harm than good. People will genuinely suffer regardless of material status or status of birth, you need only look at Sakyamuni to see that, he himself had every luxury and was still left horribly empty within.Mr. Mambold posted:It's a very interesting thing to me that one of the amazing things about buddhism was that it was available to the untouchable caste and offered an amazing societal release from the crushing fate of being lower than a dog in that society 25 centuries ago. It gave the poo poo-people a way out of a very rigid...lovely life. Gautama paradoxically made his dharma available to all including untouchables, after some cajoling, but in fact, I think all his disciples and closest attendants were from the well born kshatriya caste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
This is a much less important concern, but it also gives quite a bit of credence to the idea that Buddhist are a bunch of alternative-medicine, psuedo-science, loving hippies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
I don't mean to derail either, but I've had some thoughts that I would like to share, specifically about rebirth, and I would like to hear your responses to it if possible. As someone who perhaps misguidedly considered himself to be a 'rationalist' and 'skeptic' for most of my life, I've generally felt for quite a long time that a belief in anything other than annihilation upon death would be ridiculous and antithetical to scientific reasoning. And that rebirth is a magical and supernatural concept. That feeling has changed however. In the past I had assumed that annihilationism was derived from applying Occam's Razor to the existence of the mind -- "We know the mind exists at least once, but we cannot assume it will ever exist again or has ever existed in the past." But this view is taken to an extreme. It's not just that "I" cease to exist upon death, it's literally all of existence. It's as if its not that the mind is a manifestation of things within reality, but that reality only exists within the realm of the mind. Therefore, before we are born, and after we die, there is literally nothing. No thought, feeling, or existence of any kind. True annihilation. In a sense, it is based upon the assumption that the existence of the self is not only primary, but perhaps the only thing that exists at all. Therefore, death is not the cessation of the self, but rather, the cessation of everything except the self, including the brain and all of our senses, which are basically thought to exist outside of the self in the physical world. It's practically the opposite of "no self." It's "only self." That is how I interpret annihilationism, and probably why the concept of death is so frightening to many people who believe this idea. My argument is that it is really no different from permanent self. But that philosophy clearly cannot be a consequence of Occam's Razor. Rebirth, however, seems to be far less extreme than annihilation. We take what we know at this moment -- that we are experiencing the idea of a "self" and that this "self" came into existence at some point. But in annihilation, the self only comes into existence once, and is destroyed only once, but there is no explanation for why it had to arise in this time and place. There is no cause that brings it into being. Rebirth makes things more simple. It says only that if we are experiencing a "self" now, then it had to have been that way, i.e., there must have been a cause. There is no permanent self, just a "self" that was a consequence of the self which existed immediately prior to it. Why should death or birth break that chain of causality? The only chain that is broken is the chain of memories, and thus the identity that is created from that chain. So in some ways rebirth relies on fewer assumptions than annihilation. The only assumptions being that there is causality and that ego must fall within causality. All that being said however, I think annihilation is becoming a less popular viewpoint among those who consider themselves to be completely non-religious. What is more popular now, I believe, is that there is literally no answer to these questions at all and that it is basically impossible to know anything, especially about things like what happens after death. A very strong form of agnosticism, really. To me it seems like an excuse to not worry or think about these matters at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
It's friday the 13th and my mala broke. I will die in 7 days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Your mala broke on friday the 13th, that means it took the negative karma of the day instead of you.  EDIT: A page of probations and a fitting name change 
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Jacobeus posted:I don't mean to derail either, but I've had some thoughts that I would like to share, specifically about rebirth, and I would like to hear your responses to it if possible. That's an interesting viewpoint, but it sounds almost like solipsism: the idea that you are all that exists and everything else is merely your imagination. But I can sorta see what you're saying. If we strip away everything which is Not-Self (the body, thoughts, sensation, perception, etc.), and are left with only emptiness or voidness, then maybe that voidness is the Self, our true nature, as with everything else. Before we were conceived, there was no perception, no sensation, no reflection, no memory, only Self. But as we grew from a zygote into a fetus and finally into a fully-developed human being, we gradually developed these aggregates and started to have subjective experience created by our senses, perceptions, thoughts, and memories, all of which started to clutter our point-of-view, leaving the Self to just serve as a backdrop. As we grow and experience the world, we stop noticing the backdrop, the Self, and instead just concentrate on the temporary, fleeting, mutable, mercurial aggregates. It's also worth pointing out that according to modern neuroscience the outside world that we perceive is really a construction of our brain. In other words, you're not seeing the world as it objectively is, but only what your own brain has created. Other animals experience the world differently because they have different sensory apparatuses and brains, and therefore different mental constructs; in other words, different aggregates. So the "world" is entirely a construct of these impermanent and ever-changing aggregates, and underneath it all is the true unchanging and eternal Self, emptiness. The emptiness was there before and will remain after the aggregates have dissipated. The world is gone by the Self remains, as if the world was just a dream and the true Self woke up. It's an interesting idea but it sounds too much like Advaita Vedanta. It reifies emptiness/sunyata, giving us something to cling to as being eternal and permanent. It makes sunyata into something like Brahman, which, again, is an interesting idea but there's a reason I lean towards Buddhism and not Hinduism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Just as a kind of casual side note on hinayana, because I know I'm prone to use the term, it is notable that at least in Vajrayana what we call the Hinayana is in fact the most important part of the practices. The fundamental aspects that pervade from Theravada up through the highest Mahayoga Tantra practices are compassion and emptiness, both what the Buddha taught. Sometimes I use the term out of habit. It's what we call it, it's what my teachers call it, and so on. But I have never, not once, heard it used as a derogatory term, and every time it is brought up, it has been in the context of "you have to do all this stuff first, you can't just do high yoga practices." Also to clarify, the idea of Hinayana/Theravada being a car that will get one person to the destination, Mahayana being like a bus, that can get many people to the destination, and Vajrayana being like a plane, that can get many people there much more quickly, but is much more dangerous and has the chance of spectacular failure, comes from a teaching by my Lama. In some kind of Zen like manner, someone then asked him how many people can fit on the Vajra airplane, and he replied "infinite" whilst waving his hand to dismiss further laboring the metaphor. Jacobeus posted:Words about annihilationism This is a good line of reasoning. I think the conclusion that everything is destroyed is a good way to approach this idea that the self ends. The fact is that yes, the entire experience of existence from that viewpoint does end. But other viewpoints arise, and other viewpoints exist simultaneously, such that dependently arisen consensus reality is a sort of ongoing event that is aware of itself. One point of awareness might cease, but just like when a single atom of your body dies, it makes no difference, similarly, when "you" die, it makes no difference. Everything just continues. Rebirth is that continuation. Our "self" is simply self-awareness, and even if this point of self-awareness ends, others will arise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Not to interrupt the derail, but I've got an outsider question that I don't think has been asked before:  ) rather than any major religious or philosophical differences. In general, and keep in mind my perspective, I don't think laypeople know or care but there's definitely something weird going on. I do sense a divide in the West between Western converts (who are overwhelmingly white) and the descendants of refugees and immigrants from Asia. Some of it is just differences in practice (like meditation; you guys meditate a lot) or schools (I've noticed that Westerners tend to be drawn to either Tibetan or Zen). At first you go "oh cool, more Buddhists" and then some of them pull out anti-vax and anti-psychiatric medicine poo poo and  . Vaccinate your kids.Paramemetic posted:Also to clarify, the idea of Hinayana/Theravada being a car that will get one person to the destination, Mahayana being like a bus, that can get many people to the destination, and Vajrayana being like a plane, that can get many people there much more quickly, but is much more dangerous and has the chance of spectacular failure, comes from a teaching by my Lama. In some kind of Zen like manner, someone then asked him how many people can fit on the Vajra airplane, and he replied "infinite" whilst waving his hand to dismiss further laboring the metaphor. Also for Bodhi Day I won a calendar in a raffle. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Vajrayana is Tibetan, right? Do you mind elaborating on why it's more "dangerous"? More correctly I think Tibetan Buddhism is Vajrayana. The reason it's more "dangerous" is that it is very easy to get confused and end up adopting wrong views or engaging in amoral behaviors without proper guidance. It is also ostensibly possible to go crazy from performing certain practices incorrectly or getting too caught up in things and so on. It involves a lot of esotericism not because of any intent to "keep out riff raff" or something, but because a person can get very confused by it. A lot of the higher concepts seem superficially straightforward but without proper groundwork it is very easy to take them the wrong way. A very common example is that tantric practitioners do follow the same precepts, but there are rituals in which they consume meat or alcohol and so on. It is not uncommon for people unfamiliar with these modes of practice to go "oh, even the precepts are emptiness. We all have a Buddha-nature and it is our natural state, so I don't need to practice anything at all! I'm already enlightened, because samsara and nirvana are the same! Wow!" Reading certain texts or listening to certain teachings, it is not unheard of for people to take away that message when it is very much off point. So it's not "dangerous" in the sense that, you know, deities are going to smite you or whatnot, but it can be dangerous in that it can lead one down a false path if it's not done "right." It is also "dangerous" for the teachers, because it is generally understood that if a teacher gives a teaching to someone who is not ready and that person ends up suffering because of it, the teacher is responsible karmically for that. So many teachers are very hesitant to simply teach anyone. Also, there can be a tendency towards going too far towards the extreme of nihilism, which is dangerous because it is trivial to prove to someone that essentialism is not true and things don't have intrinsic nature, but it is very difficult to prove to a firm nihilist that things do exist. It is said that for this reason a wrong understanding or too early teaching of sunyata is very dangerous. Since a lot of vajrayana practice predicates on the idea that visualizations and mental manifestations are equivalent to physical manifestations because ultimately both share an empty nature, the concept of emptiness is very present and so it is easy to have this problem, or to make the wrong elaboration. For example, through visualization one might manifest a "refuge tree" which is a kind of spatial mapping of lamas, Buddhas, protector deities, and so on, in front of themselves in order to take refuge or do prostrations. This visualized refuge tree is considered to be equivalent to as if you were doing it for the actual individuals on the tree, which is why it accumulates oodles of merit. The subtext is that a representation is the same as the thing itself, but many people take from this that the physical world is not real, and is imaginary in the same sense as the visualized world. This is true, but not in the sense that the physical world isn't real. Both are empty, but emptiness is not the same as non-existence or "not being real." So it is easy to get confused and lost even at this basic level without a qualified instructor. There are more reasons that are primarily metaphysical, but those weren't what my teacher was referring to when he said that. tldr it's a lot easier to screw up Vajrayana and end up no better than one started, or worse, end up misguided and following and teaching false dharmas, because it is so involved and has so many facets that are not really necessary for Buddhist practice. It's not like if you do a minor point of ritual wrong you'll end up in a hell realm, but you might end up with very wrong ideas which you'll then spread and potentially cause lots of suffering inadvertently. Edit: also yeah, it's possible to learn things too quickly or to be exposed to things presented in a strange way that one doesn't understand intuitively and seems just hell of bizarre, and then you think "welp if Buddhism is all about naked red ladies wearing skulls and stomping on cadavers while making love to giant blue demon lookin' dudes, this is some weird cult poo poo I'm OUT." Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:I do sense a divide in the West between Western converts (who are overwhelmingly white) and the descendants of refugees and immigrants from Asia. Time to make the thread uncomfortable- How many of us have been guilty of using western as a code word for white people? Or who put more trust in a teacher because they're non-white? I can assure you though, that the crazy new age people are problem you encounter no matter what. Especially the closer you are to California, and I am really close to California. The meditation thing is always interesting to me though. I think a big part of that is that there's no zealot like a convert, and there aren't many western buddhists born into it that aren't part of an ethnically buddhist community. Autumncomet posted:Vajrayana is Tibetan, right? Do you mind elaborating on why it's more "dangerous"? Autumncomet posted:Also for Bodhi Day I won a calendar in a raffle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Do ya'll think that meditation is essential to really comprehend Buddhist philosophy? Like it was mentioned earlier by Autumn that many lay people in majority Buddhist countries don't really do it and view it as "a thing for monks"; would you say they, for lack of a better phrase, doing a disservice to the dharma? Typing it out it feels like I'm mimicking people who say that you can't be really Christian (or non-Christian) until you've really prayed and gone to church a lot and stuff. Edit: It also sort of feels like I'm mystifying meditation to the extent of prayer... PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I can assure you though, that the crazy new age people are problem you encounter no matter what. Especially the closer you are to California, and I am really close to California. The meditation thing is always interesting to me though. I think a big part of that is that there's no zealot like a convert, and there aren't many western buddhists born into it that aren't part of an ethnically buddhist community. I think part of the meditation thing is that meditation is an "easy" identifier of Buddhist practice. For people who aren't raised Buddhist or from Buddhist cultures, there isn't much that signifies a Buddhist from a non-Buddhist. And because people love to be identified in that way, they meditate because they can say "welp being Buddhist means I meditate." As for the wrathful deity literally eating you, not so much, but that does remind me of the other more metaphysical danger which is that in deity yoga, an aspect of Vajrayana, one visualizes oneself as the deity, inseparable from the deity, and recognizes the truth of this through primordial emptiness. So if you're doing Chenrezig, that's pretty benign, you visualize the deity in front of yourself then it becomes you and you become it and you're Chenrezig and you're saying your mantra and being Chenrezig and being super compassionate and kind and loving. Or maybe you do it with Tara, and the same thing, you have motherly love and compassion towards all beings, and you yearn to remove their suffering, and you see all their suffering and so on. But maybe you do it with a Heruka and you're a blood drinking wrathful diety filled with wrathful detachment from the ignorance of the world. When you meditate so, if you do not have genuine bodhicitta, you might internalize the angry emotions without properly tempering them with compassion, and now you have made yourself into a hate-machine through visualization and meditation. Hate is an afflictive emotion, and causes suffering, so basically now you've just meditated yourself into more suffering because you were doing something above your grade essentially. An advanced yogi can do this perhaps without any problem, but a regular practitioner could end up far worse off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Do ya'll think that meditation is essential to really comprehend Buddhist philosophy? Like it was mentioned earlier by Autumn that many lay people in majority Buddhist countries don't really do it and view it as "a thing for monks"; would you say they, for lack of a better phrase, doing a disservice to the dharma? The difference is that buddhism has never been a lay tradition. It's always been something for monks. The beleif for most lay people in buddhist countries is that it's a thing for monks, your average tibetan yak herder tithes lamas, sends a kid or two off to a monastery, gives wandering tulkus food and asks them to pray for them. The conception is "Oh, I'll just be born into a monk in the future" A lot of western buddhists have taken the protestant reformation and ran with it, looking for a buddhism that suits being a householder yogin. So yes, I think meditation is important to really grasp it- There's just plenty of lifetimes to do that. EDIT: also the thing about a wrathful deity eating you was a joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Do ya'll think that meditation is essential to really comprehend Buddhist philosophy? Like it was mentioned earlier by Autumn that many lay people in majority Buddhist countries don't really do it and view it as "a thing for monks"; would you say they, for lack of a better phrase, doing a disservice to the dharma? I think meditation is important to Buddhist practice. It's notable that lay people in majority Buddhist countries often also don't actually intend to be making a stab at enlightenment in this lifetime (Tibet excluded). In majority Buddhist countries I feel like there's a much more solid understanding that there will be other lives and chances and so on. Especially this is true in Theravadan nations, where it's understood (so I understand) that meditation and even enlightenment are more or less a thing for monks, and for a lay person the goal is mainly to support the monastic community in order to hopefully be born someday as a monk, and then they'll do monk things. It is important to Buddhist practice, but really meditation is just an important thing. It is generally healthy, and contemplative learning is an awesome method of working with information even outside a Buddhist framework. Having the mental discipline to work through problems from multiple directions and so on without discursive thought is useful even outside Buddhist practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
I wish I could hold an agnostic view on death; while I'm having my existential crisis one of the things that helped me at one point was viewing death as a "great mystery" but then I skimmed a free philosophy class recorded by Yale University about Death that struck a cord. His conclusion is essentially that death is only a mystery because humans willed it to be so. The views on rebirth here (and elsewhere) seem to be split between a view of a being loosely related to me will "wake up" from death and that I will die but Life continues until some future being exhausts my and others karma and gets out of the game and, unless I accomplish it in this life, I will never get nirvana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers everyone! This is really educational. Also slightly confusing, but mostly educational. The-Mole posted:Nevermind, dunno how to put that in a way that couldn't be misused or probably dangerously misinterpreted. Um, I'm honestly not trying to refer to any specific one  Sorry if my post gave that idea. I have zero opinions whatsoever about the different schools of Buddhism, I was asking out of pure curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
edit- Not Working
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
There's something beautiful about the fact that your link takes me to "404, page not found". I think I was just enlightened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
This link needs to be here. Serotonin deficiency may not cause depression after all.". But all behavioral problems can be traced to chemical imbalances?? Have faith in the almighty drug? Maybe it's like America's new religion and this is sacrilege (until they make the new latest and greatest drugs). But this is a great example of millions of people believing something and defending it endlessly and then it may turn out not to be even true. Big surprise. It was too easy. Just inspect your own mind, it's all you have in the end. And ask for help from your fellow human beings on the path. I actually took antidepressants for a month a long time ago, and they helped me see where I wanted to be, and I stopped taking them soon after. Clomipramine it was called. An MAOI. So I can sorta see the appeal and maybe the need. Just don't trust the doctors about their use, they just hand them out, no one knows why they do what they do or what the problem even is, as that article hints at. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Seriously dude, please can we not keep doing this? No one is saying all problems can be traced to chemical imbalances but that is a thing, one that is dangerous to counter because these are people who cannot trust their own mind. As well clomipramine is not an MAOI, it's a TCA. To add: Something interesting from the political maps thread 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Seriously dude, please can we not keep doing this? No one is saying all problems can be traced to chemical imbalances but that is a thing, one that is dangerous to counter because these are people who cannot trust their own mind. And the whole point is you CAN trust your own mind. A fearful Buddhist is a very poor Buddhist. And I see a LOT of fear in this thread. People, you need to learn some courage. Go out and fight your fears. That's the first (and last) step. However, if you feel totally out of control, seek help somehow. Doesn't have to be "professional" help, just help. But everyone defers to them these days (as well as the "authorities") so I guess you might as well start there. We lack culture in the US, it's every man for themself until we all get on the same page somehow, through some social miracle. Until that point, we will continue to defer to powers that we think are above us. Not sure if that day will ever come but it's worth working towards. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
If you wish to talk about how the dharma can be a useful tool as therapy, by all means start orienting your discussion that way. I have links in the OP specifically to help people who may be wondering that. However, someone whose own mind tells them, with their full control, that hey, what if they just stepped into that oncoming traffic? They aren't going to be helped when that same mind is saying "Come on, you don't need these medications, americans are over-medicated and your problem probably isn't a chemical imbalance, it's all in your head. Just stop taking them and get yourself on track, you can trust yourself!" That's the danger of that. If you want to have a discussion about prescripotion culture in the US, by all means open up a thread in D&D or trot over to the goon doctor. But there's a reason this stuff doesn't crop up in the liturgical christianity or muslim threads, because buddhism has this image associated with it of being an alternative to western schema. So people coming here are looking for excuses. Most buddhist teachers will agree that medication can be useful in treating chemical imbalances in the brain (And there ARE chemical imbalances, sometimes behaviour can get the brain to right itself chemically). There is also a difference between say, a minor depressive episode where someone is using medication as a tool to help them overcome that, and saw someone with bipolar who needs medication to operate on the same level as others. However, your comments verge on the vitriolic usually (and I thank you for that post being much calmer than usual, honestly) and you encourage a dissolution of faith in trained authorities (That would by nature include the sangha, you know) or suggesting that someone in a precarious position can trust their own mind? That's dangerous, and there's many sutras which show that you cannot trust a mind, because it is a constructed thing full of poisons, full of aggregate thoughts that pervert the world. There are also lessons in the dharma about making sure the sick seek out proper redress of their ailments, which sure, can include miraculous manifestations of compassion on behalf of a celestial being. But most of us do not have those celestial beings giving us dharma lectures these days. Just, ease off that point, maybe edit it out for safety's sake. And if it's something you truly want to discuss here, with buddhists, please do so in the context of the buddhadharma. Discuss it from that point of view, cite sources for your points, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Well you just said a lot I disagree with but your general point I can take. And I said everything about this issue I wanted to say anyway. One thing though. You seem to think I am trying to be an authority on something, against other authorities. This is strange because I don't for a second think anyone would, or should read my posts and immediately switch gears somehow. What intelligent people do is they say "hm this person is saying something, but it runs counter to what I already think, I wonder why he is saying what he is saying". And maybe that helps precipitate a long quest into this new area of knowledge or perspective that they benefit from. Or they don't and they conclude the points were without merit. Either way it's a process. Only fools let other people think for them, and every day we all as individuals have a choice about whether we want to be a fool that day or not (I am no exception). Finally, I think you and others are attempting to manage perceptions against some horde of faceless fools that read this thread but don't post, and are instantly swayed by everything said. I have more faith in people's intelligence, or ability to become intelligent, than that. I might be catering to a higher common denominator than you and others, I think. But I'm done on this particular subject for now, although I thought it was all entirely relevant to the larger focus of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Actually it is hard to write for both the knowledgeable practitioners in this thread as well as people with no exposure to Buddhism. I'll keep that in mind. In some ways, I've come too far, too fast (which is the same as saying I wasn't prepared for this), and in a way where I've also managed to bring along some baggage with me. I'll tone it down from this point on, so as not to unnecessarily give any wrong impressions. Sorry everyone. For my tone. I stand by my content (if not its timing sometimes). And the very act of speaking (posting?) creates authority, either positive or negative, so I will be mindful of that too. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
It is unfortunate that there are not enough Buddhist posters here to sustain two threads, but keep in mind this is an "Ask us about Buddhism" thread in Ask/Tell, and as such should be accessible to those with no exposure to Buddhism. Ideally, we would have a separate thread in D&D for the other discussions that happen here, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that there's not really enough activity for that to work. On topic: I am interested in what English translations people prefer for the Pali Canon. I use accesstoinsight.org's online library a lot, and it's fine, but doesn't usually offer much selection as to different translations. I was just wondering if anyone had their own preferences?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Bhikku Bodhi is very accessible in my opinion. He has an intro to the suttas anthology which groups the suttas by themes, with him identifying ten main themes. A lot if the suttas sort of wander in circles between these themes as they naturally serve as jumping off points for each other. There is also another sort collection of suttas titled The Sayings of the Buddha edited by Rupert Gethin, there is a kindle version available on this one. Personally I like the way Bhikku Bodhi handles the repetitive nature of the suttas, which were originally not in a textual medium but rather recited from memory (where that repetition serves more of a purpose). If anyone progresses to the point where they want to dig deeper into the nikayas wisdom publishers and Bhikku Bodhi have complete translations. I would recommended the majjhima Nikaya, or middle length discourses since the suttas are in a more easily digestible length. Bhikku Bodhi is really good with his annotations. prickly pete posted:How Theravada is Theravada? Thanks PP, this does sound right up my alley, I'll be reading it. Cheers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Thank you for your recommendation. It is surprisingly relevant since I have been reading the Majjhima Nakaya on accesstoinsight.org for the last few days. I have heard good things about Bhikku Bodhi before and already have one of his books on my amazon wishlist. I cannot remember offhand if I have actually read anything of his before because I have read so much simply by chance because it was available. I have heard good things about Gil Fronsdal's The Dhammapada: A New Translation of the Buddhist Classic With Annotations and am hoping to pick it up soon. Has anyone checked it out or does anyone have any opinion on Gil Fronsdal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
To second what was already said, Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations are considered the best go-to source at this point. I participate at another Theravada forum which includes a good number of monastics and people seem to prefer his versions over those on Access to Insight generally, although Ajahn Thanissaro is certainly not a bad option if that is all that is available. There is also a site called Sutta Central that I linked early that has a decent number of Bhikkhu Bodhi translations, as well as parallels to suttas from other schools. Snak posted:Thank you for your recommendation. It is surprisingly relevant since I have been reading the Majjhima Nakaya on accesstoinsight.org for the last few days. If you are going through the Middle Length discourses, it can be interesting to do it along with this systematic study course that Bhikkhu Bodhi put on a few years ago. He takes the suttas in a certain order and gives a nice long lecture on each one - sometimes a few lectures actually since there is a lot to cover. He'll go over doctrinal points, he'll bring up what is mentioned in the Commentaris and Sub-Commentaries which is really interesting as well. He also occasionally cracks really corny jokes which is kind of endearing. quote:I have heard good things about Gil Fronsdal's The Dhammapada: A New Translation of the Buddhist Classic With Annotations and am hoping to pick it up soon. Has anyone checked it out or does anyone have any opinion on Gil Fronsdal? I personally think the best translation of the Dhammapada is the one by Acharya Buddharakkhita. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a very good introduction to it and it reads well. You can find PDF and epub versions on various sites from what I recall. edit to add that I think Gil Fronsdal is a good teacher for sure, I just don't use him as my go-to source when there are other options available. I was listening to a lecture of his last year where he had some kind of weird condescending tone about Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations and it kind of turned me off a little, but that probably says more about my hero worship of Bodhi than Gil. He is still regarded as a very good teacher. I don't know about his translation of the Dhammapada, but I have seen at least two monks I can think of specifically quote from the version I linked to, so that is something to consider. People Stew fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Thanks for the answers everyone! This is really educational. Also slightly confusing, but mostly educational. I asked because that can be some seriously dangerous poo poo and if it is indeed going on, it needs to be addressed in real, tangible ways. If it is someone suffering from some dementia or going through a tough time, that can be supported in a variety of ways (such as talking to/checking in with other people in the lineage or the family and friends of the person in question). I would expect that most/all Buddhist traditions have a way of dealing with the elderly going... more dangerously downhill. [E: removed some stuff that was probably not too necessary] That is more if someone is well-intentioned and simply of less than fully sound mind. If something is actually exploitative or abusive: raise hell and be careful. People have historically gotten dangerously protective of the traditions that 'recognized them as ~~~enlightened individuals~~~' or whatever, so ya gotta be careful, but at the same time call all the relevant authorities and let them sort it out. I'd suggest learning to recognize the signs of abuse and knowing who to report abuse to. If kids are being abused, get the hell out of there and call the FBI or your country's equivalent. Over a decade ago, I had a friend who was found and rescued by the FBI from some abusive shitbag (to put it lightly) who was trying to start a cult. I'm glad your question was apparently a hypothetical, it is one that hits close to home since my father (before I was born) spent some time in a yogic tradition that he clearly got some good stuff out of, but he eventually learned the people in charge were full of poo poo, to put it bluntly. I have more horror stories of religious traditions gone wrong, but this post is already depressing me enough and most aren't really mine to share. Basically: be careful, look out for those around you. The easiest way to spot a predator is to know what the signs of abuse look like. Look at the people around someone: if they are carrying the signs of recent abuse, there is a predator on the prowl. /depressing rant Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
What's a Dharma name? Is it required to take refuge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 02:13
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:What's a Dharma name? Is it required to take refuge? It's a name that is given to you upon taking refuge. Think of it as converting Christians being given a "Christian" name like John. I've never met any western buddhists (or as quantumfate pointed out, 'honkeys') using their Dharma name in everyday life, though I'm repeatedly tempted to replace my middle name with mine.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
I dont know how common it is in other traditions but most people who take refuge with us just take refuge. No names are given or anything. If someone is following the dhamma as an Anagarika they will sometimes have a dhamma name but most lay followers just take refuge and follow the precepts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:What's a Dharma name? Is it required to take refuge? It's not "required," but it's typically part of the ceremony. How it's done and the method for it and what it might be varies from tradition and even from teacher to teacher. In some traditions it's meant to be a meaningful and insightful commentary on something meant to be worked on (an impatient person might be named Zopa, for example, Tibetan for "patience"). In other traditions, it is common to be named for lineage masters, often the monk may name you for meaningful people within the lineage. In some places, it's given to everyone as a large group who takes refuge that day. In the West, it's not generally used as a term of address. I have only used mine when being introduced to Tibetans who only speak Tibetan, mainly because my given name is orthographically difficult for Tibetans. In Tibetan culture, it is not uncommon for people to change names fairly frequently. This is actually a significant issue in the historical study of Tibetan literature and Dharma writings, as one person might write commentaries under 5 or 6 different names throughout their lifetime. There's usually at a minimum a given name, a Refuge name, and then for monks a monastic name. For tantric practitioners they will often get a name for that, often for different practices, sometimes which may only be used within that particular practice and are considered "secret." A monk may get different name if they change teachers or traditions. They may get a new name if they move from one station to another. They may get a new name if they commit a monastic offense that they have fully confessed and purified, to signify a "new birth" of sorts. Basically in Tibetan culture a name is just a thing you're called, rather than an important aspect of your identity, and so they just kinda roll with it. I know a few monks who have taken Western names for their citizenship tests and such, and just use whatever name they feel like in any given situation. So you might have a Thubten Tenzin or whatever, but his driver's license might say George Wallace. It's pretty cute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
I guess I have the question asking monopolized. Would something like catch and release fishing be considered wrong? It doesn't kill but it does create suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have the question asking monopolized. Would something like catch and release fishing be considered wrong? It doesn't kill but it does create suffering. Would you like a hook in your jaw or brain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have the question asking monopolized. Would something like catch and release fishing be considered wrong? It doesn't kill but it does create suffering. You might indeed have it monopolized: Yes, catch and release would be unskillful. It creates suffering, or condoning of suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 23:06
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have the question asking monopolized. Would something like catch and release fishing be considered wrong? It doesn't kill but it does create suffering. There's a large chance that at least once when doing catch and release you'll get a hook wedged in such a way that you'll have to kill them anyways, especially if they swallow a 3" barb.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
It certainly causes suffering, I'd almost be more opposed to catch and release than to fishing for food. One you can justify that suffering to an extent with the fact that you eat the fish. The other it's just idly passing time. Japan is very reliant on fishing as a trade, there are a lot of Japanese Buddhists. I think fishing would be considered unskillful. That said, there's also circumstances where fishing might be tolerated. A friend of mine recently asked my lama if he should go fishing with his aging father for sentimental reasons, despite being a vow-holder. My lama, ever recognizing of the practical limitations of our life, and that it is possible to poison a practice by being too rigid, suggested to go fishing, but say prayers for the fish. It does not make a non-virtue a virtue. You cannot make the non-virtue of fishing, which is essentially violence, into a virtue. But it is very difficult for most people to abstain entirely from violence anyways. Do what you can, and earnestly confess and purify the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 00:05
|
|