|
Ruddha posted:Would you like a hook in your jaw or brain? Do you not recall your lives as a fish? You chase the plastic worm, you pays the piper.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted: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. I would agree with this. Fishing for sport is the sort of activity that you should examine why it is entertaining to you. Paramemetic posted:
I have heard this about other things, even including drinking alcohol in some cases. For example, if there is an social reason that is important to someone that you care about to share a drink or make a toast with, it might cause more suffering to make a fuss about abstaining from alcohol than it would harm you to simple take the drink. Obviously, this is only in the case of delicate circumstances and not like "well my friends drink, so I drink when I'm with them". Precepts/Vows aside, you shouldn't let other people dictate when you get intoxicated, so of course this doesn't include drinking to intoxication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:I would agree with this. Fishing for sport is the sort of activity that you should examine why it is entertaining to you. How about as a social lubricant? Not along the lines of "I'm kind of shy, I'm going to have a drink to loosen up", but like when you want to have an honest conversation with a friend who has trouble opening up to you. A few well-aimed glasses of alcohol can facilitate that kind of communication very well and might be the most 'helpful' way to approach certain types of people, at least in terms of creating a safe and friendly environment where they can feel free to talk. Getting too into it and having too much to drink quickly has the opposite effect of course. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
I'm kinda curious about this. What does Buddhism saw about sex and that kind of stuff? I always figured Buddhism required you to stay celibate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:I'm kinda curious about this. What does Buddhism saw about sex and that kind of stuff? I always figured Buddhism required you to stay celibate. Only if you're a monk. For the laypeople basically "do it with your partner if you have a partner or just with anyone or whatever, as long as it's consensual." Consider that maybe it's an attachment and a fleeting and ultimately unsatisfying pleasure, which will not bring actual happiness in the long term. The pursuit of sex and sex desire in general are both causes of suffering, and Shantideva is quick to point out that even in marriage, the partner you dote on and love in the now is nothing more than an animated corpse, ultimately nothing more than a rotting cadaver, so attaching to fleeting and impermanent things, including people, is unskillful. Notably, Shantideva was talking to monks, though. Really celibacy is only a thing for monks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Hypothetically, if the president of the US was a practicing Buddhist what do you think would be the goals of their time in office? (Basically asking that if a Buddhist was given political power, what would be their goals) Also it was said that a teacher would be held karmically responsible if their teachings went south. Does that apply to all things, like if you did something nice for someone but it accidentally turned out bad, would that be on your head? So does that mean Buddhism is primarily concerned with result rather than intent? ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Hypothetically, if the president of the US was a practicing Buddhist what do you think would be the goals of their time in office? (Basically asking that if a Buddhist was given political power, what would be their goals) Reduce suffering, promote social justice through nonviolent means, and lead compassionately. There are historical accounts of Buddhist kings, as well as teachings about how to lead nations. There is a general understanding, for example, that a military needs to exist, though the military should be only for defensive action. There's a strong advocacy for the idea that a king (or president) who does not improve the happiness and wellbeing of his citizens is not accomplishing anything. I think it is possible to conceive of Buddhists in positions of power. It is entirely possible to hold a strong hand through non-violence, though it takes more patience and strength of character. A Buddhist CEO would best benefit people through his leadership, perhaps at the cost of profit, but while still maintaining the business as it is his duty to do, and because it would benefit others. Similarly, I think a Buddhist president of a Western nation would have to do his best to advocate policies that are common-sense which benefit people, while being careful not to agitate political opponents. A difficult struggle indeed. I'd like to see it. Edit: quote:Also it was said that a teacher would be held karmically responsible if their teachings went south. Does that apply to all things, like if you did something nice for someone but it accidentally turned out bad, would that be on your head? So does that mean Buddhism is primarily concerned with result rather than intent? Both matter. Results matter, intent matters. Intent can only mitigate actual results, and wisdom to discern the likely outcomes of actions is highly valued. It's generally not something to be "gamed" or considered as a motivation for action. Karma isn't meant to be like a carrot or a rod, but rather just a thing to be aware of. It's not meant to motivate behavior to the tune of "well, I was gonna kill this guy, but I don't want the bad karma, so I won't." There is an emphasis in at least the Vajrayana school on the idea of the body, speech, and mind. If you murder someone in your thoughts, you have still murdered them! Violence of mind, violence of speech, and violence of action are all violence. Threatening a person, or coercing them through threat of violence, is no different than actually doing violence to them. There is no point to gaming it by thinking, "oh, well I threatened him, but I did it for a good cause," mainly because we don't know those details and they don't matter so much. When it's said that teachers who mislead their students are karmically responsible, this refers mainly to teachers who teach poorly such that false doctrines are taken to be truth, and who do so using their "badge of authority" in order to seem credible. For example, I have said things that are not correct before, I am not an adequate teacher or any kind of lama. I lack the clarity of language to teach well, and I lack the clarity of understanding to even intend correctly. But I try to make this very clear, and say that I am only saying what I know. If instead, I was a great lama, and I said, "well, you see, the nature of everything is emptiness, therefore killing is not killing, because the victim is emptiness" and someone then killed, thinking "ah, well Lamamemetic said it is okay," then how am I not responsible? Likewise, if I taught someone the great high yogatantras, and they thought, "ah, now I'm enlightened, I'll go tell other people. . . " and they are not enlightened, then that is surely because I failed to properly teach the yogatantra. They are also responsible, and will also suffer consequences, but there's a certain consideration for someone who has been misled so in the name of Dharma. And there is also the issue of the vows and respect we have for teachers. It is not right to speak poorly of one's teacher, even if we then know that teacher to be fraudulent. For example, students of New Kadampa teachers should not go "oh, that teacher was a fraud, gently caress them." That is no good! You owe them kindness regardless, they taught you things, after all, and often there are vows held between teachers and students. Simply upholding a vow is a virtue, and regardless, if a teacher means well and teaches you a wrong thing, you owe them for their kindness. So the correct response is to politely leave their fold, give back vows properly if you can, and so on. I know that got a bit off topic but it is very poor form to criticize teachers in a disrespectful way, so I wanted to be clear lest anyone get the idea that I was saying "oh certain teachers are full of poo poo" or whatever. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Very off-topic, but why do Buddhists often seem so nervous about direct references to enlightenment? Presumably that's the reason most people develop a serious interested in a dharmic religion, but as soon as you broach that subject its like you've done something taboo, and you should limit your discussion to trivia about gods and coping practices. There seem to be people with more interest in being a Buddhist than a Buddha, which is totally their prerogative; its just odd to me. I'm not a Buddhist but I feel like I've fallen into a related trap; I've meditated seriously for around a year, and I can't help but feel that all I've ended up with is a nicer ego; that's great, but not really the point. Like any practical endeavor, I should probably find someone who knows what their doing that can hit me over the head with a stick or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
I read on wikipedia that even Buddhist monks do not know what lies after you reach nirvana. How does this differ from other religions promising some kind of eternity? And is there something in the teachings that describes it other than 'nirvana is good, you want this'. Could it not be something like once you reach nirvana you have been freed from suffering thus your existence has no purpose? Some religions claim that beings learn through suffering to enjoy the good things in life (and life after death). So removing suffering might just remove one's ability to exist.
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:I read on wikipedia that even Buddhist monks do not know what lies after you reach nirvana. How does this differ from other religions promising some kind of eternity? And is there something in the teachings that describes it other than 'nirvana is good, you want this' Not gonna touch on Nirvana specifically since that's a bit outside my wheelhouse, but IMO a big benefit of dharmic practices is seeing the absurdity of the commonly-held belief that there is a 'me' that exists in your particular bag of skin, that is more than just a social convention or a collection of memories/conditioning/etc that can be called upon as long as your brain is still functioning. Yes, 'you' exist, but in the same way that a fist exists as long as your hand is clenched. You wouldn't panic and look around the room for your fist after you relaxed your hand, and your eventual death is of a similar nature. There is a brain, and a body, and thoughts, but nothing and no one to lay claim to them (I always thought it was funny we can say "my body" and "my mind" in the same sentence, what's the "me" in that string of phrases?). I guess the liberation here is seeing that there's no real deep-down existential threat to you, since you're made up to begin with. Narciss fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
May be off-topic but I subscribe to the notion that the self is inherent to the structure of the brain like a hologram. If you were to scoop out a piece of someone's brain, they would still be themselves, just missing a small piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
How many scoops does it take before they stop being them self and start being someone else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Difficult question. If you were to delete one file off your hard drive, you wouldn't think you changed the identity of the computer. Reformat the hard drive, you think that you are starting with a new computer. Switch out the CPU or the video card without changing the contents of the hard drive and to an outside observer there is no change in the identity of the computer. Essentially the 'self' as one would determine it rests on a continuum with the parts making up the whole. If something else were to inhabit your body tomorrow with your memories and mannerisms would it still be you or something else. To the outside observer you would still be you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:If something else were to inhabit your body tomorrow with your memories and mannerisms would it still be you or something else. To the outside observer you would still be you. What would this "something else" doing the inhabiting even be, though? To me 'identity' is just a shortcut we use to refer to a relatively consistent collection of attributes/behaviors. So saying "how much do you have to change for 'me' to stop being 'me'" is just playing games with language; that 'me' is only an image that exists in someone's mind, and when it stops being 'me' will be dependent on when the reality of the object has changed enough to no longer be reconcileable with the image held of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:May be off-topic but I subscribe to the notion that the self is inherent to the structure of the brain like a hologram. If you were to scoop out a piece of someone's brain, they would still be themselves, just missing a small piece. ShadowMoo posted:Difficult question. If you were to delete one file off your hard drive, you wouldn't think you changed the identity of the computer. Reformat the hard drive, you think that you are starting with a new computer. Switch out the CPU or the video card without changing the contents of the hard drive and to an outside observer there is no change in the identity of the computer. Essentially the 'self' as one would determine it rests on a continuum with the parts making up the whole. Non-buddhist chiming in. The examples you're giving sound something like wrong view (wrong thinking?) from a Buddhist perspective. Also the portion I've put in bold seems to contradict your first statement. If the self is, in part, some parts that make up a whole, then how can a whole which is missing a piece still be the same self? For example, say we have a cake. Then someone cuts a slice out and eats it. Is it still the same cake? The natural tendency is to think that it is, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense. 'Same' in at least one sense means 'is identical with itself'. The cake now has a piece missing. The cake before did not. They're not identical, so they're not the same cake, and to insist otherwise is wrong view. What you need to do is explain why thinking of these cakes as "the same" makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Difficult question. If you were to delete one file off your hard drive, you wouldn't think you changed the identity of the computer. Reformat the hard drive, you think that you are starting with a new computer. Switch out the CPU or the video card without changing the contents of the hard drive and to an outside observer there is no change in the identity of the computer. Essentially the 'self' as one would determine it rests on a continuum with the parts making up the whole. The idea that there is some kind of overarching self that blankets the computer despite changing components does not mesh with the Buddhist view of the self, or lack thereof. There is no constant unchanging self that persists despite these changes. The idea of a self exists only in conventional reality. Even without changing components, the computer is not the same object even from one day to the next. Elements decay, break down and change from moment to moment and are in a constant state of flux.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:The idea that there is some kind of overarching self that blankets the computer despite changing components does not mesh with the Buddhist view of the self, or lack thereof. There is no constant unchanging self that persists despite these changes. The idea of a self exists only in conventional reality. The objects in the computer change, the operating system that runs them changes, and you the user who uses all of it, also change. It's an interesting metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:The objects in the computer change, the operating system that runs them changes, and you the user who uses all of it, also change. It's an interesting metaphor. I wasn't taking the user into account in the metaphor. It is an interesting way to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Is there a substantive philosophical difference between Chan, Seon and Zen? Or is it mostly culture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed extreme sleep deprivation in action. I do not remember making that post at all.
Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
PiratePing posted:How about as a social lubricant? Not along the lines of "I'm kind of shy, I'm going to have a drink to loosen up", but like when you want to have an honest conversation with a friend who has trouble opening up to you. A few well-aimed glasses of alcohol can facilitate that kind of communication very well and might be the most 'helpful' way to approach certain types of people, at least in terms of creating a safe and friendly environment where they can feel free to talk. The buddhadharma is about awakening to see the world clearly; alcohol is a step that is purposefully away from that path. It is incompatible totally. One who undertakes the vehicle of the Bodhisattva should neither sell, encourage one to or induce one to alcohol. When you take the precepts, you should abstain from all intoxication. If you cannot do this, if it causes too great a suffering for whatever reason, then one must step back and consider the reason it causes this suffering. That will need to be addressed before you can undertake the training vows of the precepts. In your example: Why is it you are incapable of creating a safe-space for a friend without alcohol? Is it not deceitful to intoxicate someone that they are induced to speak to me when they would otherwise prefer not to? Is it unright to offer that as a way to resolve that situation, will they not then on a basal level associate this drug with resolution of dis-ease? ShadowMoo posted:I'm kinda curious about this. What does Buddhism say about sex and that kind of stuff? I always figured Buddhism required you to stay celibate. It depends on your school. Some schools suggest that you need to be celibate to attain enlightenment because the only path to enlightenment is via monasticism. Other schools (mostly mahayana) hold that even householders can attain enlightenment because it doesn't matter whether they have done these fleshly actions, everything is empty anyways. And then you have a number of esoteric schools which can hold that fleshly union can itself be a path to nirvana, under the right circumstances. The biggest determinant is whether you feel you can attain liberation without participation in the vinaya. Certainly celibacy is always preferable to the alternative; but unless one is a monk it is unimportant. The life of a householder will include carnal pursuits, the dharma is there to help with the resultant fallout. ShadowMoo posted:Hypothetically, if the president of the US was a practicing Buddhist what do you think would be the goals of their time in office? (Basically asking that if a Buddhist was given political power, what would be their goals) I'm assuming for your first question you mean someone who would govern according to their religion? Likely you would see a large increase in social welfare programs and a reduction in meat subsidies and arms production. A revision of agricultural subsidy programs would take a lot of unskillful karma away from taxpayers who don't wish to neglect their brother/sister-beings without outright punishing those who wish to continue to eat for the taste. I imagine limiting arms production for both sale to extra-national entities and cutting military spending would also be steps to eliminate unskillful karma. Social and animal welfare would probably be paramount goals- Nationalized healthcare, education, housing, etc. For the second part of your question, there is no difference between intent and result. When you undertake an action, your intention is itself a result. It is a result of your aggregate experiences and conditions in life guiding you to do what you have judged to be. It's been said many times, but karma is not an arbiter, it's a form of causality. There is a difference between telling someone something out of compassion where it turns out poorly and telling someone something out of malice. But this is divorced from intention because each is a separate action. So, intent matters, but only insofar as it perfumes an action. Someone's own reaction to a precedent event is also a fruition of their own karma, perfumed by the precipitant event's fruiting karma PrinceRandom posted:Is there a substantive philosophical difference between Chan, Seon and Zen? Or is it mostly culture? Yes. They're all the same school, all mahayana. However they are each reflective of the unique culture they emerged from and despite their similarities there are differences in the teachings and sutras of each. This is mostly because of what was available for translation and what has been written since they were founded. Where it's important, they're all the same, the philosophical differences are more minor. Compare it to the various oriental autocephalous orthodoxies. And on a final note, I know this can be an awkward time of the year for everyone. Celebrate what you will, go to mass if it avoids causing distress, do not worry as long as you have the triratna to turn to for refuge. Pray for those suffering beings, and have compassion for them, offer apologies to the plentitude host that will be served on dinner tables. quote:Pray tell me, Bhagavan, . . . regarding the merit of not eating meat, and the vice of meat-eating; thereby I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of the present and future may teach the Dharma to make those beings abandon their greed for meat, who, under the influence of the habit-energy belonging to the carnivorous existence, strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment, and, regarding all beings with love as if they were an only child, will cherish great compassion towards them. Cherishing [great compassion], they will discipline themselves at the stages of Bodhisattvahood and will quickly be awakened in supreme enlightenment; or staying a while at the stage of Sravakahood and Pratyekabuddhahood, they will finally reach the highest stage of Tathagatahood
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:The buddhadharma is about awakening to see the world clearly; alcohol is a step that is purposefully away from that path. It is incompatible totally. One who undertakes the vehicle of the Bodhisattva should neither sell, encourage one to or induce one to alcohol. When you take the precepts, you should abstain from all intoxication. If you cannot do this, if it causes too great a suffering for whatever reason, then one must step back and consider the reason it causes this suffering. That will need to be addressed before you can undertake the training vows of the precepts. In your example: Why is it you are incapable of creating a safe-space for a friend without alcohol? Is it not deceitful to intoxicate someone that they are induced to speak to me when they would otherwise prefer not to? Is it unright to offer that as a way to resolve that situation, will they not then on a basal level associate this drug with resolution of dis-ease? I agree with everything you say here. What is your opinion of what I said, about how even though we know that intoxicants are bad in general, there may be specific circumstances where it would be cause less suffering for someone else if you shared a drink with them? I'm not advocating this line of reasoning, but I heard this somewhere, and it reminded me of the story about the enlightened monk bringing a fish to his sick mother and I figured it was similar logic? My general idea was that there may be times when the offense given to a troubled person by refusing to drink with them would cause more suffering than the mindful consumption of an intoxicant as part of a social gesture. I know that in the past I have sometimes been defensive, even antagonistic. For that I am sorry. I hope that you can understand that the ideas I put forward now are out of curiosity and desire to understand the Dharma. I have no desire to misinform people or to advocate fringe interpretations. I greatly appreciate the time taken by many of this thread's contributors to offer detailed responses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
I was responding to another poster, didn't mean to brush off you with that! I'm not going to touch on the enthogenic use of alcohol in some buddhist sects; Even I feel enthogenic use is something better left to the schools themselves. My first question would be: What feasible situation is there where refusing to do intoxicants with them causes severe upset? After-all, you can still order a cranberry juice, or a tonic- perhaps discuss things over a cup of tea or coffee if the discussion occurs in the domestic? Realistically in these situations I would imagine that being there for them, talking to them, sharing the experience with them would do far more to relive the suffering than drinking alcohol. But to suppose your hypothetical, because there is a story wherein a monk drinks alcohol to avoid comitting any other unskillful acts, and commits them anyways because he was drunk. If it objectively causes less unskillful karma (which is near impossible to determine) than maintaining the bodhisattva vows and the precepts and preventing someone from undergoing an unskillful action? Whichever eases the suffering most would be best. The big caveat here is whether social drinking would relive suffering and false conceptions, or whether it will reinforce them, reinforce negative habits dealing with things, etc. I would argue it's more important to address why you need to break a precept than to break it, mindfulness and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Snak posted:I agree with everything you say here. What is your opinion of what I said, about how even though we know that intoxicants are bad in general, there may be specific circumstances where it would be cause less suffering for someone else if you shared a drink with them? I'm not advocating this line of reasoning, but I heard this somewhere, and it reminded me of the story about the enlightened monk bringing a fish to his sick mother and I figured it was similar logic? Causing "suffering" of that kind doesn't really matter. That person is making themselves suffer, you have nothing to do with it. If you want to drink, drink. But don't act like you're a secret bodhisattva because of it haha. You don't have to drink because it might offend someone if you don't; you don't have to pretend to be christian because it might offend someone if you weren't; you don't have to pretend to be racist because it might offend someone if you aren't: the skillful act is simply to explain with love in your heart why you don't see eye to eye with them, without a cold rebuke of judgement: you can still be nice and explain why you choose not to drink. There was an old woman in China who had supported a monk for over twenty years. She had built a little hut for him and fed him while he was meditating. Finally she wondered just what progress he had made in all this time. To find out, she obtained the help of a girl rich in desire. “Go and embrace him,” she told her, “and then ask him suddenly: ‘What now?’” The girl called upon the monk and without much ado caressed him, asking him what he was going to do about it. “An old tree grows on a cold rock in winter,” replied the monk somewhat poetically. “Nowhere is there any warmth.” The girl returned and related what he had said. “To think I fed that fellow for twenty years!” exclaimed the old woman in anger. “He showed no consideration for your needs, no disposition to explain your condition. He need not have responded to passion, but at least he should have evidenced some compassion.” She at once went to the hut of the monk and burned it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
It is not possible to make a non-virtue a virtue. There is no way to virtuously do a non-virtuous thing. That said, practice what you can. There are some sects that would say that there are occasions to use alcohol, most of those include a ritual use such as ganachakra, but that's not what's at question here. My stance on it is that if you adhere to that precept, that is wonderful. If you do not adhere to that precept, that is okay too. One does not have to hold all of the five lay-precepts to be a Buddhist. If you're not a monk, you have a lot of options in how you want to practice. It is of course better to hold all five precepts. But, if you cannot hold all five precepts, because you like to drink and you do not find yourself able to shed that non-virtue at this stage in your life, then at least hold four precepts. If, because of a lack of mental discipline, you cannot possibly abstain from telling lies? Then at least hold three precepts. And so on. If you take a precept vow, and then falter and fail to maintain it, then just re-do the vow. If it caused serious harm, there may be a ritual involved to do this, but for most small personal failings, confess it to your teacher if it matters enough, or confess it to the Buddha, and renew your vow, and carry on. As for the stance that if you cannot abstain from alcohol you should refrain from taking the training vows? I disagree entirely. One should not take vows that they fully intend to disregard, however, there are 4 other precepts. Holding a precept is very meritorious. It generates lots of merit, and that merit may very well be the cause for the wiping away of the obstacles which keep one clinging to drink. To address the question of drinking as a lesser of two evils, that might be the case - it might be true that you will cause less suffering in someone else by drinking, but that does not make it a virtuous act. Let's not fool ourselves by dressing up our behaviors in the clothes of piety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
I think these are great points and important to keep in mind when you are first approaching the precepts. As many people come to Buddhism from Christianity, there is sometimes a tendency to see the precepts as commandments, or the breaking of the precepts as sin or transgression of some kind, when this isn't exactly the case. They are training rules, and the purpose is not just to purify one's own conduct but to also reduce the suffering of those around you. In one of the suttas they are actually referred to as gifts that you give other beings, in that you refrain from actions that cause suffering to others, in addition to the benefit this conduct has on yourself. Be gentle with yourself regarding the precepts and use them as a tool to examine your own tendencies to suffer and cause suffering. If you end up drinking, examine the reasons for doing so, and examine the results of doing so. More often than not (in my case anyway), they aren't good on either front. Once you have looked at the event, take the precepts again and try to be mindful when situations arise that challenge you. It isn't an overnight transformation. You'll still realize after the fact that you may have spoken dishonestly, or that having even one drink did in fact make you a bit heedless, etc. It is part of the path. edit: the sutta i was trying to find is here. People Stew fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think these are great points and important to keep in mind when you are first approaching the precepts. As many people come to Buddhism from Christianity, there is sometimes a tendency to see the precepts as commandments, or the breaking of the precepts as sin or transgression of some kind, when this isn't exactly the case. They are training rules, and the purpose is not just to purify one's own conduct but to also reduce the suffering of those around you. In one of the suttas they are actually referred to as gifts that you give other beings, in that you refrain from actions that cause suffering to others, in addition to the benefit this conduct has on yourself. On this note, am I out of line in saying Buddhism, especially in these respects, seems to make a lot more sense than Christianity? It is human to err and stray, why not acknowledge that as a reality in your religion? I actually came to Buddhism as an atheist and I have a greater respect for it after studying Buddhist philosophy formally. I seem to have strong feelings about it for some reason, too. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:
This is a good way of putting it- While the precepts aren't commandments they are something that really ought be considered carefully. If you're in the place where you can undertake practicing something, then do so. If you falter, it's not the end of the world, but it's important to recognize why that failing occurred. If you're in a position where you repeatedly fail the precepts, or you are causing or are caused sufferng, it might be worth avoiding the negative karma of not taking the preceps seriously enough- Step back from re-taking them until you sort things out. EDIT: TheRamblingSoul posted:On this note, am I out of line in saying Buddhism, especially in these respects, seems to make a lot more sense than Christianity? It is human to err and stray, why not acknowledge that as a reality in your religion? Buddhism actually has quite a bti in common with liturgical christianity- it's not out of line to say at all. It differs in the fact that buddhism doesn't focus on a god, and in what the exact details of enlightenment are. But attaining the kingdom of god and living in the person of christ are both mystical attainments. Naturally you're going to have quite a bit of overlap with any religious mysticism and buddhism. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted: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. I don't get it... *who* is being reborn as a monk? How do Buddhists have this cake and eat it too, where there is no meaningful "self" but somehow there is something enough like a self to say that someone is reborn? Enough of a self to say "I will support monks so that I will one day enjoy being reborn as a monk." It seems very egocentric. There is no meaningful distinction between "I will be reborn..." and "Someone will be born...". Do the monastics in these nations encourage this quid-pro-quo attitude?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
I've started it viewing it less as rebirth and more as re-emergence myself. It's not me because there is nothing I can identify as myself outside a collection of traits. It's consciousness that is "reformed" and forms a new mind-body. I'm not Buddhist (yet?) and I'm not sure if I believe it but it sorta makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Well I guess it means that the monk inherits the karma of a previous incarnation that worked to support monasticism (among other good actions so as to result in a life lived as a monk); the meaningful link is the karma sequence. So the lesson is that a person's actions bear fruit after his individual consciousness dissolves and those consequences primarily affect one specific future individual. Like a relay-race where my incarnations are the runners and my karma is my relative position in the race.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:40
|
|
Green_Machine posted:Like a relay-race where my incarnations are the runners and my karma is my relative position in the race. Woah, this is a fantastic analogy.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
I always liked Bhikkhu Bodhi's idea of candles lighting other candles but honestly I think this is a better way of putting it, and one I haven't ever heard before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Hello guys and girls ! Sorry to derail, but could anyone post the link to one of the first buddhism discussion here on SA, the one created by Shadowstar ? (And incidentally, does anyone have news from that nice guy ?) I cannot find it anymore... Thanks a lot !
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Hello guys and girls ! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3339355&pagenumber=1&perpage=40
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
This is less of a question about Buddhism, and more of a general question about meditation. (For reference, I've been practicing vipassana meditation on and off for years, purely as a tool for insight and awareness of, well, anything.) I had an extremely intense experience with it earlier today. I went outside, did a bit of walking meditation for a few minutes, sat down, did my thing, and went back inside. The actual session itself wasn't anything unusual. I was still in sort of a contemplative state on my couch when all of a sudden I experienced this feeling of overwhelming and painful joy, awareness, and connectedness. It was so incredibly powerful I would nearly describe the feeling as rapturous. It was so odd that at first I thought "Oh, I must have finally gone mental." But just like any other deep meditative or contemplative state I've had, the second I stood up, it ceased instantly, although I still felt a bit weird for another hour. Is this experience unusual? I've never had an experience in my life as powerful as that one (and I'm including my one time LSD use in this as well). Although strangely, it was perhaps the least instructive contemplative experience I've had recently. No idea what I learned, other than the fact that maybe a little too much meditation is counterproductive.  Still struggling to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I've started it viewing it less as rebirth and more as re-emergence myself. It's not me because there is nothing I can identify as myself outside a collection of traits. It's consciousness that is "reformed" and forms a new mind-body. The problem with discussing rebirth is that we generally always do so while holding a conception of the self as an entity separated from the physical universe. I believe that the key to understanding rebirth is to understand both karma and no-self, and that it follows directly from these two things, with no additional assumptions necessary. Karma is something we observe, since our senses and study of the universe tells us that everything without exception follows a cause-and-effect pattern. Observing no-self is quite a bit more difficult than that, and does not happen naturally. We are at least able to understand it intellectually, but our brain does everything in its power to make itself believe that no-self is wrong. So when we think of rebirth, our instinct is to immediately envision the self as changing in to a different form with a memory wipe, but ultimately there is a "self" that is undergoing a change and a memory wipe when we think of it like this. But there is no self, not even one that can undergo a complete transformation. So this naturally leads us to wonder why we should accumulate good karma if it isn't us who is going to receive it in the next life. "I get to be a monk and achieve nirvana in the next life," is probably an inaccurate view, but "There will be a sentient being who eventually achieves freedom from suffering due to my present actions" is probably more accurate. This is why I like Bhikkhu Bodhi's analogy of the candle flames the best. What we do now is because of metta, which should be the driving force for all of our actions. Nonetheless, the first statement is often taught and probably believed because it is the most simple way to explain the concept to someone who hasn't yet observed no-self (the vast majority of us), even if it is ultimately wrong-view. So while rebirth isn't just "reincarnation while also intellectually understanding no-self," it serves to refute the idea that consciousness ends forever upon death. There was never a self to begin with, so what we are experiencing now is a natural consequence of the universe. Why shouldn't it have been similar during, at the very least, this universe's lifetime? The most simple explanation for why we experience a self during the present, requiring as few assumptions as possible, is that it is due to karma, which is essentially the explanation for everything else we observe. Thus it is natural to expect that as long as we hold to the idea of a self, that our experience of one should not change, until we finally abandon the concept entirely. But until that time, there is nothing else which could conceivably allow consciousness to come into being once and be destroyed only once. Jacobeus fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
That was a good post, and makes sense. What I personally find a bit absurd is the idea of karma carrying over on a 1-to-1 basis from one bag of skin that we call a human to, 50 years later, another bag of skin we call a human. I may be confusing various Dharmic traditions here, but it seems that some Buddhists have a conception of cause-and-effect where "unskillful actions" are an actually existing thing beyond an event someone slapped a label onto, and this somehow has an effect on the future that our minds can delineate from everything else in the massive flow of events and say "ah yes, x happened because you did y". I can buy into the idea that skillful actions will tend to, on average, create desireable results, but that's about as strong a statement as I feel I can make. A view I have encountered that I can wrap my head around is a kind of weak-sounding "Karma may or may not ripen, and you as an individual human mind may or may not be able to draw a line of effect from event X to result Y", but that is such an anemic concept it hardly seems worth saying at all. It's 1 step away from "things happen and then other things happen". Narciss fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
I bet more people than I would expect prefer the thought of true annihilation upon death to any form of persistence. Nothing about me is worth preserving forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Narciss posted:A view I have encountered that I can wrap my head around is a kind of weak-sounding "Karma may or may not ripen, and you as an individual human mind may or may not be able to draw a line of effect from event X to result Y", but that is such an anemic concept it hardly seems worth saying at all. It's 1 step away from "things happen and then other things happen". It's true that no one can actually draw a distinct causal line connecting two events...it becomes exceedingly difficult the farther in time the events are separated. But I think we can at least draw some conclusions based on simplistic assumptions. We can of course imagine a world where everyone acts selfishly and with plenty of wrong view, and it's probably not a great place to live in (maybe not much different from the world we live in today). But we can also imagine a world where everyone acts mindfully and with loving-kindness to all beings, and it might actually be a pretty nice place to live. Certainly the two environments are determined by the actions of those living within them, and persons born in those worlds will reap the benefits or consequences of those who came before them. This is karma. We could even go further down towards the individual level. A person acting mindfully and with loving kindness throughout their lives will, more than likely, live a happy and peaceful life. Certainly accidents and suffering can happen to that person, as a consequence of the world and time that they live in, but we can still say that there will be great benefits to this person's life due to the way they live, if they live that way consistently. So it's definitely more difficult to say what kind of effects specific actions will have, but as they build up it becomes easier to see their long-term consequences. Perhaps the fact that the consequences of single actions are hard to see is an incentive to maintain proper behavior as consistently as possible. Green_Machine posted:I bet more people than I would expect prefer the thought of true annihilation upon death to any form of persistence. Nothing about me is worth preserving forever. Well, that's basically the whole reason we seek nirvana...to be "annihilated" once and for all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 05:51
|
|