|
Rhymenoceros posted:What helped me let go of guilt was reflecting on my good qualities. Basically you have learn to see yourself as someone worthy of forgiveness. If you have a lot of guilt you probably have a mental archive of all the bad things you've done, and you consciously or unconsciously go through that archive as a mental habit. This is a huge and important point that is often overlooked. We all hope for enlightenment for all sentient beings. We strive to have compassion for all sentient beings. We easily can turn the eye of compassion towards other people, but how can we say want compassion for all sentient beings if we do not include ourselves? Happiness and compassion for others begins with happiness and compassion for ourselves.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I would love to get involved in such a thing. It would give me a good incentive to branch out to some things outside the Pali Canon. Edit: this is in reference to the study thing. I forgot to quote and I'm on my phone People Stew fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the idea. Give us all incentive to read, study and discuss. Whether that's from the pali canon, the mahayana sutras or bon heathenry  Since I'm organizing this and I do not care enough about outmoded conceptions of privacy, if you are interested you can add my skype which is quantumfate We'll get a time sorted and has out the basic stuff. As well, please respect each other's backwards and savage heresies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Nice new AV Quantumfate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
I hate wafflehound so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:54
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Nice new AV Quantumfate. Quantumfate posted:I hate wafflehound so much. He had just informed me that he finally changed it away from the two loving dogs, and I said "Hmmm... I should get you a new avatar" to which he responded with that nice red quote there.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
A goon skype study group sounds pretty awesome. I'm pretty baby-entry level right now and I've learned so much from this thread, I'd love to learn more from you guys in a personal group setting as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Just drop me a line over skype.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
How do ya'll cope with suffering you can't control? I've always sort of been overly-compassionate (I once cried as a kid reading about some manufacturing company closing in the newspaper) but it feels like a burden at times. I think part of my death anxiety comes from wanting people to get the best of life, and I think that one of the key aspects of Buddhism is to not "want" things but to accept them. Is there some kind of method or something to help accomplish this when I read or think about others suffering?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
As it happens I've been reading up on 'idiot compassion' the past week. I have the same problem with getting overly upset at seeing suffering and having trouble dealing with the desire to help. I'm only a baby Buddhist, but this is my experience: While feeling compassion is a good thing, the getting upset at seeing suffering in others is not real compassion but an unskillful reaction. The frustration, anger or out-of-control sadness comes from not wanting that suffering to be there because it hurts me to empathize with it. Getting frustrated at seeing suffering causes a forceful, aggressive urge to will the cause of the suffering away because it is my will that people/animals/whatever do not suffer. In a way, getting overly agitated like that my way of acting out my urge to help when there is nothing I can do, but it is also a reaction of pushing away or fighting back against the unpleasantness of seeing suffering. There is a lot of self-centeredness in that kind of 'compassion' even if it's easy to play off as a virtue. So far, the only healthy feeling of compassion I can find is gentle sadness that doesn't unbalance me but just acknowledges the reality of suffering. I imagine that is close to the loving-concern Ven Sangye Kandro talks about in the quote below. quote:Ven Sangye Khadro ]We need to distinguish true compassion from “idiot compassion”. We sometimes over-react emotionally at the sight of suffering. We can be so distressed that we weep uncontrollably, faint or run away in horror. Our heart may be moved with pity but our emotions are so out-of-control that we can’t do anything to help! In other cases we might do something but because we lack right understanding of the problem or the person experiencing it, our “help” only makes the situation worse. These are examples of idiot compassion. True compassion balances loving-concern with clear wisdom. This wisdom enables us to stay calm and think clearly how best to help, without being carried away by our emotions. As for dealing with it, I've been trying to catch the reaction as soon as I can and observing what happens or focusing on my breath while watching the news or other upsetting things so that I don't get sucked into the narrative. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:How do ya'll cope with suffering you can't control? I've always sort of been overly-compassionate (I once cried as a kid reading about some manufacturing company closing in the newspaper) but it feels like a burden at times. Edit: Basically, it's not what the world is it's what you do with it. When confronted with suffering, what do you make out of that? Anger, frustration or depression is just more suffering. Compassion is making something beautiful inside yourself out of suffering. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
This is a Good Thread and I've read the first few pages and the last few, and I was curious as to what ya'lls opinion on (my avatar) Alan Watts? He wrote one of the Zen books mentioned in the OP (although I think Way of Zen is probably his best introduction to the religion, full of loads of poetry). He's basically my favorite person and listening to his youtube lectures managed to keep my growing insanity and depressive tendencies in check for a few months. He's considered somewhat controversial, as pure Zen-practitioners seem to criticize the simplicity with which he viewed Zen. I think his blend of Western and Eastern philosophies, having worked and studied extensively under both, presents a reasoned and rational approach to largely unreasonable and irrational concepts. He adds a level-headedness to the more vague languages of Hinduism and Buddhism and presents Asian religions in a manner both removed and based upon their respective texts, like a broad commentary that avoids the more troublesome translation issues while retaining the magical spark of the original texts. PS I know I misspelled Bodhisattva in my username. I was trying to spell it phonetically and by memory, which both failed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Alan Watts is the prototypical white people spiritualist in that his work attempts to make people feel like they're being spiritual without actually asking them to do anything. I've never met a giant fan of Watts who was actually educated on Buddhism, but rather just had some vague touchy-feely idea of what they wanted Buddhism to be.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Why do you need to do something to be spiritual?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
I actually enjoy Alan Watts, though I suppose I ought to be ashamed to have a copy of some of his lectures in a stack next to my majjhima nikaya on the nightstand... Because white people... or authenticity or w/e... A lot of my early exposure to Buddhism was from him, which I've afterwards followed up with more in depth study of Buddhism and South Asian religions both on my own time and in more formal academic settings. Sometimes when you're looking for the trailhead, a sign can be very helpful. That said, he wasn't really a Buddhist, and would tell you as much. That we should expect him to get caught up in a lot of the doctrinal chest-puffing that so many Buddhists lose themselves in seems silly. Though he enjoyed teaching and popularizing dharma and concepts from Buddhism, his approach is more comparative religion, which is naturally going to be a more descriptive activity than a prescriptive one, not really set out to tell people what they Ought to be Doing (if they want sufficient bona fides that is). At his most explicit, Watts was a Vedantin more than anything else. Even so, through his classroom teachings, public radio shows and lectures he exposed a lot of people that would otherwise have never encountered it to aspects of Eastern religion at a time when much of this was still new. He also set ought to do so in plain speech, which is ostensibly the virtuous thing to do in terms of spreading the dharma, but paradoxically always seems to rankle the most doctrinaire for not being as semantically and linguistically precise as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
I find Alan Watts certainly useful, at times inspiring, and generally beneficial. He is not a Buddhist and would say as much. He is a white guy and would acknowledge as much. This is not in reality a problem. A person who can make people "feel spiritual" without them actually doing anything has been wildly successful, frankly. A person who motivates people towards the Buddhadharma, whether they themselves identify as Buddhist or not, is performing a great work. If people listen to or read Watts and, for even a moment, turn away from their attachments or their cravings or the hustle and bustle of daily life, then he has provided a much needed service. The fact is, the Dharma does not exist Only For Asians. To reach many Westerners, it needs to be mediated into a way that is culturally competent. Watts does a fantastic job of stripping down many of the barriers that prevent white people from approaching Dharma. That is a noble goal. And, he does a fairly good job of mediating ideas from one cultural context to another. A White American Christian who practices non-violence and is truly compassionate towards all sentient beings and who through his body, speech, and mind benefits those aroudn him has an excellent practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:He had just informed me that he finally changed it away from the two loving dogs, and I said "Hmmm... I should get you a new avatar" to which he responded with that nice red quote there. Two dogs loving is a great punchline to an old joke. WAFFLEHOUND posted:Alan Watts is the prototypical white people spiritualist in that his work attempts to make people feel like they're being spiritual without actually asking them to do anything. I've never met a giant fan of Watts who was actually educated on Buddhism, but rather just had some vague touchy-feely idea of what they wanted Buddhism to be. I've always thought he was full of poo poo. A clever beatnik without a lick of light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:11
|
|
returnh posted:Why do you need to do something to be spiritual? Because doing what you've always done and reading a feel-good book doesn't make you spiritual, it makes you smug.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
The "effort" part of Right Effort is there for a reason. The path isn't a passive endeavor. You have to do the work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:The "effort" part of Right Effort is there for a reason. The path isn't a passive endeavor. You have to do the work. *all the goons unbookmark the buddhism thread*
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:*all the goons unbookmark the buddhism thread* I was having kind of a bad morning until I read that. Thanks for the laugh. I could use some right effort myself these days. I have been doing a lot of sutta reading and very little meditation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Alan Watts's personal life makes me really not want to follow his example at all. I also think that although he communicates a certain understanding, his talks are very caught up in the trappings and motives of religion and people listen to him like they would a preacher. You hear the words, you reconcile them with yourself and feel good for a while, then go right back to your normal habits. It's seeking to bring heaven down to earth when that's impossible. He was my introduction and I am speaking from my personal experience here. e: To put it a bit more directly, he was a womanizing boozer who wished he had been a great musician instead of a religious peddler. Just an egotistical fart really. a dog from hell fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Splurgerwitzl posted:Alan Watts's personal life makes me really not want to follow his example at all. I also think that although he communicates a certain understanding, his talks are very caught up in the trappings and motives of religion and people listen to him like they would a preacher. You hear the words, you reconcile them with yourself and feel good for a while, then go right back to your normal habits. It's seeking to bring heaven down to earth when that's impossible. If you find yourself being harsh and judgmental in your speech, you should reflect on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
How does the aggregate karma of all humanity trend? The world population is increasing. Are the numbers of good Buddhists increasing faster or slower than the general population increases? How about the number of monks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Well, at the very start of the practice of Buddhism is the restraint of doing and saying things that are hurtful; restraining those actions that for example are expressions of ill-will or aversion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:54
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Well, at the very start of the practice of Buddhism is the restraint of doing and saying things that are hurtful; restraining those actions that for example are expressions of ill-will or aversion. Pretty sure Buudha had some seriously negative things to say about some people. There's a difference between "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" and "don't lie and don't gossip". In the context of someone claiming to be a Dharma teacher I think the criticisms levelled here are more than fair.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Splurgerwitzl posted:That sounds like a great way to be a holy fool. You can't restrain it, your self-expression has to come out whether it's Buddhist or not. That's probably the karma that Tourette's comes from, someone trying so hard for a lifetime or 5 to restrain what they want to say. Next life, "Hi nice to meet y- fuckyoufuckfacefuckerbitch!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:That's probably the karma that Tourette's comes from, someone trying so hard for a lifetime or 5 to restrain what they want to say. Next life, "Hi nice to meet y- fuckyoufuckfacefuckerbitch!" quote:How does the aggregate karma of all humanity trend? First of all, I believe you are interpreting karma, among other things, in a moralistic way. Your concerns are the population, and the number of honest Buddhist practitioners. Now, why the concerns about the population? Humans are animals and religion will never separate us from our biology, though there have been numerous attempts. Lets be totally honest here and admit that humanity is sprinting toward its own end, or at least a good deal of pain and population retraction for our species. There is this push on progress, progress progress and we have too many people, too many weapons, too much pollution and too little of the Earth to continue forever. Religion has not changed at all. Its function, contents and purpose remain the same. People want heaven either here on Earth or set before them some place in the future. Look at the state of India, it is full of Buddhists. There is an entire industry for Gurus to sell their own particular brand of poo poo both in India and in the west. India is full of violence and poverty. Many suffer voluntarily all their lives following a false promise of transcendence while their Guru makes money and eats well. A world that you are dreaming of is a world without Buddhism. We would have to give up Buddhism along with everything else to change our path at this point and I don't believe that will happen so get comfortable and fulfill yourself.  If there are Buddhas, then they are silent and on the margins, which is a wise thing to do. a dog from hell fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Green_Machine posted:How does the aggregate karma of all humanity trend? I would suggest that the fruition of the world's karma trends towards skillful ends. More and more lives are being born as humans and given a precious chance, born into a time when the dharma can be transmitted with the click of a mouse. Humanity is experiencing a karma that allows them to engage in communication on a scale unprecedented. We have the vipaka of the world's knowledge in our phones. Humanity has the vipaka of mass exposure to buddhadharma. I would say that the number of enlightened beings is growing as more and more walk along the path of the buddhadharma, so that eventually we arrive at the number of successful buddhists increasing. There's a fair number of monastics, but I'm unsure if there are more monastics now than in say, the time of the Gandharan universities. Splurgerwitzl posted:Stuff Um, no? Firstly, India is not "full" of buddhists. There's a significant minority in dharamsala and ladakh. The untouchables have buddhism as a movement. But india still has hugely more hindus, muslims and christians than it does buddhists. Actually there's about as many buddhists, proportional to the population, in the US as in India. It is also pretty disingenuous and bleak to suggest that humanity is sprinting towards its own end. We live in a time of unprecedented peace and wealth. We produce so much food that issues of world hunger and food availability are shrinking rapidly. We do not have too many people, far far from that. The planet could probably support trillions more, the US alone can produce enough food to satisfy the wants of most of the world- to say nothing of Russia, India, Australia and the Sahel if there was an effort to develop world breadbaskets. As well, personal weapon ownership and violence is probably at its lowest proportional rate in. . . Ever? Yes, there are a few religious abuses, but on the whole religion is opening up more and more to people, giving them a tool and a comfort, and helping them move past that animal side? Why must we relinquish the buddhadharma to live in a comfortable world, is the buddhadharma wrong? Is the buddhadharma not the right path to nirvana? Are you suggesting that it necessarily perpetuates violence and poverty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Yes, there are a few religious abuses, but on the whole religion is opening up more and more to people, giving them a tool and a comfort, and helping them move past that animal side? Why must we relinquish the buddhadharma to live in a comfortable world, is the buddhadharma wrong? Is the buddhadharma not the right path to nirvana? Are you suggesting that it necessarily perpetuates violence and poverty? "Full of Buddhists" was lazy wording but the quest for enlightenment is culturally prominent. I am not knowledgeable about India, just the proportion of spiritual export that is profitable trash. I don't know anything and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I do, but that is where I stand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I would suggest that the fruition of the world's karma trends towards skillful ends. More and more lives are being born as humans and given a precious chance, born into a time when the dharma can be transmitted with the click of a mouse. Humanity is experiencing a karma that allows them to engage in communication on a scale unprecedented. We have the vipaka of the world's knowledge in our phones. Humanity has the vipaka of mass exposure to buddhadharma. quote:It is also pretty disingenuous and bleak to suggest that humanity is sprinting towards its own end. We live in a time of unprecedented peace and wealth. We produce so much food that issues of world hunger and food availability are shrinking rapidly. We do not have too many people, far far from that. The planet could probably support trillions more, the US alone can produce enough food to satisfy the wants of most of the world- to say nothing of Russia, India, Australia and the Sahel if there was an effort to develop world breadbaskets. As well, personal weapon ownership and violence is probably at its lowest proportional rate in. . . Ever? Also are we pretending that the evidence for global warming being an enormous threat isn't there or what? If you put a little stress on the global economic system then these trends will evaporate. e: There's no reason for me to be posting this here, so if you like we can just end this discussion. Sorry for the derail. a dog from hell fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Splurgerwitzl posted:That sounds like a great way to be a holy fool. You can't restrain it, your self-expression has to come out whether it's Buddhist or not. WAFFLEHOUND posted:Pretty sure Buudha had some seriously negative things to say about some people. There's a difference between "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" and "don't lie and don't gossip". In the context of someone claiming to be a Dharma teacher I think the criticisms levelled here are more than fair. Here are some Buddha quotes for your convenience. — Dhp., v. 133 posted:Do not speak harshly to anyone. Those who are harshly spoken to might retaliate against you. Angry words hurt other's feelings, even blows may overtake you in return. — Dhp., v. 184 posted:Forbearance is the highest observance. Patience is the highest virtue. So the Buddhas say. The Buddha on right speech posted:"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five? More of the Buddha on right speech posted:"One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken. Edit: As a means to purify one's mind, the Buddha suggest that The Buddha posted:"Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large." Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Right speech is one of the things I have the most trouble with sometimes. It is amazing how harsh you can be without realizing what you are saying. Especially online.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
A lot of people mistake honesty for harsh speech when talking about Watts. Not that I'm flawless here, far from it. Also I swear to god I hate the Kalama Sutra and yes I'm aware how bad that is. Holy poo poo though it's like the "Shiite White Buddhist Being Intentionally Obtuse" Sutra.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
I don't mind the Kalama Sutra itself. I really dislike how often it is quoted out of context and used as a terrible justification for terrible interpretations of the Dhamma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:A lot of people mistake honesty for harsh speech when talking about Watts. Not that I'm flawless here, far from it. Harsh speech is still harsh speech even if its spoken honestly. Since this is a thread about Buddhism, I make the claim that if you want to practice Buddhism, you should reflect on whether what you post is helpful or hurtful, and you should refrain from posting things that might be hurtful, especially if the post is of no benefit. If you disagree with someone, you can disagree respectfully. Posting on the internet is speech, so right posting should be part of any Buddhist's practice. The Buddha speaks to his son, Rahula posted:"Whenever you want to perform a verbal act, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal act with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful verbal action with happy consequences, happy results, then any verbal act of that sort is fit for you to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Alan Watts was a lovely spiritual teacher who diluted the Dharma in the West by basically teaching feel-good philosophy and calling it Buddhism and I wish, as a culture, could stop pretending he had some deep wisdom. Good thing I keep a solar powered prayer wheel near my computer to burn off the bad karma coming from harmful speech for saying things like Alan a Watts was a lovely teacher and the like! Guess I'll need to practice more.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I don't mind the Kalama Sutra itself. I really dislike how often it is quoted out of context and used as a terrible justification for terrible interpretations of the Dhamma. I'm not overly familiar with the Theravada interpretation of the Kalama Sutta, so maybe you can tell me. But within the Mahayana Agama the Kalama Sutra is understood not as a licence to pursue one's own beliefs or interpretations: Rather it is a reassertion of the truth of the dharmakaya and points us to the tools by which we may submit other teachings or our own beliefs to close scrutiny. It implores the use of this scrutiny to see if the heterodox conforms to the truth of the dharmakaya.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
The Theravada interpretation is basically the same as what you stated. The problem is that people who want to pick and choose parts of the Dhamma to accept use the Kalama sutta as some kind of evidence that the Buddha approved of that practice. If you spend time at any Buddhist forums, particularly those that cater to those new to the teachings, you will inevitably see people appear who say "I am Buddhist but I don't practice the precepts" or something along those lines, and then cite the Kalama Sutta as some kind of proof that the Buddha said this is ok, since the Kalamas are instructed to not trust teachings based solely on religious texts or oral tradition. It is a very poor understanding of the sutta but it happens very regularly. You will also see this quote passed around constantly: quote:“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a good essay on the Kalama Sutta from the Theravada point of view that does a much better job of explaining things than I am doing right now. It's more of a personal irritation at how the sutta is used and abused since I have seen it happen several times. The sutta itself is a pretty important part of the Canon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
They also tend to ignore the part where it also says do not trust intellect or logical discourse. To me it seems to appeal to a more holistic approach with a wise teacher but I see it get used as a "I don't need a teacher or anything because "
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 06:08
|
|