|
PrinceRandom posted: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 " Take the precept on false speech, you can read this study http://news.nd.edu/news/32424-study-telling-fewer-lies-linked-to-better-health-relationships/ and conclude that you shouldn't lie, or you can try not lying and see for yourself if you feel better. With the latter you have direct experience, you can know if you feel better about yourself or not, just like you can know whether you are sleepy or feel happy. Basically you don't need a theory of ethics or a teacher to tell you not to lie, you can just check for yourself that it feels bad and you should trust that. That's my take on it, anyway. Here's a teaser from the study: quote:New research from the University of Notre Dame shows that when people managed to reduce their lies in given weeks across a 10-week study, they reported significantly improved physical and mental health in those same weeks.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Happy new year/day of Maitreya Bodhisattva. Remember to keep uposatha 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
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. There have been some huge population die-offs in human history. For example, the Plague of Justinian kill around 25 million people around the world and dropped the human population of the Mediterranean by around 25%. The Black Death wiped out around half the population of Europe and a third of the population of the Middle East. Both plagues cause a demographic collapse that resulted in further population declines in the generations following the main outbreaks. In the times leading up to these massive human die-offs, had the world's karma trended towards unskillful ends? Maybe not enough beings had the karma to be born as humans in the mid 14th century?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Green_Machine posted:In the times leading up to these massive human die-offs, had the world's karma trended towards unskillful ends? Maybe not enough beings had the karma to be born as humans in the mid 14th century? I'm not a Buddha! I can't say with any certitude, but this is along the right line of thinking. Those who died in the plagues had the unfortunate cause of precipitating their own infection: Either through location, poor habits, etc etc. The effect was their infection and resultant death. Whether this was the manifestation of their karma for being born then? I cannot say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:A lot of people mistake honesty for harsh speech when talking about Watts. Not that I'm flawless here, far from it. A Shiite Muslim was explaining to me a while back that there are branches of Islam (both extinct and extant) that believe, essentially, in a long, multi-life progression of the soul/being/whatever you want to call it complete with rebirth and everything? I.e. that beings are reborn again and again until they may eventually shed their shortcomings or whatever. Since ya reminded me of that...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
It seems common for more esoteric and mystical traditions to formulate beliefs like that. It may be specificaly the Druze he's thinking of. Kabbalist have something similar. Edit: I don't know enough about the various Sufi orders to say for sure what they think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
He was referring to Alawites specifically, I believe. The beliefs of now-defunct branches of Islam is about as broad as the now extinct branches of Buddhism, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Buddhism thread, my name is WAFFLEHOUND, and I have a drinking problem. No, not like that. I try my best to hold the precepts and for the most part I'd wager I'm really drat good at the whole not-drinking thing. Lately I've started to realize that a lot of my social life is suffering because of my desire to not drink; I'll still go to bars and such with people, but I make excuses for not wanting to be around drunk people, or I'll fade out early in the night. Compared to how I've been in the past I'm becoming, well, boring. Last time I seriously took the refuge vows was mid-2012. I didn't have a single drink until the Super Bowl because I'm from Seattle and  . At this point I'm not sure I'm not going to be a lot happier in my life if I just pretend that that particular precept doesn't exist. I'm not going to pretend for a second that Buddhism doesn't have a pretty blanket prohibition on alcohol/intoxicants from a karma perspective (though the expectation of laity following those rules is quite interesting, historically). I'm just trying to figure out what to do from here. I'm probably not going to go back to holding the precept for a while, since I'm really loving tired of the social consequences of not drinking (to me, at least) and I've just done >a year and a half without drinking which means I haven't drank for most of the last 4 years in total. I think I'm just time for a break on that front but not from Buddhism as a whole. I actually heard a great talk from the Dalai Lama when I took the refuge vows last, about how it's absolutely possible for the precepts to cause suffering if you're not in a place where you can wisely take them. And he was specifically referring to people who feel they need to drink. Kind of an "obviously not drinking is better, but sometimes not drinking can cause us to suffer in other ways which have a net negative effect compared to drinking because our practice elsewhere isn't there yet".I'm not a monk, I don't really plan to be one, so, advice, Dharmagoons? Not you quantumfate you've called me a heretic enough already. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
This is general non-drinking advice rather than dharma advice, but as someone who's abstained from drinking for at least the last 15 years, some of which were spent in, of all places, New Orleans, I've confronted that problem many many times. You can decide to forego that precept, but how it will work out will depend a lot on whether your heart is really in the endeavor of social drinking, or whether it is instead a grudging concession that will make you feel bad, physically and ethically. I don't at all harbor animosity or judgment of people who enjoy social drinking, assuming it's not overtly harming them or those they interact with, but in my case when I did the social drinking thing it felt insincere and out of kilter with the direction I was going in, in addition to leaving me with a few nasty hangovers. So I ultimately decided not to do it again. What feels appropriate for you may very well differ. What I did *not* decide to do, however, was forego socializing, even with those actively drinking. It's true that drinking is, in a way, a team sport, so there's the potential to feel or be left out, but what I found (and again your experience may differ) was that I could do just as well grabbing a soda or tonic water and lime In a tumbler, that I could have fun, and feel lighter and better doing so, without the overhang of the alcohol buzz, that I could enjoy being with my friends when they were sober and when they were not, and that I could be there both for myself and for others at the end of an evening when the time came for everyone to get home responsibly. Best of luck to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
Folderol posted:It's true that drinking is, in a way, a team sport I'm a geologist. We're goddamn olympians.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
I have tried to phrase the following wall of text carefully so as not to promote the practice of non-virtue or encourage people to discard parts of the Dharma they don't like. Though I am not a great realized one with a perfect use of words, I hope that this achieves this aim and does not cause too much harm. The precepts are ethical guidelines for good behavior that is consistent with Dharma and is proven to result in enlightenment. As a Buddhist, our goal is to attain enlightenment, either to attain liberation from suffering or for the benefit of sentient beings that they might attain liberation from suffering. That is the motivation, that's the goal, that's the aim. A bodhisattva abstains from non-virtuous behavior, and there is no way to make a non-virtue into a virtue. Drinking is non-virtuous, as even in moderation it encourages heedlessness, and even buying or selling it is considered an unskillful trade. That said, you are not a great bodhisattva right now, and you don't have to be. You should strive to be, but you should do so in recognition of your own facticity. If you are not able to keep that precept, don't take that precept. If you don't want to take that precept, don't take that precept. There is no reason for you to do a thing you do not want to do. You might recall a dude a year or so ago who decided he'd convert, but he'd maybe continue to drink in moderation because it would be terribly difficult on his friends if he didn't. That dude continued to drink for a while, and eventually realized, by his own experience (this is the heart of the Kalama Sutra discussed earlier), that alcohol was doing him no favors, even in moderation. He stopped drinking at that point. It's good, but he came to that on his own and when he was ready. There's no need to rush to these things. The thing about precepts is that it is certainly virtuous to hold as many as one can. That's for the best! But it is not virtuous to take them with the knowledge and intent of breaking them. That's in fact deceitful. The advantage to taking precepts and knowing one will fail comes because while holding a precept, one accumulates merit at all times that they are holding the precept - even while sleeping and doing other things. A person who takes the non-violence precept accumulates merit even while asleep due to upholding that precept. A person who does not hold that precept, but who makes a decision not to be violent, has merit for making a good decision, but only at that point. But a person who goes "I will hold this precept but I plan on breaking it" is not really holding it. I think there is a tendency to want to be perfect at Buddhism and I think that is good and noble and should be encouraged. But I think this also tends to do a lot of harm - people who would hold some precepts but not all, people who would carry even one aspect of Dharma, who instead carry on without it because they feel they can't "commit" or do "the whole package." Some people out there even discourage people from considering themselves part of the Sangha just because those people are not willing to define rebirth the same way! But the fact is, the Dharma does not belong to anyone. It does not belong to the Sangha, or even to the Buddha. The Dharma is universal, it is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering. It is accessible to everyone. It should be followed to the best of anyone's ability.If you're able to keep this precept of not drinking, you shouldn't drink! It is not virtuous to do so. It cannot be made virtuous. But recognizing our faults is part of the path, too. If you know you want to drink, and you don't think you can uphold this, or you think it's causing you too much suffering, then just drink. The world will not end if you do not hold that precept. Practice other virtues, and do your best. But be happy! When asked what practices I should do, my teacher told me many times just "do what you can." I found this extremely frustrating, because I didn't understand. But it is as pertinent to you now as it was to me then, I think. Do what you can, dude. If you can not-drink, then don't drink, but if you must drink, then drink. When you drink, keep in mind the Dharma. I do not think it will be long before you realize that drinking does not offer what you think it does, and you will realize other ways to attain what you want. But, if you never realize that, okay then! You have had a good time. I quit drinking because, having drank, and contemplating it, I realized it does not do anything for me of value. If I never drank, I could never have realized that, and I'd just be doing a thing because it says to. If you want to drink, it is because you haven't actually realized this either. Maybe if you drink, you'll come to realize it. I hope so, because it's non-virtuous, but I mean, brother, you gotta do what you gotta do. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I stopped drinking before I took the precepts. I used to be a big drinker and I loved to get real drunk at parties, but then I started with the whole mindfulness business, and when I was drunk I tried to be mindful of how it actually feels to be drunk. For me, being drunk doesn't actually feel good. Besides there's also saying things you regret and the hangover. If you're gonna drink, I would suggest just paying attention to how it feels and what you say and do. I mean, giving up alcohol was so easy for me after doing this. Now I feel like I am free from alochol, I don't have to drink ever again, yay! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
If you tried to eliminate drinking and it's still on your mind enough to write such a lengthy post about (just teasing), then you likely have unfinished business with it. I used to love drinking but it gradually lost appeal. Two of the biggest factors in that were losing contact with the friends with whose company I found drinking made a special treat and seeing drunk people commit really ugly violence to people they ostensibly loved. Now it just doesn't appeal to me. If I try to drink and relive the feelings I used to get it makes me feel bad. I was much more partial to marijuana but that has lost interest for me too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
I like Paramemetic's post. I've given up all intoxicants not because I value the precept that rules them out, but because I want to be able at all times to do what I need to do to take care of my son (e.g. drive him to the hospital). Once he's 18 and out of the house, I fully intend to return to using intoxicants. I look forward to that every day. It never occurred to me that my actions count as following the precept; I merely have a higher priority now that supersedes my desire to get intoxicated. While I guess I could get intoxicated sometimes "safely" it's much easier and less risky to maintain a discipline that doesn't require me to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. So for now I follow a blanket "nothing ever" ban. Maybe at some point I will change and decide to follow the precept. As it is, I plan to get intoxicated at the first "opportunity". That's where I'm at right now. The thought that I won't get high for many years is tolerable. The thought that will never get high again... I can't stomach that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I'm not sure this is exactly the right thread to ask, but as far as I know there isn't a Christianity or religious history A/T thread so i'll approach it from this direction. Why are Buddhism and Christianity so often compared or described as similar? I'm especially thinking here of ideas like Jesus being inspired by Buddhism rather than the two traditions developing independently of each other, which seem to me to be much more popular (relatively) in the West than Asia. To be honest, i've been inclined to see this as a kind of revisionist history thing with a strong dose of orientalism, but i'd like to hear other people's opinions, either on the similarities and differences between the two religions or especially on the origins/popularity of the notion itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right thread to ask, but as far as I know there isn't a Christianity or religious history A/T thread so i'll approach it from this direction. I imagine the major connection between the two faiths nowadays is that both have strong monastic traditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The Jesus story is not impossible, though the idea that Jesus wandered off for a stint in a Buddhist monastery probably is. However, Buddhism was 500 years old when Christ was alive, and I gather the Romans were at least vaguely aware of its existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world And there was an entire art movement that was a combination of Greek and Buddhist art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Some of the Ashokan pillars talk about Buddhist monks being sent as far as Antioch and Alexandria, and name the Greek rulers of the time, etc. There was certainly contact but I think the idea that Jesus was personally influenced by actual Buddhist teachings is pretty hard to make an argument for. And I have certainly seen people try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right thread to ask, but as far as I know there isn't a Christianity or religious history A/T thread so i'll approach it from this direction. There is a Liturgical Christianity thread but it sometimes serves as a general Christianity thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3554109&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 As to similarities. Both Jesus and Buddha were basically Ascetics, though I think that's about as far as you can take it because most Biblical writing and what Buddhist wrtiting I've read tend to be disimilar. Though some of the incompatibilities between them are more between orthodox Christian Theologies. The tradition I'm reading up on now, Process Theology, does deny a soul (as a sort of dualistic mechanism) and stress a God that can and does change. PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:As to similarities. Both Jesus and Buddha were basically Ascetics, though I think that's about as far as you can take it because most Biblical writing and what Buddhist wrtiting I've read tend to be disimilar. That's where I get tripped up. I know the contemporary Greeks were probably in contact with Buddhism, but I don't see a significant similarity between those Buddhist ideas and Christianity (that couldn't be explained by a closer tradition). Thank you for the link, i'll check that thread out!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:This is kind of a derail, I don't want to detract from this thread and belongs in the buddhism thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3548558 Were you going to respond then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Sure!Rurutia posted:I thought you were Buddhist? I was very close friends with a Buddhist from Taiwan with a very long lineage of his family being Buddhist. From what I understood, he definitely believed in a soul of some form. At least when he explained reincarnation to me, there was definitely a a soul of sorts. Isn't the reason why Buddhists are vegetarian because they believe in karma, and thus every animal they eat is a life where they will also be eaten? To break this down: Not every Buddhist is a vegetarian, Theravada buddhists are actually pretty vocal about the non-vegetarian as a sort of response to that misconception. It rests on the idea that a monk dependent on alms should not reject a genuine compassionate gift of food just because it's made of meat. Mahayana buddhists are fairly commonly vegetarian, there's a section of the lankavatara sutra which implores followers of the buddhadharma to abstain from meat because it is an affectation that cultivates non-compassion, it requires death, and there is no fundamental difference between a human form and an animal form. Both are life. As far as Karma, it does not work that way. If you eat an animal it doesn't mean you'll be reborn as an animal and be eaten, it's a system of causality. That which is a cause, has a result. That's karma. The result of a life of indulging in meat might be such that your actions lead your next birth into that of an animal to be slaughtered; but in no way is that because of retributive comeuppance. It's more something that would happen to be a result. Here's a short little summary of karma: Quantumfate posted:Firstly- Karma is the law that states that all our actions, whatever we do with our body, mind or speech have consequences. Now; regarding his conception of the soul- This is either a means of simplifying it, of misunderstanding on your end, misunderstanding on his or his family's end or just straight up being wrong about what the majority of the faith agrees. One of the fundamental tenets of buddhism, and I mean since the time of the buddha and across all divisions of buddhism, is the concept of Anatta. No-self. There is no solid persistent self. Now, in mahayana and vajrayana buddhism (and mahayana is the most common in Taiwan) there is the concept of Tathagatagarbha, "Buddha-ness". It's the capacity for every being to be enlightened, the absolute unmediated nature of a person free from suffering and liberated. All sentient beings have this, and it might be apprehended as a sort of soul to simplify things without getting into a large theological debate, but it's not quite. Rather than something which is, an inherent aspect, it's more an ultimate reduction, an apophatic expression of a semantic, though not ontological, self. Tied to this is that Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation, there is nothing to incarnate across lifetimes. Rather the concept is that of rebirth. A succession of linked births and lives that each have their own arising sort of self as an extension of consciousness. Also tied to that is the mahayana/vajrayana concept of alayavijnana, or the mindstream. Both posit a continually experiential sort of consciousness (consciousness here meaning the way in which we mediate the world and how we relate ourselves to it) that persists across births. This is not however a permanent or essential fixture of a being as much as it's a way of classifying a karmically interdependent chain of events that condition the various mind-arisings across births.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
I don't know if this is the right thread, I was looking for the meditation thread but couldn't find it. Anyway, that meditation thread led me to try out Zazen, and I finished my fourth session yesterday. Something happened on the third time, that still keeps me thinking. Basically I don't know what I experienced, but I felt (and still do) very humbled by it. The best analogy I came up with, was picturing myself swimming in the ocean, and suddenly finding that the Mariana trench is underneath me. It wasn't really negative or positive, there was just this awareness of depth. I don't know if "complexity" might describe it, I think "depth" is better. There was no fear, just depth. Are there any words/concepts in buddhism, that might describe the experience? (I haven't talked to anyone about this yet)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:I don't know if this is the right thread, I was looking for the meditation thread but couldn't find it. Anyway, that meditation thread led me to try out Zazen, and I finished my fourth session yesterday. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/ You're the only one who can really decide what you felt, and at least in my experience, no word comes close to describing a meditative experience. For example, I could say that I've experienced the first jhana just based on other descriptions of it, but did I really? I don't know. It's sort of like trying to describe the sensation of a new color to other people. But what you describe certainly sounds normal in the course of zazen. Don't worry too much about assigning labels to it. Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:But what you describe certainly sounds normal in the course of zazen. Don't worry too much about assigning labels to it. This, but also don't worry too much about reproducing it, either. A lot of people meditating begin to start looking for these really profound, meaningful meditative sessions, and get confused, thinking these are the goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:This, but also don't worry too much about reproducing it, either. A lot of people meditating begin to start looking for these really profound, meaningful meditative sessions, and get confused, thinking these are the goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Some of the Ashokan pillars talk about Buddhist monks being sent as far as Antioch and Alexandria, and name the Greek rulers of the time, etc. There was certainly contact but I think the idea that Jesus was personally influenced by actual Buddhist teachings is pretty hard to make an argument for. And I have certainly seen people try. at least two of the Jesusan parables are practically word for word the same as Gautama parables. The prodigal son and another I can't think of offhand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:at least two of the Jesusan parables are practically word for word the same as Gautama parables. The prodigal son and another I can't think of offhand. I dont recall ever seeing anything that identical, but if you think that is the case I would be very interested in seeing them. A lot had been said on the similarities between the faiths, but most of it that I have seen has been pretty vague and common to most other religions anyway for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I really like the part of Christianity where Jesus says God is irrelevant and the soul isn't real and I really like the part of Buddhism where it goes on about divine judgement for moral transgressions and how you die once then go to heaven or hell forever. My personal favourite part is where the Jewish description of the messianic savior goes on about how he's a member of the Tribe and how the Buddhist descriptions of what makes a Buddha include discussing Buddha's foreskin because that's the single funniest bit of mutual exclusivity in the history of theology to me.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I really like the part of Christianity where Jesus says God is irrelevant and the soul isn't real and I really like the part of Buddhism where it goes on about divine judgement for moral transgressions and how you die once then go to heaven or hell forever. I like the part about social drinking, where Jesus does make a comparison between John getting criticized for being abstinent and an anchorite and himself, the Son of Man who comes eating and drinking, and the idiots call him a glutton and drunkard. Maybe you're just not looking in the right places to justify your lifestyle....
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Despite the fact that doctrinal differences between the religions are fairly severe, I think it would require a pretty strong series of parallel texts to show any kind of actual influence. The similarities tend to be pretty superficial from what I have seen: kindness, assisting the poor, nonviolence, shying away from a reliance or attachment to material things, etc. You can find those tendencies in almost any faith. I dont know that any of Ashoka's missionaries established actual monasteries near the Greeks. Maybe they did, but the idea of direct transmission or even substantial influence of Buddhism on Christianity isn't something I have ever seen a good argument for. But I'd be very interested in seeing any interesting parallels in the texts if anyone can find some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:53
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Maybe you're just not looking in the right places to justify your lifestyle.... I'm going to tell people I'm not being a lovely precept-breaking Buddhist but I'm actively exploring new syncretic avenues with post-modern interpretations of communion in a Buddhist-Christian tradition.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Despite the fact that doctrinal differences between the religions are fairly severe, I think it would require a pretty strong series of parallel texts to show any kind of actual influence. The similarities tend to be pretty superficial from what I have seen: kindness, assisting the poor, nonviolence, shying away from a reliance or attachment to material things, etc. To be honest, I don't know that the overall Western mind-culture could even grasp the beauty of buddhism until relatively recently, so it probably never got any further west than, say, Iran, if that far? But I wouldn't call those similarities superficial by any stretch, they are core tenets to human evolution. If people took those seriously, they wouldn't need religions, imo. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'm going to tell people I'm not being a lovely precept-breaking Buddhist but I'm actively exploring new syncretic avenues with post-modern interpretations of communion in a Buddhist-Christian tradition. Voila. I want a credit in your upcoming book of the same name
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:55
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I want a credit in your upcoming book of the same name I wonder if "Buddhism without Beliefs" is taken as a book name yet?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
quote:But I wouldn't call those similarities superficial by any stretch, they are core tenets to human evolution. If people took those seriously, they wouldn't need religions, imo. Superficial wasn't the right word for what I was trying to say. I meant that a lot of the ideas that people often point to as similarities between two faiths can be found almost universally across world religions. I need to stop posting when I am distracted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:Take a gander at the concepts of jhana and samhadi: Aha, interesting. Tbh I've done zero reading about zen & buddhism up to now, so still finding my way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Aha, interesting. Tbh I've done zero reading about zen & buddhism up to now, so still finding my way around. And a question for all the practicing Buddhist converts here: How did you end up choosing the particular school you wanted to follow? What was your conversion experience like in general?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I wonder if "Buddhism without Beliefs" is taken as a book name yet? Well it's great, but it looks like unfortunately, that idiot Steven Batchelor has appropriated it. "Batchelor...suggests that Buddhism jettison reincarnation and karma, thereby making possible what he calls an 'existential, therapeutic and liberating agnosticism." —Time magazine Haha, ironic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Well it's great, but it looks like unfortunately, that idiot Steven Batchelor has appropriated it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Nessus posted:So this guy is like a Buddhist heretic, right? Is there some kind of Shaolin inquisition for that sort of thing? (To express the question in a serious form: How does the Buddhist community deal with things like that?) They form groups called Secular Buddhist Association and invite him to speak. Being very monastic, I would imagine traditionally when someone approaches "heresy" they would just get a lot of extra attention from the lead monks until they right the ship as it were. There were some early ones who basically just got shamed out of existence, I think. From what I've read of Batchelor he was just very arrogant when it came to monasticism and never really took any instruction seriously. At least that's the gist I got from this review of his Atheist book http://buddhism.about.com/od/beginnerbuddhistbooks/a/batchelor-confession.htm PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:40
|
|