PrinceRandom posted:I don't think "heresy" really existed in Buddhism as a concept until. 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. This is why sassatavaada and ucchedavaada are frequently referred to, by monks, as heresies.  Mr. Mambold posted:Well it's great, but it looks like unfortunately, that idiot Steven Batchelor has appropriated it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is why sassatavaada and ucchedavaada are frequently referred to, by monks, as heresies. I should of just excised the first sentence after the first edit :facepalm:. Infact I'll do it now. Anyways this quote is sort of emblematic of the Batchelor approach to instruction. quote:In 1980, after his break with Tibetan Buddhism, Batchelor chose to work with the Korean Zen Master Kusan Sunim. However, it's clear from his own account that he refused to look at much of what Master Kusan was trying to show him. PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is why sassatavaada and ucchedavaada are frequently referred to, by monks, as heresies. ahhh.. http://www.sadtrombone.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I'm trying to get a handle on the metaphysics of Buddhism and am running into some problems. If someone could help me here, I'd really appreciate it. Why is it called rebirth? If there is no self, if nothing is preserved after death (and indeed before death, death is nothing special because you cannot annihilate that which doesn't exist), why is it "re"birth? I don't understand the sense in which there is any repetition of what came before. Of course the "re" might be just a way of noting that life-suffering-death is a causal process that happens over and over again. If that's right, then what repeats is living, and suffering, and death as such even though there is no ontological unit in which life, suffering, and death inhere that itself repeats. The above worry seems to be connected with karma somehow. As I understand it, an action is karmic if it is intentional or one of its causes was itself karmic. The results of a karmic action are karmic results. Put another way, if an action is a karmic result, then that action is a karmic action. Karma (or perhaps better, karmic-ness) propagates and multiplies through causal interaction. The measure of an action is the intention behind it. Ill-intentioned actions eventually bear suffering as a fruit. If I understand things correctly, if I get hit by a bus that is the result of a multiplicity of actions, but we can roughly say that it was the result of unwholesome/ill-intentioned actions. But it's not like my actions in a past life are coming back to haunt me or anything, because I have no past lives. I am ephemeral and personal identity is an illusion, so personal identity across deaths is of course wrong. By "ill-intentioned" above I don't necessarily mean malicious, as someone that has lots of attachments could perform lots of "ill-intentioned" actions and therefore cause lots of suffering without doing so on purpose. Earlier someone said that karma isn't just your actions producing results, and that the view of karma as mere "actions have results" is indeed Western atheists talking down to people and generally being jerks. OK. But from what I've articulated above, the truth of the matter is almost that (and so I'm thinking that I'm missing something). Actions have results (though not in 1:1 correspondence as each occurrence is the result of uncountably many actions coinciding, and I imagine that trying to reify "actions" and "results" into discrete and distinct units is a mistake), and these results are determined by the intention that produces them. So that's how I understand the Buddhist conceptions of rebirth and karma. Is that close, or have I inadvertently imported a bunch of Western atheist jerkery (or otherwise gone wrong)? I very much appreciate your help!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I thought this might interest some people here, Coursera is starting two buddhism-related courses soon: Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World Introduces students to (i) the history of Buddhist contemplative traditions in India and Tibet (meditation, yoga, mindfulness, visualization, etc.), (ii) innovations in scientific research on understanding such contemplative practices, (iii) recent adaptations of such practices in multiple professional and personal areas, and (iv) the practices themselves through brief secular contemplative exercises. https://www.coursera.org/course/meditation Buddhism and Modern Psychology The Buddha said that human suffering—ranging from anxiety to sadness to unfulfilled craving—results from not seeing reality clearly. He described a kind of meditation that promises to ease suffering by dispelling illusions about the world and ourselves. What does psychological science say about this diagnosis and prescription—and about the underlying model of the mind? https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I'm trying to get a handle on the metaphysics of Buddhism and am running into some problems. If someone could help me here, I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to hit me over AIM or skype at quantumf8 or quantumfate respectively and I can do my best to help you out  . Otherwise I'll be working up a response to this but it will take a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I'm trying to get a handle on the metaphysics of Buddhism and am running into some problems. If someone could help me here, I'd really appreciate it. They are complicated questions, and I do not know much and cannot claim to have them perfectly mastered, but I can try to elucidate something here. Hopefully it will be beneficial. quote:Why is it called rebirth? If there is no self, if nothing is preserved after death (and indeed before death, death is nothing special because you cannot annihilate that which doesn't exist), why is it "re"birth? I don't understand the sense in which there is any repetition of what came before. Of course the "re" might be just a way of noting that life-suffering-death is a causal process that happens over and over again. If that's right, then what repeats is living, and suffering, and death as such even though there is no ontological unit in which life, suffering, and death inhere that itself repeats. "Rebirth" is of course an English word that is not exactly accurate. The answer to this question is somewhat related to the latter. The basic idea of rebirth is that death and the subsequent dissolution of consciousness is a contributing cause for the generation of a new consciousness. Your current consciousness is a bunch of aggregates, including proximal and contributing causes that lead to the current consciousness. But, it is impermanent, and mutable, as are all things. So when you die, this creates the karma for the generation of a new consciousness. This new consciousness will consider itself to be "I," just as your current consciousness considers itself to be "I," but it's not the same "I." In a grander sense, we are all interconnected, arisen from primordial emptiness, with no actual distinction of self. You and I are both matter given thought, which thought only exists due to causes and conditions, and not "intrinsically" (as in a conception of a "soul"). Therefore, we're basically inseparable, existing relative to one another and with no meaningful differences outside causes and conditions. quote:The above worry seems to be connected with karma somehow. As I understand it, an action is karmic if it is intentional or one of its causes was itself karmic. The results of a karmic action are karmic results. Put another way, if an action is a karmic result, then that action is a karmic action. Karma (or perhaps better, karmic-ness) propagates and multiplies through causal interaction. Karma is causes. There's a bit more to it than "cause and effect," but "cause and effect" in the scientific sense is an aspect of karma. It's not all of it, but it's an easily identifiable form of it. If I drop an apple, it falls. The karma of this action goes far beyond that I dropped my apple though - maybe because I dropped my apple, I don't have enough apples to sell and my children die. But perhaps that dropped apple becomes food for worms and they benefit from my generosity. It's extremely complicated, and the general consensus is that trying to figure it out is not a worthwhile pursuit for people. A Buddha can sort of "read" karma because a Buddha sees everything perfectly, without the taint of conceptual thought, and so is able to perfectly understand cause and effect. Other sentient beings though cannot because we bring expectations, desires, hopes, aversions, and so on to our interpretations of it. Karma is used as an encouraging tool in sutra and tantra, but it's not meant to be a threat or a reward. Someone might say "hey don't do that, you'll get bad karma" as such, but that doesn't mean karma is such. It's something along the same lines of being told not to lick surfaces in a hospital - there's not really a punishment involved, but getting sick might feel like a punishment. In fact, that's just what happens when you lick surfaces in hospitals! Similarly, despite its being used as a stick and a carrot depending on the teacher, that's not really what it's about, and these teachers are merely skillfully using it as such as a way to appeal to our often stupid and stubborn minds. So for example I have heard a lama claim that if you are a stingy landlord and you bone people on rent and such, you will be reborn as a turtle forced to carry your house on your back. This is not really meant literally - probably being a greedy landlord is not a sufficient contributing cause to lead to the relatively auspicious birth of a turtle (relative to a hungry ghost). But it's being meant to encourage landlords not to be greedy within their cultural milieu. This should be kept in mind along with that in a lot of Buddhist countries, Buddhism being a popular religion actually somewhat mitigates how much people actually know about it. Much like how many Catholics might not know the ins and outs of transubstantiation, the nature of Trinity, and so on, many Buddhists in Asian countries don't really spend much time thinking about it - but, much how Priests and such are considered moral authorities in Western nations, Buddhist teachers are considered moral authorities in Asian countries, and so these kinds of tales come along to develop moral awareness. So yeah, basically karma is often used as a carrot or stick to motivate or deter behavior, but it is in fact simply the process by which causes lead to effects. Generally, these causes are inscrutable, and it's not that important anyways in practical terms - rather, it's important, critically important, in understanding that rebirth continues to happen and in a lot of the more advanced stuff with regards to "why is this like that." For example, it is pivotal and critical to the core of Buddhism in that karma is the mechanism by which rebirth occurs. Escaping from samsara and the cycle of suffering requires one understand that attachment and aversion are direct causes of suffering. This is true both in the sense of easily recognized psychological processes (if you want something and you don't get it, this is frustrating), as well as in the Buddhist metaphysical sense (if you want something and you die, that wanting something will be a contributing cause that leads to rebirth). Likewise, in Vajrayana practice, a lot of time is often spent doing things like taking refuge or other "merit accumulating practices." The reason for this is to do with karma: if you have loads of merit, then this mitigates negative karma and generates positive karma, so that trials will be easier to overcome and virtuous deeds will be easier to perform. This might seem like hoke, and that's fine, but it's really mainly a logical extension of the basic concept. With regards to mentation, this is true to an extent. All actions generate karma, and actions can be undertaken by body, speech, and mind. The way the karma manifests is influenced by the causes. Mentally murdering someone is not the same as actually murdering someone. Mentally murdering someone and physically murdering someone afterwards is worse than either in isolation, and so on so on. But, again, this really isn't that important in terms of future lives stuff, and in this case the immediate result is more pertinent - if you mentally are hateful towards people, this will influence your current disposition. If you are physically violent, this will influence your disposition, and so on. Again, the result of "if you think people are lovely and talk poo poo about them a lot you'll be less happy" is not the entirety of karma, but it is the best we know. I typed up a lot of words from a commentary on the Way of the Bodhisattva on this topic, if you look back in my posts in this thread. They are by a qualified lama and likely to be much more helpful, though potentially more complicated. I hope this is helpful. Edit: the offer to hit up my AIM is also open, my AIM handle is the same as my username. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Some lovely cave temple photography in a piece over at Huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/buddhist-cave-temples_n_4775101.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
For those interested in an e-sangha, I did not recieve any replies of interest so I am unaware you are out there. However, before develing into sutras I will be reworking my way through some of Honored Vasubandhu's works- specifically the seven works of Vasubandhu as edited by Stephen Anacker. They're not the best, and he admits this, but they are incredible well done and fairly true to the intent of the original. If you would like help finding this to follow along, you are still just as free to get in touch with me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:For those interested in an e-sangha, I did not recieve any replies of interest so I am unaware you are out there. However, before develing into sutras I will be reworking my way through some of Honored Vasubandhu's works- specifically the seven works of Vasubandhu as edited by Stephen Anacker. They're not the best, and he admits this, but they are incredible well done and fairly true to the intent of the original. If you would like help finding this to follow along, you are still just as free to get in touch with me. I'm sorry I didn't follow up on that idea. I have been in the middle of a difficult time and I really haven't cracked open a sutta or sat in meditation for several weeks now. Sometimes the spirit of practice gets sucked out of me completely when life becomes very hectic or challenging. I guess those are the times when practice is the most important anyway. Anyway I hope some people get involved in this kind of sutta study. It can be very valuable. I'm going to try and force myself to read more at night. Pick a random sutta before bed and spend a little time with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Really, there's no rush at all. It's always better to deal with life than escape into a bunch of religious/spiritual stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Ah, don't worry. The e-sangha so far has been mostly deciding what to read. Also, Tibetan cowboy chat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
I'd describe it as "Dharmasturbatory"
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Paramemetic, I've been looking at your previous posts and have found them very helpful. Thank you! To both you and Quantumfate, thank you for the IM offer! I will keep that in mind! My computer access generally doesn't mesh well with using instant messaging programs, so please do not take it as a slight or lack of care if I don't get in contact with you immediately! Regarding rebirth, it is beginning to look as if the "re" comes from my being identical with everything (or perhaps just everything sentient?) because I am fundamentally empty/nothing (or maybe better, a manifestation of fundamental nothingness/emptiness). It is in the same sense that I am identical with you that I am identical with that which is the karmic fruit of my actions: we are all both the origin and the result of karma. So we are identical to all things in the karma-process/all things to which we are karmically connected (including future beings). Are we only identical to sentient things (ie things with Buddha natures), or are we identical to all things, like plants, dogs, rocks, etc? From the Pelden that Paramemetic quoted and his or her discussion after, it looks like dying as such is a major cause of birth as such, to such a degree that they can be placed into 1:1 correspondence (though the birth might be "as" an animal or in another realm). Is that right? How one understands this question seems to me to be fundamental to how amenable Buddhism is to the standard Western atheist. If there's no 1:1 correspondence, then I am "reborn" as all the results of my actions, some of which will be births. But if there is 1:1 correspondence, then I am reborn as precisely that being whose birth is Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
The correspondence is as if you took a lit candle, and lit another candle with it. Not as if you melted down a candle and formed a new one with the original candle's 'essence' per se.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Regarding rebirth, it is beginning to look as if the "re" comes from my being identical with everything (or perhaps just everything sentient?) because I am fundamentally empty/nothing (or maybe better, a manifestation of fundamental nothingness/emptiness). It is in the same sense that I am identical with you that I am identical with that which is the karmic fruit of my actions: we are all both the origin and the result of karma. So we are identical to all things in the karma-process/all things to which we are karmically connected (including future beings). Are we only identical to sentient things (ie things with Buddha natures), or are we identical to all things, like plants, dogs, rocks, etc? We're not identical with any of them in practical terms - I'm me, you're you, rocks are rocks. But fundamentally, our essence is emptiness. There is nothing essentially "me" or "you" or "rock" to anything at all. Everything is how it is because of causes and conditions. A chair is not intrinsically a chair, it was previously wood. But wood is not intrinsically wood, it was previously a tree. A tree is not intrinsically a tree, it was once a sapling. That was once a seed. But we would never look at a chair and go "oh, look, seeds." Our nature is the same in that it is empty of anything concrete, it lacks inherent reality. Meanwhile, it does have a sort of illusory reality - nobody would look at you or me and go "oh, a fetus." We were all babies, but you wouldn't look at a picture of yourself as a baby and go "yeap, that is exactly me." It was you, but it isn't now. Things change, they are in flux, so they are real, but also they are not-real. Our "same-ness" lies in that we are all interdependently originated, and we all arise out of the same "emptiness." "You" are identical with the karmic fruit of your actions, sort of, except that "you" are a mental construction, a fabrication that arises only because the conditions and causes sufficient for sapience have been met. There fundamentally is no "you," just causes and conditions. quote:From the Pelden that Paramemetic quoted and his or her discussion after, it looks like dying as such is a major cause of birth as such, to such a degree that they can be placed into 1:1 correspondence (though the birth might be "as" an animal or in another realm). Is that right? How one understands this question seems to me to be fundamental to how amenable Buddhism is to the standard Western atheist. If there's no 1:1 correspondence, then I am "reborn" as all the results of my actions, some of which will be births. But if there is 1:1 correspondence, then I am reborn as precisely that being whose birth is You're stuck on the "I." A being is born whose birth is caused by a death. This being is born based on the causes and conditions which the preceding being accumulated through its own life. The being which is born will consider itself "I." So did the being which died. "You" cannot be both, one being died! Another was only just born! How could either one be "you," a being that is presently alive? "You" are not reborn, because "you" are not dead. On the occasion of the death of your body, your consciousness will cease. The causes and conditions necessary for your consciousness will end. "You" will be gone, and the causes and conditions which brought about "you" can never be brought about again. Another being however will be born, and its birth will be caused by your death, and the conditions of its birth will be based on the actions of this being. I can't clarify further I fear without obfuscating it. It's a complicated subject. That previous exposition is very good, but it is not a concept which can be easily communicated with language alone. It's something to think about, to contemplate. Meditate on impermanence and on what it means to be "empty" and what it means to have "no self." His Holiness the Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche suggests that one of the most important things we can do is meditate on death and impermanence. It's not as morbid as it seems, after just a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:The correspondence is as if you took a lit candle, and lit another candle with it. Not as if you melted down a candle and formed a new one with the original candle's 'essence' per se. Yeah, this is accurate. The idea being that you can light one candle with another candle, such that the candle that is lit is clearly a separate and distinct candle, but yet cannot possibly have been lit without the first. When you light one candle with another, nobody says "look, that is the same flame" and yet one is born of the other. Even this description fails because lighting a candle with another candle doesn't extinguish the flame, but the idea is there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yeah, this is accurate. The idea being that you can light one candle with another candle, such that the candle that is lit is clearly a separate and distinct candle, but yet cannot possibly have been lit without the first. When you light one candle with another, nobody says "look, that is the same flame" and yet one is born of the other. Even this description fails because lighting a candle with another candle doesn't extinguish the flame, but the idea is there. I thought about whether the original candle should go out in the analogy, but I figured the candle remaining lit would be analogous to your karmic actions having a permanent effect, even after you are gone, or the other candle is lit. Maybe the original candle just goes dimmer? I'm not good at metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
For the metaphor to speak to my question re: correspondence, we need to know whether the candle goes out (insofar as candles represent a person, at least). When you light one candle, does the previous candle extinguish such that there is 1:1 correspondence between candles lit and candles extinguished, or could I light three candles with a single one, or use two candles to simultaneously light a third? I read What Makes You Not a Buddhist last night. I think that the author would say that the answer to my question isn't particularly important as long as one accepts the four seals. And of course one could work out a metaphysics of the four seals and answer my question either way. It also wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a single Buddhist answer, and different schools/teachers/etc have different worked-out metaphysics. So perhaps the question is beside the point. I suppose it was silly of me to think that there was a Buddhist answer, when really there are Buddhists' answers. I am gratified to find out that the question I asked is not one that is all that important: having an opinion one way or the other isn't like rejecting the shahada or existence of God or whatever for Western religions. It was especially silly to think that way since it's a question in, more or less, academic philosophy and the Buddhist tradition has been doing academic philosophy for a couple millennia now. I was pretty naive to think there'd be a settled viewpoint on an esoteric question within a practice that spans thousands of years and many more thousands of miles. edit: Brahmajala Sutta posted:118 (131). "Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.[11] In the spirit of the above, I conclude that while it might be both entertaining and interesting to work out a complicated metaphysics of e.g. rebirth or karma or what-have-you, getting too worked up about it is a form of clinging. No wonder I wasn't satisfied with the answer to that specific question: it was a bad question to ask. Now Paramemetic's advice of meditation makes much more sense to me (and not as if I'd asked for a mango and received a breadfruit  )! Thank you all again for your help! I will probably be back with more questions at some point if you all don't mind.
Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Breadfruits are pretty neat and good. Also, really, a lot of Buddhists would say that as long as you follow the seals, observe the precepts, then it shouldn't really matter, but at the same time Wafflehound in this thread has said that a proper understanding of Karma is extremely important to being a Buddhist. I think he'd probably give a good answer to you, Achmed, and he'll probably show up here soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:*snip stuff about karma* I stopped reading metaphysical descriptions of it once I began to intuitively understand it, since that was a waste of effort when I was already seeing it in action. I have a natural tendency to overthink everything; karma is one of the things I don't have to intellectually conceptualize and think about very often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:50
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:Also, really, a lot of Buddhists would say that as long as you follow the seals, observe the precepts, then it shouldn't really matter, but at the same time Wafflehound in this thread has said that a proper understanding of Karma is extremely important to being a Buddhist. I think he'd probably give a good answer to you, Achmed, and he'll probably show up here soon. I don't disagree with that summary of what it means to be a Buddhist? I just think an important part of the refuge vows is not saying "I take refuge in the Buddha (who was hella wrong about rebirth and karma), I take refuge in the Dharma (except the bits about rebirth and karma), and I take refuge in the Sangha (except as they interpret the Dharma)". I don't see how that disagrees with the idea you put forward.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I don't disagree with that summary of what it means to be a Buddhist? I just think an important part of the refuge vows is not saying "I take refuge in the Buddha (who was hella wrong about rebirth and karma), I take refuge in the Dharma (except the bits about rebirth and karma), and I take refuge in the Sangha (except as they interpret the Dharma)". I don't see how that disagrees with the idea you put forward. I never said you disagreed, just that you might be able to expand upon the concept of karma more in depth than I could. I've seen you talk about karma much more than I but I don't even know what page to start digging to find it, after that whole obamacarehugsquad fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Karma is mostly emphasized as a means of getting people to understand the results of actions so that they'll reconsider how they behave. If a person is willing to not do wildly destructive stuff without needing a huge explanation of why being violent is bad, more power to 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
The-Mole posted:Karma is mostly emphasized as a means of getting people to understand the results of actions so that they'll reconsider how they behave. Ehhhhh this is pretty dismissive considering that all the traditions at the time weren't like "hell yeah, Karma". I mean, it's actually considered A Thing™
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I don't disagree with that summary of what it means to be a Buddhist? I just think an important part of the refuge vows is not saying "I take refuge in the Buddha (who was hella wrong about rebirth and karma), I take refuge in the Dharma (except the bits about rebirth and karma), and I take refuge in the Sangha (except as they interpret the Dharma)". I don't see how that disagrees with the idea you put forward. Do you also think that all Christians should be young earth creationists?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you also think that all Christians should be young earth creationists? That's kind of an odd analogy because YEC isn't fundamental to Christianity and it wasn't even fundamental to early Christians. Really I don't see the comparison at all unless you're talking about fundamentalist literalism? PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you also think that all Christians should be young earth creationists? Considering that the teachings of Jesus himself don't really discuss the creation of the earth, whereas the teachings of the Buddha rely pretty heavily on the ideas of karma and rebirth, I don't think that is a very useful comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:08
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you also think that all Christians should be young earth creationists? I kind of think all Christians should believe in God, which is a much more honest comparison.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Karma is mostly emphasized as a means of getting people to understand the results of actions so that they'll reconsider how they behave. While I disagree that karma is just a carrot and rod in one, I don't disagree with your conclusion, which I take to be "just practice right moral behavior and who cares about the details." The question I think that ought to be asked is whether or not a dogmatic acceptance of karma is necessary to complete the path. I do not believe it is. That is, I think if one adopts the noble eightfold path, and one cultivates bodhicitta, and cultivates wisdom and compassion, and practices diligently, and renounces, and so on, that one would attain enlightenment whether or not they believe in karma as a literal thing (though I find it increasingly difficult to understand it as anything other than what it is). That said, I also believe that by doing the former, one will necessarily come to a correct understanding of karma. If you practice the path, as things become clear, you will understand karma perfectly. Because practicing the path leads to correct understanding, I do not feel it is necessary to immediately adopt a perfect understanding, and I think requiring such of people potentially hurts them as it may drive them away. Just as it is not effective to require every single adherent immediately assume the Vinaya and forsake all worldly possessions and so on, it is not effective to say "well, until you believe this thing the way I do, you're not really Buddhist." Following the path is sufficient, because the path is internally consistent. If you follow the path, if you meditate and contemplate emptiness, death, and interdependence, and you cultivate compassion and good moral virtues, then through your efforts you will learn the truth. It could be we all have it terribly wrong, and it's literally a metaphor, and without contemplating it and practicing the path, all we have is grasping and dogmatic adherence. So basically, adopt when practices you can, taking refuge in the Triple Gem, and through your efforts you will attain. Whether or not you think karma is a mystical force or a metaphor or whatever, karma is action. So do the right actions. The rest will sort itself out. Edit: Basically, I do not think that a being who perfectly exemplifies all the behaviors of a Buddha would be trapped forever in Samsara because they think of Karma as a metaphor for cause and effect rather than, well, whatever one wants to call it. It really is just inscrutable causes and conditions resultant from actions, I mean I don't really comprehend the problem with karma. I see people's problems with literal rebirth, but then, all the same things all apply. Whether you believe in literal rebirth or not is irrelevant if you're practicing right moral behavior, because it's not "you" experiencing the rebirth anyways, so I doubt anyone who is practicing all the perfections is getting reborn in the hell realms because they don't believe in rebirth. Further, I think that proper practice will lead one to understand rebirth correctly regardless of one's initial disposition, if they're practicing properly. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:41
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The question I think that ought to be asked is whether or not a dogmatic acceptance of karma is necessary to complete the path. Literally the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path posted:Right view
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
I see that you seem to believe that adopting a path means perfecting it instantly. I have not yet perfected any of the eightfold path, so I guess I haven't started yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:04
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I see that you seem to believe that adopting a path means perfecting it instantly. I have not yet perfected any of the eightfold path, so I guess I haven't started yet. There's a difference between attempting to understand a path and going "Oh hey I got this and Buddha was totally wrong." I believe in rebirth, do I have absolute gnosis of rebirth? Because the latter would be perfection.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's a difference between attempting to understand a path and going "Oh hey I got this and Buddha was totally wrong." I believe in rebirth, do I have absolute gnosis of rebirth? Because the latter would be perfection. If your understanding of rebirth is not perfect, then it is flawed. If it is flawed, it is not the Perfect Dharma. If it is not the Perfect Dharma, then you believe in a corruption of Dharma. My imperfect understanding is hopefully closer than the imperfect understanding of others, but they are all imperfect understandings that need improved through study, meditation, and practice. Telling someone else they may not or should not study, meditate, or practice because their imperfections are different than mine seems unwise. I do not think that there is any fruit in squabbling over whose conceptual and tainted view of Karma is more or less accurate to a perfected, non-conceptual understanding, which is attained through practicing Dharma as best as one can. If we are being arbitrary about what is "too corrupt" or "close enough," then this is sectarian divisiveness and causes a rift in the Sangha, and further it actively discourages people who are not in a place where they can understand things correctly from pursuing the means to understand it correctly. This is unskillful. I am not saying it is "okay" to profess that rebirth is a metaphor moment to moment, but it is certainly tolerable if one does so while working in other ways to perfect their practice, because Buddhism is an internally consistent system and if they accurately apprehend other aspects, they will ultimately arrive at the right view on this aspect as well. Telling people "you can't take Refuge here because you don't interpret rebirth the same way I do, but still make an attempt to fit Buddhist thought into your worldview, presumably because you wish to adopt this faith and take refuge, so you'd better just leave" is not fruitful. Telling people "your understanding of rebirth is not in line with the doctrine, but whatever, if you want to take Refuge, you should do so, and please practice diligently with faith, even if your doctrinal understanding is flawed, be kind to others, practice compassion and nonviolence, and so on" is fruitful. Telling people "you're not really a Buddhist" tends towards the former. It is better to gently correct someone, and let people practice according to their various abilities. Not everyone has the karma to be a perfect practitioner right now. Some people have the karma only to hear of the Dharma, and be reborn into a more auspicious life for practice. Why should we be so cruel as to deny them any portion of the Dharma simply because of misapprehension? There is a difference between a guy teaching and going "oh I really get this, all those Asian dudes are wrong, I know the true Dharma, follow me" and someone going "I choose not to believe in the metaphysical and supernatural stuff, but I find that practicing meditation and holding some precepts makes me feel good." The latter is welcome to call themselves Buddhist if they choose. The former should be corrected, or, if this is not possible, cut off from the Sangha, but only out of compassion, and his students taught the right way as best as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:21
|
|
Paramemetic posted:If your understanding of rebirth is not perfect, then it is flawed. If it is flawed, it is not the Perfect Dharma. If it is not the Perfect Dharma, then you believe in a corruption of Dharma. You seem to have this giant conflation of gnosis and right view going on. There's a difference between a "flawed understanding" and literally believing that it doesn't exist and standing firmly beside that. Paramemetic posted:I am not saying it is "okay" to profess that rebirth is a metaphor moment to moment, but it is certainly tolerable if one does so while working in other ways to perfect their practice Sorry, but what? The idea that people articulate this view as Buddhism is horrible, it's directly a corruption of the Dharma and spreading not only false Dharma, but a literal heresy as Dharma. Part of taking refuge means accepting that you are not the authority on interpreting the Dharma (unless, like, you're an emanation of Avalokiteśvara or an arahat or something), just believing whatever the hell you want and claiming to be a Buddhist doesn't magically make you a Buddhist. Saying "I think Buddha was right but I am struggling to understand it or eliminate doubts" is absolutely right view. Paramemetic posted:Telling people "your understanding of rebirth is not in line with the doctrine, but whatever, if you want to take Refuge, you should do so, and please practice diligently with faith, even if your doctrinal understanding is flawed, be kind to others, practice compassion and nonviolence, and so on" is fruitful. That's very Alan Watts of you. Unfortunately refuge isn't just saying some words, it's being honest with them as well. To use your own words, you can't suddenly make what is not virtuous a virtue, this includes the fourth precept. Paramemetic posted:There is a difference between a guy teaching and going "oh I really get this, all those Asian dudes are wrong, I know the true Dharma, follow me" and someone going "I choose not to believe in the metaphysical and supernatural stuff, but I find that practicing meditation and holding some precepts makes me feel good." Excluding "follow me" the only difference in these two, if both people are going to identify as Buddhists, is how you're presenting them. They're the same, and in both cases they're rejecting at the very least (assuming they believe they are correctly interpreting the Dharma) refuge in the Sangha.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I would rather someone practice moral ethics and other aspects of Dharma and be wrong about a few points than reject Dharma entirely because they have been told they must adhere to supernatural and metaphysical beliefs that they may or may not be ready for. That's my contribution. If I am mistaken, I sincerely hope I learn better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:50
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I would rather someone practice moral ethics and other aspects of Dharma and be wrong about a few points than reject Dharma entirely because they have been told they must adhere to supernatural and metaphysical beliefs that they may or may not be ready for. Me too. I would just hope that if they're going to claim a very specific religious identity as their own that they'd at least believe what that religion holds as a core part of the faith. Edit: I get that you just walked up to the nearest Sangha and I'm really happy your experience with accessing the Dharma has been super positive. But I'm not the only person here who has been turned away from religious services because people assume I'm just yet-another-smarter-than-those-backwards-orientals-white-guy Buddhist. Words have meaning and people just going around saying they're Buddhist and how that they can believe whatever they want and still be Buddhist directly impact the ability of those who are genuinely interested in the Dharma to have access to Sanghas. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
What good is a perfect understanding of something if it isn't acted upon? Better to act decently than to understand perfectly. That's not to say that understanding isn't important, just secondary to how one chooses to act. Also, there are a lot of different views on rebirth out there. Both within individual traditions and from tradition to tradition. Some really do treat it as just an inspirational metaphor or as a vehicle for communicating the workings of cause and effect/causes and conditions/karma, others treat it as literally, "I was xxx in a past life and there are weird memories that don't make any sense." Historically, it isn't talked about much because it is really divisive and, not infrequently, dangerous as well. Some people get really into, "Oh I must have been a King such-and-such" or Jesus, or Buddha, or Hitler, or whoever in a past life and just go off the deep-end in some pretty dangerous, scary ways. From what I can tell, it is a really internal part of people's experience and trying to force another's internal experience to conform to some pre-set standard leads to a lot of internal conflict or friction. Thus people are kind of allowed to come to whatever understanding of rebirth works for them. There are, no question, a lot of Buddhists who believe in literal reincarnation and a lot of Buddhists would believe reincarnation is a big pile of bullshit. The quietness about the subject seems to be largely a way of letting people have their own beliefs and experiences, versus enforcing some kind of conformity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:03
|
|
The-Mole posted:Some really do treat it as just an inspirational metaphor or as a vehicle for communicating the workings of cause and effect/causes and conditions/karma Can you name one tradition? The-Mole posted:Historically, it isn't talked about much because it is really divisive and, not infrequently, dangerous as well. Historically it was one of the primary things talked about in a lot of Buddhist scholarship and the questions around rebirth (not "is it literal") are some of the key theological discussions that have been going on for thousands of years. It's not avoided at all. The-Mole posted:Some people get really into, "Oh I must have been a King such-and-such" or Jesus, or Buddha, or Hitler, or whoever in a past life and just go off the deep-end in some pretty dangerous, scary ways. Yeah, this is literally the Tulku system, from a pragmatic perspective.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Wafflehound, would you mind commenting on my past questions in this thread? You have quite strong views as to what counts as "really" Buddhist. I'm trying to understand the system, so I would very much appreciate your input, particularly with respect to my question regarding bijection between death and birth. My conclusion there was that it doesn't matter too much, but it looks like your view might be that a particular understanding of the mathematics of rebirth is very important after all. e: Another way to put this would be, I understand that all things have many causes/conditions. Is it right to say that exactly one death can and must be involved in any single birth, or that a bunch of deaths (along with all sorts of other actions) could be causes (jointly, perhaps) for a bunch of births (and a bunch of other actions besides)? If it is the latter, I do not really understand how the view is different from bog standard causation supplemented with the causal rule that bad intentions/unskillful actions yield suffering, and as such I do not really understand what a rejection of it would look like beyond rejecting the supplemental rule I just mentioned. Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:14
|
|