|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Can you name one tradition? Also, Dogen does not treat reincarnation as particularly real. quote: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. I could've been clearer, I meant that it isn't talked about publicly very much. quote:Yeah, this is literally the Tulku system, from a pragmatic perspective. Even the Tulku system has some big differences in terms of what it is popularly perceived to represent and what it is actually understood to represent by the people getting Tulkud themselves. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 21, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
This thread is Avici. Would it be right view if one were to say something like, "It is currently my imperfect view that rebirth is is a metaphor for how causes in my life affect lives of others in the future. However, I may be wrong and am willing to ammend or abandon my view should I discover it to be false in the course of my practice." ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Is the point of Buddhism to find and accept an identity with which to attach oneself?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
I thought the goal was perfect conformism to someone else's (hopefully more charismatic) interpretation of Buddhism
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:I thought the goal was perfect conformism to someone else's (hopefully more charismatic) interpretation of Buddhism Ah, I had a feeling I was getting it wrong... good to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Whatever that tradition Nagarjuna was a part of. Um, you're kind of wrong here? As far as Dogen, do you mean Eihei Dogen? Soto Zen Dogen? the Shobogenzo has dudes being reborn like everwhere. It's true he rejects any sort of division between practise and enlightenment, rejects enlightenment as a thing (Following the heart sutra's assertion that enlightenment is not some linear path that can be progressed upon) Also wow, please don't insult patriarch Nagarjuna, he too was all about rebirth. Do not fall into the trap wherein denial of the ego negates the meansby which actions facilitate rebirth- this was part of nagarjuna's drive. comaerror posted:This thread is Avici. That would be a step towards good practise, yes. It would be more suiting and appropriate for right view to go "It is currently my imperfect view that rebirth is is a metaphor, but I will accept it in name and strive to understand it. In time I will come to know it." Yiggy posted:Is the point of Buddhism to find and accept an identity with which to attach oneself? Really devalues any sort of effort here to have these pithy asides and snide attacks eh? It's not about identity and you and The-Mole are both aware of that. It's more about a foundational doctrine of the faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
You are truly free to believe anything on earth that you want to. I cited Dogen and Nagarjuna as two people (generally accepted to be Buddhists) who both acknowledged a role of something rebirth-like, but who also notably are not talking about some sort of direct, one-to-one reincarnation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
I'm a crappy white guy Buddhist and I hope I didn't start a shitstorm 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Really devalues any sort of effort here to have these pithy asides and snide attacks eh? It's not about identity and you and The-Mole are both aware of that. It's more about a foundational doctrine of the faith. This thread had been a cesspool of cliquish sniping for quite awhile. Wafflehound has a pernicious habit of making GBS threads on anyone who doesn't see through his eyes and making it specifically an issue of Buddhist Identity. He frequently harps on others about what he thinks is right view in an utterly unskillful way. When someone tried to point out other parts of the path that he obviously isn't getting he responds with nothing but pithy asides. He had a habit of dodging arguments in the past with appeals to authority specifically with people like Paramemetic, but now that there is disagreement he starts throwing barbs at him being Alan Watts like after being perfectly clear how much he disdained the man. So no, when you tell me that this is about a foundational doctrine of the faith I'm going to disagree, as I feel its transparently not at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 02:45
|
|
comaerror posted:Would it be right view if one were to say something like, "It is currently my imperfect view that rebirth is is a metaphor for how causes in my life affect lives of others in the future. However, I may be wrong and am willing to ammend or abandon my view should I discover it to be false in the course of my practice." ? Strictly speaking, no. Right view would be right view. This would still be a good and positive outlook, though considering it contradicts the teachings of every school of Buddhism about core parts of Buddhism one maybe that should be worked through before you identify as a Buddhist. The-Mole posted:I could've been clearer, I meant that it isn't talked about publicly very much. It really is though? Yiggy posted:Is the point of Buddhism to find and accept an identity with which to attach oneself? Obviously not, but it's naïve to pretend that identity politics aren't a massive part of this. It's a two-sided problem, I'm upset about people who aren't Buddhist identifying as Buddhist, but you seem to get more upset about that than the people who aren't Buddhist insisting on claiming a Buddhist identity. True, I'm more vocal, but that doesn't mean that in this conversation the burden of proof isn't being put on those who don't reject the raison d'etre of Buddhism as a fantasy. Yiggy posted:Wafflehound has a pernicious habit of making GBS threads on anyone who doesn't see through his eyes and making it specifically an issue of Buddhist Identity. This is such bullshit. It's not "my view" if it's the view of literally every school of Buddhism. The fact is, whether or not you accept that it is a foundational doctrine of Buddhist faith, it really clearly is. The purpose of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of death and rebirth. If there is annihilation, if Samsara is escaped by death, then you reduce Buddhism to some basic feel-good self-help points that have a lot of weird metaphysical stuff you have to overlook. I mean, Buddhist practice isn't easy, clearly I'm pretty poo poo at right speech sometimes and I apologize for that, but that's kind of the point. Why subject yourself to a very hard practice if what is recognized by the goal of that practice by pretty much everyone for the last 2600 years is acchieved by, well, jumping off a bridge? Or perhaps you want to reduce the suffering of those around you so the fruits of your actions are reborn in others in good ways? Then why do you need Buddhism for that? Part of the problem for me is a lot of this looks to be like people who say you can't be a good person with Christian morality. Everyone has a pretty good sense of how not to gently caress up the lives of others, Buddhism doesn't bring much to the table that isn't self-evident if you're looking at it from a self-help-book perspective. I mean, not being a dick and meditating a bunch aren't the core of Buddhism, even if it does summarize a lot of the practice. Same as praying a bunch doesn't make you Christian if you don't believe in God or the divinity of Christ. Yiggy posted:He frequently harps on others about what he thinks is right view in an utterly unskillful way. This is certainly true, and I need to work on it. That said, I'm really tired of having my faith diluted and being cut off from religious services, having false dharma passed off as totally acceptible. Since this thread started I've had another major experience of basically being told to piss off from a Sangha until I can present them with sufficient proof that I'm not just a standard rebirth-is-a-metaphor honkey Buddhist. A lot of Buddhists care very much about the Dharma, and corrupting it is a bad thing, not simply a live-and-let-be thing. Excuse me if I'm touchy, even if I recognize how I go about it is unskilful. Yiggy posted:When someone tried to point out other parts of the path that he obviously isn't getting he responds with nothing but pithy asides. Sorry, but do you mind pointing out some examples? I actually don't believe you're making stuff up I'm just hopeful I can respond to them. Yiggy posted:He had a habit of dodging arguments in the past with appeals to authority specifically with people like Paramemetic, but now that there is disagreement he starts throwing barbs at him being Alan Watts like after being perfectly clear how much he disdained the man. It's a religion. There are religious authorities. Appealing to them is totally acceptable. Barb or not, Paramemetic's very open interpretation on what it's acceptable to believe while identifying yourself as a Buddhist (and therefore identifying to others as a representative of Buddhist beliefs) is very Watts-like. I'd like to think that Para knows better than to think I'd throw barbs at him to spite him. Yiggy posted:So no, when you tell me that this is about a foundational doctrine of the faith I'm going to disagree, as I feel its transparently not at all. And again, part of refuge in the Sangha is recognizing that the Sangha has interpretational authority of the texts. The-Mole posted:Also, Dogen does not treat reincarnation as particularly real. I see a lot of people who believe this and a lot of more knowledgeable people who think it's patently wrong. Assuming we're talking about rebirth and not reincarnation. The-Mole posted:Even the Tulku system has some big differences in terms of what it is popularly perceived to represent and what it is actually understood to represent by the people getting Tulkud themselves. I'm pretty solidly familiar with the tulku system, though we might have been looking at it from different angles (I was looking at a secular origin of it as a system of power preservation, whether or not that is your view). Achmed Jones posted: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. Sorry if I missed it or overlooked it, do you mind clarifying what the question was and I'll try to get to it? WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Barb or not, Paramemetic's very open interpretation on what it's acceptable to believe while identifying yourself as a Buddhist (and therefore identifying to others as a representative of Buddhist beliefs) is very Watts-like. I'd like to think that Para knows better than to think I'd throw barbs at him to spite him. Amusingly enough, I have not used the word "identify" at all in this discussion. I have specifically and repeatedly stated that I think that having ill-formed understandings or misapprehensions about certain aspects of Dharma while engaging in Buddhist practice is not only understandable but acceptable. We're not all Buddhas, we do not have the perfect understanding of a Buddha, and that's fine. I have not been interested in discussing identity politics. It does not interest me. It does not matter to me. I am sorry you have suffered because of such issues in the past, and I wish it were not the case. I am sorry for Sanghas that have denied you the merit of practice because of your race, which is incidentally as much an issue of racism as it is identity politics. To be utterly clear, I do not think it is acceptable to simply hold any beliefs one wants and claim identity as a Buddhist. If one wants to make such a claim as a convert, I would expect them to have taken Refuge, and to at the very least accept the Four Seals and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths. But that isn't my point, it isn't relevant here. A person, misunderstanding what rebirth means, misapprehending the point (which we all necessarily do, being limited by conceptual thought) can say "I believe in rebirth but I think it's more of a metaphor" and, practicing good moral virtue, and so on, he will eventually find coherence in his path, and things he does not understand or things he does not believe will become clear with effort. I support people investigating Buddhism. I support people adopting Buddhist practices according to their various capacities as best as they can. I encourage people to practice whatever works for them, within their circumstances and their abilities, because practicing even a single precept is far better than turning away from the Dharma. I do not believe it is skillful to chase people off with harsh words because they hold mistaken views, because doing so does nothing to rectify the problem of their mistaken views, or to help them with skillful practice. But basically, if you reread everything I've written, I did not discuss at all "Buddhist identity" or say it was acceptable for people to claim to be Buddhist while denying fundamental Buddhist teachings or claim, as you'd seem to frame it, that anyone can call themselves a Buddhist believing anything. I have only said that even people with misapprehensions and misunderstandings should be encouraged to practice as much Dharma as they can, and if they cannot abide metaphysics or the supernatural, leave that aside and have them focus on the secular practices of moral ethics and so on, because this is virtuous and they will come around with experience. Practice as much Buddhism as you can. If your own beliefs do not allow you to accept parts of Buddhist doctrine, then don't worry about those for now, practice the other things, because those other things are still virtuous. That's all I'm saying. I hope your issues with identity politics get resolved someday and that you find a sangha that will accept you for the white dude you are. Until then, you should practice within your abilities, too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:It really is [talked about publicly, frequently] though? There are no doubt many people who are far, far more familiar with Buddhist scriptures than myself, but from what I've seen a major part of what the Buddha himself said was "don't take any beliefs up just because someone claims that they are good beliefs: instead, make sure that they match your experience and find ways of testing their validity." The subject of literal reincarnation or a looser, metaphoric interpretation of rebirth comes up in a general way, yes. But for a specific, personal experience that could lead to such a belief is treated as deeply personal and individual specific insofar as it may or may not exist. Furthermore, the more relaxed interpretation of reincarnation as sort of a continuous, moment-to-moment, day-by-day rebirth is kinda just what gets suggested when someone asks, "well how can I understand this in a practical, real-life kinda way?" Considering that many (indeed, most?) people never have any experience at all that would lead them to believe in a literal reincarnation, a more moderate understanding of rebirth is about the most that can be spoken about or attested to with the authority of experience. I mentioned Nagarjuna in regard to this subject because he repeatedly emphasized serious caution about making any kinds of absolute statements as to the specifics of what happens before/after death, both due to lack of evidence from our human perspective, and due to the implications of emptiness. Honestly, I might have been excessively swayed by his suggestion to not really argue any particular explanation. Personally, I find that question of what does or doesn't happen after the cessation of life-sustaining function to be an incredibly personal one that you pretty much just have to accept that different people believe different things about. I mean, I consider the popular Christian notion that death leads to some sort of after-life for the soul to be basically predicated upon the notion of some sort of reincarnation into some sort of heavenly (or hellish) realm. I don't personally believe in that sorta thing, but a lot of people do, apparently. I like the suggestion to just let people come to whatever belief they will come to at their own pace mostly because I think it is a sad thing that humans have spent so long fighting about that question. I tend to suspect that being dead is probably indistinguishable from the experience of having not been born yet, but I sure as hell could be wrong. quote:It's a religion. There are religious authorities. Appealing to them is totally acceptable. All religious authorities are human and fallible (two inseparable conditions, it seems). By the way, please feel free to ignore this, but if a Sangha is assuming that you're just some stereotypical white guy who understands Buddhism differently than they do, I'm inclined to think that that's the kind of group you might be lucky to not be involved in. All Buddhist groups are fallible as are all Buddhist teachers. There's a common (mis)perception in the US that foreign teachers of something must automatically be better than Western teachers, which has been pretty patently refuted again and again. All Buddhist communities end up having all kinds of scandals sooner or later, and Asian Buddhism has, if anything, just as seedy of a history as a lot of Western Buddhist practice. There do appear to be many well-intentioned communities of Buddhist practitioners in the US that seem to try pretty drat hard to practice with pretty high standards. That said, all religious communities basically anywhere on the planet need to be viewed with a bit of skepticism as they pretty much all invariably trend towards homogenous thinking and behavior on practical levels and more exploitative or corrupt behavior among leadership positions. What I'm saying in that last paragraph is that one of the biggest red flags of, "is this religious/spiritual community more on the healthy end of the spectrum or is it trying to enforce a uniformity of thought among people?" is specifically how tolerant they are of people who hold different beliefs. If you managed to find a community that both assumes anyone who looks differently than they do holds different beliefs and then threw you out because they assumed you had different beliefs, I'm seriously inclined to think that you dodged a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
The-Mole posted:All religious authorities are human and fallible (two inseparable conditions, it seems). Undoubtedly. But when something has consistently been viewed the same way since the inception of the religion and is literally the reason it exists I think it's fair to argue that they're probably right on the interpretation of that particular theological point. The-Mole posted:By the way, please feel free to ignore this, but if a Sangha is assuming that you're just some stereotypical white guy who understands Buddhism differently than they do, I'm inclined to think that that's the kind of group you might be lucky to not be involved in. I'm going to let quantumfate respond to the first part if he wants to, but this has happened to me three times and several friends as well, across multiple traditions. This is a very common practice because Dharma Centres and Sanghas are (understandably) getting really frustrated with people showing up claiming to know their religion better than them. The-Mole posted:If you managed to find a community that both assumes anyone who looks differently than they do holds different beliefs You assume they themselves weren't hella white. It's not that they throw people out, it's that they run secular meditation groups and invite in people who are going to get something out of their dharma talks as opposed to roll their eyes or zone out through the rebirth bits. Again, I've seen this happen three times, and incidentally it was once with Vajrayana, once with Theravada, and once with Mahayana. People get really frustrated by people claiming someone else's religious identity as a garment.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:There are no doubt many people who are far, far more familiar with Buddhist scriptures than myself, but from what I've seen a major part of what the Buddha himself said was "don't take any beliefs up just because someone claims that they are good beliefs: instead, make sure that they match your experience and find ways of testing their validity." The subject of literal reincarnation or a looser, metaphoric interpretation of rebirth comes up in a general way, yes. I don't know that I'd say that is a major part of the Buddha's teaching. It is hinted at in the Kalama Sutta, but not in a way as to allow someone to forge their own interpretations of the Buddha's own teaching. The Buddha was pretty clear about discussing rebirth in the literal sense. The idea of Dependent Origination kind of hinges on rebirth I don't think anyone should pressure anyone to fall into step with ideas about rebirth or karma when they are venturing into Buddhism for the first time. But I also think it is a disservice to encourage people to accept watered down ideas of difficult concepts to make themselves feel better about their adherence to a religion. It is one thing to say "I have a hard time accepting rebirth". That is fine. In fact, it is expected. But going from that statement, to projecting your biases back a few thousands years to say "I think the Buddha must have meant rebirth as a metaphor for how I am understanding it" is a problem. And it is a problem that happens a lot. If you read the suttas, the Buddha is very clearly talking about literal rebirth. It isn't really ambiguous. It will often literally be phrased as something like "upon the breakup of the body, after death, one is reborn" or something similar. I don't like to debate the issue with people as I think it detracts from the practice itself. A lot of good can come from setting the idea aside and practicing, and coming back to it later. Often, it will make much more sense with a clear mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I don't know that I'd say that is a major part of the Buddha's teaching. It is hinted at in the Kalama Sutta, but not in a way as to allow someone to forge their own interpretations of the Buddha's own teaching. The Buddha was pretty clear about discussing rebirth in the literal sense. The idea of Dependent Origination kind of hinges on rebirth
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Practice as much Buddhism as you can. If your own beliefs do not allow you to accept parts of Buddhist doctrine, then don't worry about those for now, practice the other things, because those other things are still virtuous. That's all I'm saying. I understand this, but I can only agree insofar as 'Sure you don't believe it, but accept that your views on it are considered wrong and are not true.' What happens then when you have that sort The-Mole posted:There are no doubt many people who are far, far more familiar with Buddhist scriptures than myself, but from what I've seen a major part of what the Buddha himself said was "don't take any beliefs up just because someone claims that they are good beliefs: instead, make sure that they match your experience and find ways of testing their validity." No no no no no no no no no no no no no argh. I loathe how often the Kalama sutta is brought up, or how often the Alagaddupama Sutta is brought up while conviently ignoring the water-snake parable. Earlier in this thread prickley pete posted a wonderful piece on why the kalama sutta is not a license to throw away parts of the dharma. The Buddha also says in that very same sutta that we cannot trust our own logic, our own inference and deduction. We cannot trust our own selves and minds not just because it is an illusion, but because it will also try to find an easy way out. Naturally. I am poor, if I test the validity of robbing someone in an alleyway, I may find it works for my experience, by my logic. I cannot experience the suffering of others, I may experience suffering myself through proxy when confronted with the suffering of others but I do not feel their suffering. quote:What I'm saying in that last paragraph is that one of the biggest red flags of, "is this religious/spiritual community more on the healthy end of the spectrum or is it trying to enforce a uniformity of thought among people?" is specifically how tolerant they are of people who hold different beliefs. If you managed to find a community that both assumes anyone who looks differently than they do holds different beliefs and then threw you out because they assumed you had different beliefs, I'm seriously inclined to think that you dodged a bullet. Because I have been called out to touch on this- This is often not the case. it is not a community enforcing uniformity of thought. It's a group of people who have been repeatedly attacked or disparaged by people making GBS threads on the dharma, making GBS threads on this dear part of them and watering down their message that they do not wish to allow free or easy entry. This is horrid as the dharma for everyone, but it is not because they enforce uniformity of belief. It's not an issue of being tolerant to people who hold other beliefs and that is also a terrible onus to throw on people. If I go to a muslim community and step into a mosque talking about how the Qur'an was not divinely inspired and the prophet Muhammad lied in his divine revelation about there being a god and heaven, but then I insist on performing ablutions and the salat with them, even if I hold true to the wisdom of the hadith, I give charity, I do all the piteous acts of a muslim- I'm still being incredibly offensive. Especially If I'm not actually earnest about islam but what I seek is a designer faith- one which I can adopt to feel better about myself without having to worry about being burned by religious authority. Rhymenoceros posted:It's only a problem if you suffer when people say things you don't agree with. No, this places the onus in the wrong direction again. We all suffer because we're not buddhas. You can't attack the victim for experiencing suffering because, no offense, you probably are not enlightened either. Now I get that you think it might be someone getting uppity over something, and in this case wafflehound should probably have just ignored that dude and expounded on Karma as he was asked (Which I am still waiting on  ) It is fine to go "I do not accept rebirth", because it is something which through practice you will come to accept, if not in this life then the next (heh, irony). We work on the dharma where we can, build up what we can, but likewise we ought help others practise to their best. In many ways dharma practice is like lifting weight, it is strenuous, slow and takes a lot of time to make any sort of progress. As well, just as you will cause great injury to your body by practising improper form when you lift these heavy weights so too can you cause yourself harm by practising the dharma incorrectly. If you see someone struggling to learn how to properly move weight and doing it grossly incorrectly you do not throw them out immediately and scoff at them, but if they insist they are right and their form is better and they know best then you can ban them from the weight area. What you ought do if you see someone lifting who doesn't have the form down is to show them proper form, show them how they ought do it, and have them do what practises and exercises they can without injury. In time even though they started with the wrong ideas and perceptions, they have trained themselves enough to move impressive amounts of weight. Buddhism is the same and we should accept those who do not accept rebirth but approach the dharma in earnest. But when you go "The Buddha said rebirth meant something else" it does them a massive disservice to allow them to keep trying to approach this with wrong view because then what they learn will not be the dharma, it will be something else, something possibly injurious as they might find the karma of not accepting the dharma.Consider the Abhasita Sutta: quote:"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:No, this places the onus in the wrong direction again. We all suffer because we're not buddhas. You can't attack the victim for experiencing suffering because, no offense, you probably are not enlightened either. Now I get that you think it might be someone getting uppity over something, and in this case wafflehound should probably have just ignored that dude and expounded on Karma as he was asked (Which I am still waiting on If you want people to lift correctly, the best way is to be a really buff person at the gym, then people will go "hmm, this person must be doing something right", and maybe they'll ask you for advice on squat technique one day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
This thread sometimes can be a great way to chase off people who are interested in Buddhism. Good job, guys. Wafflehound, I can understand your premise that a person shouldn't call themselves a "Buddhist" without buying into a certain set of beliefs but man, you go about it so ham-fisted and awful, I can't think of a worse spokesperson for the faith itself. For a religion based on compassion and wisdom, and self-defining yourself as one of the "True Buddhists" in the thread, your responses to people who disagree with you often lack both of those things. The last time we had one of these little "You're not a proper Buddhist, you heathen scum" blow-ups, I stopped reading the thread for months because it seemed so completely counter to what I have seen Buddhism be with people who are truly compassionate, open, accepting and willing to help people understand. Do you really think your approach is a good way to teach people the dharma? It already chased my wife away (who was born into a Buddhist family) because she can't stand the vitriol (in a Buddhist thread no less!). The refrain of "Look you just don't get it. You make things bad for me personally in a very indirect way." is just as intolerant of those Buddhist groups you want to fit into (which sound poisonous and awful if you ask me). I can't imagine going up to Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (if he were still alive...) and saying "I am not sure I buy this 'rebirth' thing." and having him give anything approaching your reaction let alone showing me the door. I'll be honest, I came to Buddhism very skeptical of rebirth, karma, etc. but kept an open mind because of a good, patient and knowledgable teacher. I went to many classes about these topics and now have a much less skeptical view of them. His response to my criticism and my attempts to redefine those topics to suit my worldview at the time was "well, this is critical to understanding Buddhism but just leave it as an open question and keep practicing and learning as much as you can and it will make sense as your practice deepens." was almost verbatim what Paramemetic was saying. You really need to work on how you express your dogma, dude (I'm no exception. We all need to improve, obviously) If that's too difficult, I'll just unbookmark it and move on. This thread is so aggro and unwelcoming sometimes. It's depressing because it should be the opposite of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:It's only a problem if you suffer when people say things you don't agree with. No, I'd say it is a problem because it leads to incorrect interpretations of the Dhamma, which are then passed down as correct. And again, for the record, I believe I have said more than once in this thread: "If you have a hard time with Kamma and Rebirth, don't let that stop you from practicing. Set those concepts aside, work on refuge, precepts, and meditation. Read and study suttas, and you may very well find that those concepts start making sense to you down the road". I say those things because that is what I was basically told when I started practicing with those very same doubts, and that is what worked for me. What I was not told was "It's ok, just pretend the Buddha meant rebirth as a metaphor for moment-to-moment conciousness", because that would be a distortion of the teachings. I know for a fact that there are people at my center who attend regularly, spend more time in meditation than I do, travel and hour to the hermitage to give alms to the monks, and who don't believe in literal rebirth. They also understand that they are working with about 75% of the teaching, and they accept that shortcoming. They don't twist their minds into logical pretzels and try to impose their interpretation back on the Buddha. They accept the shortcoming and work with it. Maybe they even use it as an object of meditation. I don't know for sure. The point is, no person should ever be scolded away from the teaching for these doubts, but instead encouraged to at least get the ball rolling toward becoming a good person who isn't suffering so much. Ajahn Chah had a story in one of his books about a monk who, even after ordaining, expressed problems with the idea of rebirth. Ajahn Chah told him "don't worry about it, just keep meditating and studying, and talk to me in five years." If that advice is ok for a monk, I can't see why it wouldn't be ok for laypeople of any tradition. People Stew fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:No, I'd say it is a problem because it leads to incorrect interpretations of the Dhamma, which are then passed down as correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 17:59
|
|
he1ixx posted:Wafflehound, I can understand your premise that a person shouldn't call themselves a "Buddhist" without buying into a certain set of beliefs but man, you go about it so ham-fisted and awful, I can't think of a worse spokesperson for the faith itself. That's probably fair. It's something I care deeply about about and at the same time I could absolutely do a far better job on how I present myself. A problem I have, whether my perception is accurate or not is that if I back off entirely people seep in and start telling new people how dharma's totally whatever you want it to be, man. That doesn't mean I should poo poo all over people, true, but I do really wish people who regularly do that would consider finding a thread on general philosophy to post in or something. he1ixx posted:For a religion based on compassion and wisdom, and self-defining yourself as one of the "True Buddhists" in the thread, your responses to people who disagree with you often lack both of those things. The last time we had one of these little "You're not a proper Buddhist, you heathen scum" blow-ups, I stopped reading the thread for months because it seemed so completely counter to what I have seen Buddhism be with people who are truly compassionate, open, accepting and willing to help people understand. One thing to understand here is that while I could be more clear and less offensive, trying to prevent people from spreading false Dharma or causing those who are Buddhist to suffer is compassion. Grabbing a person's hand to pull it away from an open flame may not seem compassionate from the perspective of the person being grabbed if they don't see the flame. Compassion in Buddhism isn't thought of in the same way as someone who is purely secular, there are compassionate ways to talk about the Dharma as well, and one of those is to stop people from either practicing or spreading false Dharma. I think it's fair to say that people who turn away from Buddhism aren't going to suddenly start acting in really unskillful ways that cause tons of harm to them and others. People who want to go in and say they know the dharma better and that they've got it all figured out probably should be driven away before they teach that to others. That's not saying anything about people who go in with an open minds, but my strongest words have absolutely been reserved for those who come in inflexible. he1ixx posted:The refrain of "Look you just don't get it. You make things bad for me personally in a very indirect way." is just as intolerant of those Buddhist groups you want to fit into (which sound poisonous and awful if you ask me). Not at all. I know I'm not the only person in this thread who has had that experience, but the other is remaining to stay quiet on this so I won't out them. I know many people who have also experienced this. It's not a case of getting kicked out if people discover you're a Unnechavadin, it's a case of the barrier to entry being made really high for very reasonable reasons which quantumfate pointed out. In many cases these same groups run secular meditation or introduction to Buddhism classes which the expect all new potential students regardless of experience to sit through for vast stretches of time until they can be very certain of who they're letting into the Sangha's space. he1ixx posted:I'll be honest, I came to Buddhism very skeptical of rebirth, karma, etc. but kept an open mind because of a good, patient and knowledgable teacher. I went to many classes about these topics and now have a much less skeptical view of them. I don't think this is a bad thing? Again, I have much more of a problem with people who come into Buddhism with a closed mind (or disingenuously claiming to have an open one, which is a statement I'll pretty much reserve only for people who say they're open to having their minds changed by peer-reviewed studies on rebirth confirming it exists) and claiming that they know the way things really are, then treating the religion as a cheap self help group or secular philosophy class. This means they're permanently going to be out of sync with the rest of the group. I've never said I felt people who struggle with rebirth should be turned away (I made that comparison with Para when we talked about gnosis), but I do think that if you're going to take refuge then you should at least arrive at the perspective of "Buddha was right, even if I don't understand it. I should work on understanding it." Buddhism is a practice, there's no need to rush into that practice. For example, and this is going to be a bit grey area, but if I buy a guitar and sit down and practice once a week am I a musician? Or am I a musician once I am able to say, read music? There's no hard cutoff with the musician example like there is for Refuge, but there is a point at which most people would say your being a musician is questionable. There's no need to identify as a Buddhist until you're at a point where you are reasonably expecting accommodations or the like due to deeply held religious beliefs. There's no need to just jump into the identity aspect when you can take as long as you need with practice until it meshes with you. None of which excuses me of being a dick. he1ixx posted:This thread is so aggro and unwelcoming sometimes. It's depressing because it should be the opposite of that. I don't disagree, and I don't disagree that it's a bad thing. Rhymenoceros posted:To go with your weight lifting analogy; if you think someone is hurting themselves, help them out of compassion. If someone insists on doing something that you think is harmful to themselves, wisdom is knowing that you cannot control other people, no one owns this gym. It's never wise to step back and watch someone hurt themselves when you can at the very least take the big weights away from them. False Dharma is bad juju, I've seen people who teach others that Buddhism is blah and whatever they want it to be walk away from calling themselves Buddhists because of others calling them out repeatedly. And for those who are totally totally not open to being wrong about their interpretation of the Dharma and are teaching that their way is correct, that is actually a good thing from some perspectives. Rhymenoceros posted:Can't we just accept that people are going do things we don't like and focus on being kind and compassionate? "Compassion" can have some specific meanings in the context of the Dharma. Someone who is teaching others False Dharma is being incredibly harmful to others and simply letting them do that isn't compassionate to anyone.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Since the last time this big debate came around my questions were not answered, I'm just going to ask Wafflehound directly: What is your opinion on Thich Nhat Hahn and the validity of his teachings toward westerners?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:08
|
|
Snak posted:What is your opinion on Thich Nhat Hahn and the validity of his teachings toward westerners? I'll happily answer that if you tell me what you mean?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'll happily answer that if you tell me what you mean? Well, I'm actually cramming for an exam right now, but I will give you the gist of it and get specific quotations tonight  .Thich Nhat Hahn has stated several different time that rebirth can be viewed as the continuous process of change, both physical and mental. That we are reborn every moment, and that when our body "dies" it is simply reborn as nutrient rich dirt which can be reborn as flowers and in this way all life is indeed subject to continuous rebirth. He goes onto imply that nirvana is the cessation of all attachment to current forms (both mental and physical) so that we are no longer reborn because we simply are (No birth and no death). Now, you can argue that there is a deeper meaning to this, and that what he is saying on the surface is not "what he means" and shouldn't be taken as a literally interpretation of the Dharma, but never the less he is saying this. Without specific references (I will find them later ), how does this interpretation of rebirth compare to yours, and do you think that someone who has that face-value view of rebirth could call themselves a Buddhist?edit: The reason I asked about your opinion of the validity of his teachings is because a lot of his teachings towards westerners seem like they would fall under the blanket criticism of appropriating Buddhist ideas and calling it Buddhism, which you are so vehemently against. I cannot help but wonder if either you don't respect Thich Nhat Hahn's branch of Zen, or you believe that he has two sets of teachings: His 'real' Buddhist teachings, and his watered down 'philosophy for westerners', in which case I would like to know where you draw the line. Snak fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I know what you're referring to, and I don't see a problem with it? Thich Nhat Hahn very clearly isn't teaching that as exclusively what rebirth is, merely as a way of thinking about it that is useful to those coming from a non-Buddhist background where rebirth isn't something taken for granted. The problem comes in when people read Thich Nhat Hahn's description and instead of taking it for what it is (a useful and practical introduction to thinking about rebirth in a concrete way) they take it for far more (a definition of rebirth). I don't think it's as useful a teaching tool as Thich Nhat Hahn does, because I think it's one that people are prone to getting hung up on as a definition rather than a tool. That said, Thich Nhat Hahn is clearly a far more skillful teacher than myself so I'm not sure I really have room to criticize, and I know that this tool is very very popular in many schools and it's one of the reasons this whole rebirth-as-moment-to-moment thing is so popular. A lot of people just seem to want to stop there because it's easy and doesn't conflict with preconceived worldviews. Snak posted:I cannot help but wonder if either you don't respect Thich Nhat Hahn's branch of Zen, or you believe that he has two sets of teachings: His 'real' Buddhist teachings, and his watered down 'philosophy for westerners', in which case I would like to know where you draw the line. I think most Buddhist teachers would use some degree of "watered down 'philosophy for westerners'" when introducing people to a religion with some deeply alien concepts to most Westerners. It is the fault of the student that they take these introductory lessons as the entirety of the thing, not the teacher.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Thank you, that is a very good response. I am not as sure as you that Thich Nhat Hahn believes that additional definitions of rebirth are required, though. In his book The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, he doesn't place any additional emphasis on other forms of rebirth. I am also aware that Thich Nhat Hahn has a long history of clashing with established Buddhist traditions. He ruffled a lot of feathers in Vietnam because he thought that the status quo was not good Buddhism. In his youth he broke off from his Sangha to form is own, and even though he returned after that, a large amount of his teaching has been in his Plum Village sangha of exile in France, where he has been for over thirty years now. Despite his world-wide popularity, I would not be at all surprised if I learned that some Buddhist traditions consider his teachings to be very westernized ( yet another reason for my question to you ).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Can't we just accept that people are going do things we don't like and focus on being kind and compassionate? Absolutely. Compassion should always be part of the equation. But compassion also does not exclude correcting wrong view. Compassion also means correcting wrong view that would lead to suffering. Practicing the Dhamma incorrectly, or transmitting it incorrectly, can cause suffering to a lot of people if their practice suffers as a result. There are several suttas where a monk (usually Ananda I believe) is travelling, and hears one of the monks teaching the Dhamma in an incorrect way. Ananda will then go back and tell the Buddha "So and so is claiming the Dhamma is this way. Is this correct?" The Buddha will then summon the errant monk, correct his view, and all is well. It happened constantly while the Buddha was alive. It happened immediately after his death, and it happens today. The best we can do is guide folks gently toward right view. And if they aren't 100% on board, that's fine. It takes time. It is still taking time for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
What several folks are calling "philosophy for Westerners," "intro to philosophy class," etc. is the exact type of stuff that philosophers try to keep out of the philosophy thread in the academics forum. I constantly tell my students that when we interpret texts we have a lot of power, but that if you're saying that the text's best interpretation is p when the words on the page say ~p, there are probably going to be problems. From my non-Buddhist perspective, as a teacher, the most compassionate thing I can do is help my students come to have true beliefs and have the ability to come up with true beliefs on their own. For my part, I'm trying to give the texts I read the best interpretation I can. If I make a statement of the way I'm understanding things, in my discipline that is an invitation to be corrected with an argument that demonstrates the mistake and (if one is lucky) also an argument for the correct view. I, of course, don't expect anyone to conform to the norms of my discipline, but I would like to go on record as saying that I'm doing the best I can to interpret what I have in the best way possible. One aspect of this involves giving the text its most plausible reading by my lights (who else's lights would I use?). I would very much prefer to be told that I am wrong, and even better why I am wrong, than to be humored as too stupid or prejudiced or whatever to understand the actual view. I have not got the impression that I am being so humored, but I wanted to get out in front of it. Telling me I'm wrong will not cause me to suffer. WAFFLEHOUND posted:Sorry if I missed it or overlooked it, do you mind clarifying what the question was and I'll try to get to it? Can births and deaths be placed into 1:1 correspondence? For context: 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 occasioned caused by my death (pace the obvious, that the self is an aggregate, is not an essence, etc).* 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 causally 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 pure metaphysics of the view is different from a standard view of 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. I ordered Living Yogacara the other day, it should arrive today or tomorrow. I am hoping that it will have a clear statement of the belief structure. Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Thanks for the well-reasoned response, Waffles. I agree with the differences in how people tend to define compassion in the Buddhist vs non-Buddhist context. Having someone spout shite in a thread (obamacareshugsquad) is something that needs to be dealt with directly but there are ways to do it that don't end up blunting the truth of the criticism. That's part of what I was trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Can births and deaths be placed into 1:1 correspondence? Excluding Tulku mechanics on emanations, which I admittedly know very little about but I do know there's mutual recognition (I'll leave this to Paramemetic, who I'm sure will know more than me), I think it's fair to answer "yes", basically. As long as we're not looking at the idea of a moment-to-moment rebirth (which as others have pointed out is valid from a teaching perspective as long as it's not in-exclusivity) then it's fair to say that one death will lead to one birth with the same karma. Look at it this way, your karma is your karma, insofar as there is a "you" to possess that karma. In your next birth, you will still have that same karma. That isn't to say "you" will be the same in any way (anatman, everything arises of the mind, etc.). I think it's one of the more tricky things with Buddhism for newcomers is that straight up it's easy to say "There is no self and there is no soul" but at the same time there is an answer to "What is reborn?". Something is reborn, it's just not a self. I try to liken it transubstantiation in terms of difficulty theologically, where something is totally the body of Christ but by all physical metrics it's a cracker. Karma being reborn totally looks a lot like self at a casual glance but it totally isn't from a theological perspective. There are a couple of schools of thought on how karma is reborn but I won't even begin to touch on that when compared to quantumfate I'm basically a kindergartener on that topic. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Well, I understand (and appreciate!) your answer. As you say, though, I don't at all understand how that is reconcilable with anatman. But, I mean, that's not really a problem for Buddhism or Buddhists as much as a statement of "Non-Buddhists ain't gonna find this intuitive." But as you say, transubstantiation, the trinity, and all that aren't intuitive either. Thanks for your help! e: If anyone could recommend some reading regarding specifically what is reborn, it'd be great! Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:11
|
|
You want Yogācāra and Madhyamaka for the two schools of thought on this, which could lead you to some really really deep reading if you're up for it. Short answer is probably that karma has no element of "self" in it, just because you had the same karma as a Latvian fisherman you were in your past life doesn't mean you have any kind of Latvian-fisherman self nature, it just means that your karma had a birth before. Again, there's a difference between "something" being reborn and a fundamental self, the former of which is popularly rejected but the latter of which is actually rejected.Achmed Jones posted:e: If anyone could recommend some reading regarding specifically what is reborn, it'd be great! Living Yogacara will probably give you the best introduction to that side of the argument and is a really really solid book. I don't know anything introductory for Madhyamaka but maybe Paramemetic does? WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a good piece on rebirth. He got his PhD in Philosophy somewhere in the US before travelling to Sri Lanka and ordaining as a monk, so perhaps his explanation will resonate with you if that is your background. edit: He comes from a pretty orthodox Theravada background so it might not be what you are looking for after talking with Wafflehound. Anyway it is an interesting read for perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Well, I understand (and appreciate!) your answer. As you say, though, I don't at all understand how that is reconcilable with anatman. I'm only a student still, and probably in no way prepared to discuss this in terms fitting for you as a philosopher, but here I go. There is an ego, of sorts. It's not real, it's an aggregate of thoughts and perceptions that arise based on the phenomenon of the mind. These phenomenon are the physical form of the world and the body, sensation as either pleasant or reviling, perception of external objects through sensate media, ideations which are the ways we color or perfume things with prior thoughts or prejudices, consciousness-cognizance which is the way through which we discern experience. Semantically we can call this thing an "ego", but it isn't there. The metaphor often used was that of the chariot- none of the constituent parts of the chariot equate to the chariot itself, only the chariot as a whole is a chariot, and then only if it is used thusly. Anatta then, is a caution against reification of the self. Now, there is no self, not in the Cartesian sense. The ego arises as a result of phenomenon. But it also arises as a result of experiences, as a result of actions and results. Karma colors this arising, the capacity for enlightenment colors this arising. While someone may be able to influence others with their actions, there is still a causal relationship that can be seen as a 1:1 chain. This chain of karma is rebirth. It's not as much that something is reborn as much as there is birth along this continuum. Approaching it another way- If our ego is something which arises because of phenomenon- what makes one train of ego distinct? If you pass into unconsciousness and re-awaken isn't that then a different ego, colored by different experiences and reconstituted in a different manner? Likewise death can be seen as another state of unconsciousness. The next birth that arises is part of this same causal chain, and influenced strongly by these karmic holdovers. You see, as far as that aggregate of consciousness goes, there are eight means by which we discern experiences and our interactions with the world at large- The first five of these means are the sensate means where we use these media to process experiences. These are different from the act of sensation itself, because sensation is the experiencing, the sensate consciousnesses are the direct means of processing that sensation. Then there are the two mental consciousnesses- Ideative and Obfuscative. Usually the ideative consciousness is grouped with the sensate consciousnesses as part of the six common consciousnesses. Obfuscative consciousnesses or self-clinging consciousness is the ego-experiencing consciousness that processes inferential cognition. Finally there is the karmic consciousnesses which is the means of experiencing karma. Here you could say that karma is "Stored" like a seed in a granary until the effects are truly played out- not every action has an immediate result and this is a means by which that result can personally, or experientially, manifest across gulfs of time. In a sense this consciousness is persistent across because it is a direct chain of experiencing that karma. Not just the influencing of someone else with your karma, but rather the direct experiential processing of that karma. WAFFLEHOUND posted:Living Yogacara will probably give you the best introduction to that side of the argument and is a really really solid book. I don't know anything introductory for Madhyamaka but maybe Paramemetic does? the obvious suggestion here is: This EDIT: Achmed Jones posted:What several folks are calling "philosophy for Westerners," "intro to philosophy class," etc. is the exact type of stuff that philosophers try to keep out of the philosophy thread in the academics forum. I constantly tell my students that when we interpret texts we have a lot of power, but that if you're saying that the text's best interpretation is p when the words on the page say ~p, there are probably going to be problems. I love you.
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Has http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm been linked in this thread before? It's a really comprehensive collection of free Theravada texts Kinda-sorta a Theravada Berzin Archive
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
This is a tremendously, tremendously helpful explanation Quantumfate (and yours too, Wafflehound)! Thanks a million! I have the Nagarjuna text heading to my Kindle as well.
Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
I am glad I could be of any help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Has http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm been linked in this thread before? It's a really comprehensive collection of free Theravada texts I don't think this has been linked before but there are some great links here. The Bhikkhu Bodhi article on the Eightfold Path is probably the best introduction I have ever read on that topic. I have a print copy that I refer to pretty frequently to kickstart my practice when I've been slacking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SO the first night of Dharma-Talk went alright! We went over the basics of the indian tradition of logico-epistemology, the vada-vidhi. We talked about the basics of debate and a little on buddhist history. It's a ten page treatise, as well you can jump into this without having read anything. From seven works we have a discussion of the five aggregates that constitute ego, a treatise on causality and action, the teaching of the three natures of existence (which is a little hefty), and then the twenty and thirty verses which are rather spiritually oriented.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Found two free open university courses about Buddhism and meditation in the context of science and psychology. God drat they look interesting! https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism https://www.coursera.org/course/meditation
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 07:31
|
|
