|
Cacator posted:I have this card which I believe is supposed to ward off evil spirits, from googling I've been able to determine that it's a "Usnisa-Sitatapatra Dharani Wheel" but would anyone here be able to translate or tell me more? I can give you the transphonetization of the wheel itself, which is "Om sarwa tathagato ushnisha shithatha bati hung phat hung mama hung ni svaha" . I don't know anything about the practice specifically, and will do some research for you. It won't translate from Tibetan, because it's Sanskrit being rendered in Tibetan, but I can try to figure it out. I'm having a hard time with the bottom half, also, since a lot of those stacked characters behave oddly and I haven't pulled a reference for them yet. Top looks like it's in Standard Chinese, I don't stand a chance.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
I remember seeing a picture of the Wheel of Life and found it very interesting and asked a few questions. I don't fully understand/remember but it was something along the lines of; The first "step" in the chain depicts ignorance from where all things start as we simply do not know any other way, then fabrications as we see/believe things to be a certain way and so on - I couldn't name all 12 links from the top of my head. I was told that at any point in the links you can stop, if you stop the next does not occur and you break that cycle. It struck me that if the start is ignorance then education, understanding and learning prevents all of the others from occurring. I'm aware that this education and learning can take many many years and a great deal of effort. However in the Western World if we simply pause for a moment to learn, educate ourselves and understand - whether that's from a personal belief, situation or whatever it may be then we can certainly improve our lives and the lives of others. For me, this has given me the opportunity to "think before I speak" and try and realise if I understand the full situation in front of me. I realised I probably don't and that before taking any decisions I should try to be more informed and withhold from making a judgement of people or places. I found it also helped me try and see the views of others towards myself - maybe they aren't being hostile but are reacting in a certain way because they're scared/concerned/worried and that I should approach them for clarification before taking action myself. I know this is a really simple thing, but keeping it in mind has helped me greatly and it was all based upon seeing a picture of the wheel. I would love to know and do more, but with my work commitments, family and so on I will just have to enjoy what I am able to learn and offer from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Losar Tashi Delek everyone practicing Tibetan Buddhism! Today is the first day of the Tibetan year 2141, of the Male Wood Horse. At our center, we practiced Milarepa Guru Yoga, and made a smoke offering. A lot of the local Tibetan community came out, it was very nice. Is there some linguistic quirk that leads to that specific figure being common? It's just so... specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This is perhaps only tangential, but I've heard 'one hundred million' used in Buddhist contexts a few times in about the same way that 'ten thousand' seems to get used in Taoism, or "forty days and forty nights" in the Torah; 'perhaps not literally precisely this figure, but a whole shitload, man, you'd better believe it.' There's even a chapter in the Dhammapada that is just called Thousands (least in the Fronsdal translation.) edit: No I don't have a real answer! 
Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Well, in Chinese there's a numeral 亿, pronounced yì, which means 'hundred million' but is also used to mean 'many'. I have no idea if there's a similar numeral in Pali, or if came up via translation, but I'd wager that it is somehow connected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:Buddhism loves specific numbers. 4 truths, 8 fold path, 108 kinds of feelings or temptations, 84,000 teachings, 49 days in between death and rebirth in Tibetan Buddhism, etc. The list is endless. Further to that point - there is an entire segment of the Buddha's teachings devoted to numerical transmissions of the suttas. The Anguttara Nikaya, or numerical discourses of the Buddha, are laid out in terms of "The Book of Ones", "The Book of Twos", etc. It was probably a very easy way to remember and categorize teachings during times of oral transmission.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Well it's the Lenten season and I'm curious, do Buddhist have a certain "fast" period? Is fasting a thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Well it's the Lenten season and I'm curious, do Buddhist have a certain "fast" period? Is fasting a thing? Fasting isn't an institutionalized thing at the lay level, at least not in most traditions, so far as I know. It's part of the Vinaya, the moral conduct rules for monks and nuns, not to eat meat, and not to eat after noon, but even that isn't included in some forms of the Vinaya. On an individual or occasional level v though, this is a thing. I'm not eating anything with meat for the 15 Buddha days, for example, and on the last two days my center is holding a retreat which will be total fasting and silence for 24-48 hours, based on the 8 24 hour vows. On the topic of not eating meat, I've gotta say shopping for groceries today was a bit eye opening with regards to just how casually we consume dead animals. I try to be conscientious anyways about being thankful for and aware of the animals I eat, but already avoiding eating them has shown just how pervasive it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
With the way languages are mish-mashed together like that, I would say it's just some touristy junk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:With the way languages are mish-mashed together like that, I would say it's just some touristy junk. It's in Chinese and Tibetan, with the mantra itself in Tibetan, which is not at all uncommon, especially in Tibet. The mantra is legit, also, so it's not touristy junk. It might be given out to tourists for tourists, but it is the actual mantra. Whether you believe it has any actual protective power doesn't change that it is possibly distributed with that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It's in Chinese and Tibetan, with the mantra itself in Tibetan, which is not at all uncommon, especially in Tibet. The mantra is legit, also, so it's not touristy junk. It might be given out to tourists for tourists, but it is the actual mantra. Whether you believe it has any actual protective power doesn't change that it is possibly distributed with that purpose. Ah without someone to vouch for it I would have instantly written that of as a piece of kitsch touristy garbage. Too much crap these days gets flung with the 'Secret oriental knowledge' tag attached.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:With the way languages are mish-mashed together like that, I would say it's just some touristy junk. Chanting in Buddhism often places more emphasis on the specific syllables than on the literal coherent meaning of the words chanted. IIRC, that system of chanting predated Buddhism by quite a bit and Buddhist chanting was then built on that framework. I.e. Buddhist chants weren't powerful because you were invoking the tathagata, but because each syllable ta tha ga was considered "powerful." Also, a lot of the "protective power" of mantras has to do with communicating to the local robbers who were planning on stabbing you to death, robbing you, and rolling your body off of a ledge to leave you alone because you're a fellow practitioner of the same religion. That's not to say that is necessarily the only way they were protective, but it was definitely one way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Also, a lot of the "protective power" of mantras has to do with communicating to the local robbers who were planning on stabbing you to death, robbing you, and rolling your body off of a ledge to leave you alone because you're a fellow practitioner of the same religion. That's not to say that is necessarily the only way they were protective, but it was definitely one way. That's somehow not a very comforting thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Ah without someone to vouch for it I would have instantly written that of as a piece of kitsch touristy garbage. Too much crap these days gets flung with the 'Secret oriental knowledge' tag attached. That's fair. I mean depending on its origin I can't say it wasn't made by some third party and sold or something, but it is an actual mantra, so it's "legit" as far as that goes. It looks like the kind of thing they might pass out or have to take both at temples in Tibet (where the Chinese is mandated) or in communities like Boston and so on in the US where there is a large Chinese speaking Buddhist population who practice Tibetan flavor Buddhism for lack of anything else nearby. What I was talking about it being difficult to read with Sanskrit and Tibetan being all mishmashed is just how Tibetan works - they basically parse the mantras from India, which are in Sanskrit, into Tibetan as closely as phonetically possible. Tibetan as a written language is new as far as languages go, and its alphabet is based on Sanskrit because the language was first mapped to writing by Indian missionaries. So a lot of the mantras are one-to-one syllable conversions with close approximations where necessary (e.g., "vajrasattva" becomes "baz ra sat wa"). There's a lot of kitschy Oriental crap out there but a lot of it remains both kitschy and legit at the same time because so far as I can tell a lot of temples and so on are really fascinated by this reality we live in where you can mass produce a thing that in their own lifetimes used to require wood block stamping and so on. There is one prayer wheel what is made of DVDs and just has PDFs of mantras saved on it, and I know at least one old Tibetan dude who was just tickled to death by this idea. So a lot of them produce what we see as this incredibly kitschy stuff and distribute it because to them it's like amazing that you can put a mantra on a piece of paper and plasticize it in a fraction of a second.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:That's fair. I mean depending on its origin I can't say it wasn't made by some third party and sold or something, but it is an actual mantra, so it's "legit" as far as that goes. It looks like the kind of thing they might pass out or have to take both at temples in Tibet (where the Chinese is mandated) or in communities like Boston and so on in the US where there is a large Chinese speaking Buddhist population who practice Tibetan flavor Buddhism for lack of anything else nearby. I can tell you that the origin of this card is North American Chinese expat community, so it's not something touristy. Maybe I'll toss it into the Chinese language thread and get it translated, although the printing on some of the characters is a bit iffy. Edit: This one is pocket sized but I've seen a larger one for displaying in a house too. Cacator fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I can tell you that the origin of this card is North American Chinese expat community, so it's not something touristy. Maybe I'll toss it into the Chinese language thread and get it translated, although the printing on some of the characters is a bit iffy. Thanks. Yeah, expat community makes perfect sense for why it's Chinese/Tibetan. The Chinese thread should be able to help with the top few lines which are usually an explanation of what you have and sometimes a brief bit about the deity and that deity's vows and so on. I'll need to consult a resource I don't have to figure out the Tibetan at the bottom, but I'll try to remember to get that done if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So a lot of them produce what we see as this incredibly kitschy stuff and distribute it because to them it's like amazing that you can put a mantra on a piece of paper and plasticize it in a fraction of a second. So in a way Buddhism (sans the western bent) is still trying to find it's way in the modern world? Or do you believe western Buddhism is Buddhism for the modern world? And Buddism says do no pain to others, but what of the fact that in this world there is frequently only a bad and worse options. Does it say anything about that? Something similar to the moral quandary of two groups of people on a train track with only a choice of the train hitting one group or the other? ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:So in a way Buddhism (sans the western bent) is still trying to find it's way in the modern world? Or do you believe western Buddhism is Buddhism for the modern world? Neither? Buddhism's core messages remain without any problem adapting to the modern world. There are very old living monks who are amazed at modern advances, but fundamentally nothing about the message changes, only the potential routes of dissemination, so to speak. My lama uses an iPad so he can look up words in English quickly when he's having a problem being understood. There's nothing about Buddhism's basic ideas that needs to update, no creation myth to be trumped by science, few doctrinal problems of oppression or intolerance that need sussed out on the quest for modernity. Buddhism itself is expressed however it is expressed. Once while teaching, my lama mentioned that traditional offerings don't make sense, don't connect to our minds. Butter lamps and waters and perfumes might be the words we say in ritual, but there's no reason in our visualization fields and in our lives that we shouldn't make relevant offerings. Offer the Buddha iPads and iPhone and tablets and computers and helicopters and airplanes and space shuttles. Why not? So no, I don't think either of those things are the case. I think plastic kitschy baubles are a thing that is extremely useful. If we believe that prayer wheels bring blessings, why not have solar powered ones? If mantras can protect, why not put them on everything? I don't know that "Western Buddhism" as a thing is established enough to be considered "Buddhism for the modern world." I think that "Western Buddhism" presently remains primarily misunderstanding the depth of the Buddha's teachings. There are certainly Western Buddhists, but I don't know that a Western Buddhism is really fleshed out yet, and I don't see a particular need to force it. Buddhism is being spread to the West, it will spread how it spreads, it will become what it will become. There's no need to force it to resemble one thing or another thing, so long as it is consistent with the Buddhadharma, just as Buddhism's spread throughout Asia took on the flavor of the cultures it touched. The fundamentals of Buddhism are essentially timeless, the truths are beyond conception. How we bridge the gap, culurally, from our conceptual minds to nonconceptual ultimate reality is very much "do what works." For some people, very traditional practices work. It's generally accepted in the West that it doesn't work the same, culturally, so some monks have to get jobs. Whereas normally a person might go into retreat for 3 years continuously, in the West the very same Lamas who would say to a Tibetan in India "go into retreat in the mountains for 3 years" will say "go into retreat at a retreat center for 3 weeks." The goal remains the same, and the obstacles remain the same, but the exact footsteps on the path necessarily culturally adapt. I would consider many of the Abrahamic faiths to be having a much worse crisis of adaptation to the modern era than Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:And Buddism says do no pain to others, but what of the fact that in this world there is frequently only a bad and worse options. Does it say anything about that? Something similar to the moral quandary of two groups of people on a train track with only a choice of the train hitting one group or the other? Missed this in the first reply. Buddhism acknowledges this as one of the faults of samsara. All we can do is minimize suffering to the best of our abilities, with the knowledge that presently we cannot make the world perfect, and the aspiration to attain enlightenment so that we improve our ability to help in the future. It is impossible to purchase anything without exploitation being involved, for example. Still, we must purchase things. So we must make decisions within the best of our ability to minimize suffering, and where we cannot reduce it, we should be at least mindful of it. I don't know of an exactly clear similar quandary to the train track problem. I don't know what action I would take. Fortunately such situations are fleetingly rare. In my profession I do have to make decisions that can be life altering and life ending. I do have to make triage decisions that result in people dying because resources have to go to someone with a better chance. That's the reality of my job. But I can only do my best within my knowledge. I'm comfortable with this, all I can do is show compassion as best as possible to everyone I can. If someone has to die, they have to die. We will all die soon. So, palliative care as possible, with a goal towards easing the suffering of all sentient beings. I'm not sure if there's anything else I can say on the subject here. Buddhism doesn't say "do no pain to others," it says not to be violent, to try to minimize the suffering we cause others. Suffering is known to be a fact of this reality, so it is known that beings will suffer, sometimes as a result of our decisions, sometimes for seemingly no drat reason at all, but that is the problem with samsara, and that's why we work to attain enlightenment so we can benefit as many sentient beings as possible, and until then, practice loving-kindness and compassion towards all beings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Out of all the major religions I would say Buddhism is the one I have the least enmity towards due to it's understanding of the world and not just saying 'The world is bad because man is bad/there are not enough worshipers and god is angry/people who commit these sins are the reasons we have hurricanes', etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
You say that Buddhist 'rules' are unlikely to change drastically? So things like being gay is against the teaching is unlikely to change? How do most Buddhists feel about that, or is it just one of those 'suggestions'. After all one should see the value in a group in how they treat their outcasts. Wikipedia on buddhism and 'being into the butt' said something like 'In the early sutras of Buddhism, "accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct" for laypersons "is not specifically mentioned."[6] "Sexual misconduct" is a broad term, subject to interpretation according to followers' social norms. Early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.' So am I reading something wrong or what? ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:You say that Buddhist 'rules' are unlikely to change drastically? So things like being gay is against the teaching is unlikely to change? How do most Buddhists feel about that, or is it just one of those 'suggestions'. After all one should see the value in a group in how they treat their outcasts. Being gay is fine. Just don't use sex to hurt people, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:You say that Buddhist 'rules' are unlikely to change drastically? So things like being gay is against the teaching is unlikely to change? How do most Buddhists feel about that, or is it just one of those 'suggestions'. After all one should see the value in a group in how they treat their outcasts. Buddhism is historically for outcasts. One of the revolutionary things Buddha did at the time was basically regard Untouchables and Brahma as the same. What teaching is being gay against? And is it contextualized culturally? I've never heard of any such teaching, for example. There are culturally bound teachings, though, so I suspect it's not impossible. Buddhist "rules" are not "rules." There are no "commandments" for lay people. For monks, there is a code of ethical conduct which they take vows to uphold, but that is a vow they undertake, not a commandment from some potentate. For lay people, there are also training vows, which encourage good moral behavior. Those five are usually (1) to not engage in violence or killing, (2) to not steal or take anything that is not given, (3) to not lie or deceive others, (4) to not engage in sexual misconduct, (5) to not indulge in intoxicants which cause heedlessness. "Sexual misconduct" is generally understood to mean non-consensual sex (rape, sex with minors, sex with animals, and so on) and sex which can cause suffering to others, such as if someone is married or in a committed relationship and cheats on his or her spouse. If you're gay and have sex with another gay dude consensually and aren't cheating on other people at the same time, most people would not consider this to be breaking the precept. Monks and nuns are fully celibate, so it's a non-issue for them. The biggest "culture war" issue I think presently facing Buddhism is sexism, with a lot of Buddhist nations having deeply entrenched patriarchal systems, but this is something that can change and which does not change the core teachings of the Buddha. HH the Dalai Lama has encouraged gender equality, and it's an inevitable change, I think. There's no "rule" in Buddhism that says these cultural affectations must remain entrenched, there is cultural tradition. Those cultural traditions can influence the presentation of Buddhist practice, but not the actual teachings of Buddha. I do not think Buddha ever taught that gay sex is any less of a pitfall than straight sex. Both are seeking sensory stimulation, both can be overcome by moral discipline, and both are fine for householders who don't take monastic vows of celibacy. ShadowMoo posted:Wikipedia on buddhism and 'being into the butt' said something like 'In the early sutras of Buddhism, "accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct" for laypersons "is not specifically mentioned."[6] "Sexual misconduct" is a broad term, subject to interpretation according to followers' social norms. Early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.' You're reading it wrong. That is specifically saying that Buddha never taught that gay sex is any different from straight sex, never made any distinction between the two in terms of morality for lay people. (For ordained monastics, both are equally condemned as violating the vows). There is no special stigma on homosexual relations - they re the same as straight relations. "Subject to interpretation according to followers' social norms" specifically means that in societies where being gay is not socially accepted, it could be considered misconduct, and taught as such, by some followers. "Social norms" are impermanent, they change, and that's exactly the point. The Buddha's teachings are not changing - society is changing. The Buddha's teachings are excellent, and remain pertinent despite that social change. "Don't engage in sexual misconduct" is basically "don't use sex to hurt people." If you live in a society where people will be hurt by your indulging in gay sex, probably don't do that. If you don't, then that's fine. In either case, moderate your sexual indulgence so it does not become an obsession, and work on reducing suffering. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:You say that Buddhist 'rules' are unlikely to change drastically? So things like being gay is against the teaching is unlikely to change? How do most Buddhists feel about that, or is it just one of those 'suggestions'. After all one should see the value in a group in how they treat their outcasts. I've seen literally no mention of homosexuality in the Pali canon. Basically the rules for sex are pretty simple: don't have sex in a manner that will cause needless suffering. I interpret that as don't rape, don't cheat, and don't misrepresent yourself (ie by lying about your STD risk.) Naturally this varies from culture to culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
According to almighty Wikipedia (never wrong) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientationquote:Several theravada Buddhist texts state that the members of the third sex are excluded from a variety of Buddhist practices (in addition to ordination): Edit: Not actually gay myself  , I had an old roommate that always had difficulty reconciling his homosexuality and his Christianity.
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
I mean if you live in certain countries in Africa or whatever where homosexual behavior is illegal and you and your partner face being murdered by having sex, probably you should not have sex, because in that case you are greatly risking death for yourself and your partner, and for your families, and so on. But that's not saying "gay sex is bad," that's saying "getting murdered for any reason is bad because it causes lots of people to suffer, and you might get murdered if you are gay in these places, so maybe don't have sex in those places." If you move somewhere where you're not going to be killed for having sex with your partner, go hog wild (within reason). Edit: those aren't really "core Buddhist teachings," but rather cultural manifestations of things. Shantideva is a hardcore dude who also in that same talk taught that we shouldn't kiss, or make love, because spit is icky and other human beings are just animated cadavers. He was specifically speaking, also, to an audience of monks and gives little to no guidance towards laypeople. I can't speak to the other ones. Regardless, it is not typically how it is understood now, and, further, would not invalidate what the Buddha taught, or my statement about what the Buddha taught, in either scenario. That's how things are practiced sometimes, but Buddhist traditions must be understood within their cultural context. Buddha was talking about all-pervading truths. One such truth is that attachment and aversion cause suffering, and that suffering is not good. Sex is an indulgence of sense-pleasure. It is a distraction from renunciation. Monks should not have sex, and lay persons should not have sex which causes suffering. Anything beyond that falls under the "interpretation based on cultural norms" bit and should be taken within that context. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Not to harp on this issue excessively but I found this is my research. Article is a bit old but it is essentially the Dali llama saying that being gay is against the teachings. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dalai-Lama-Speaks-on-Gay-Sex-He-says-it-s-wrong-2836591.php Or is he mostly just positing his own personal views and not that of the religion as a whole? I am just curious because most westerners associate (falsely it seems) the Dali as the head or mouthpiece of Buddhism. Edit: also more recent http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...wrongrdquo.aspx ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Not to harp on this issue excessively but I found this is my research. Article is a bit old but it is essentially the Dali llama saying that being gay is against the teachings. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dalai-Lama-Speaks-on-Gay-Sex-He-says-it-s-wrong-2836591.php Or is he mostly just positing his own personal views and not that of the religion as a whole? He's holding the stance that non-procreative sex is an indulgence of sexual pleasure and so ultimately in violation of the precept because the training precept is meant to guard against such things. He's probably quite correct, and it's a very strong position. You'll note that he stated this while meeting with gay Buddhist leaders, and it probably wasn't to take away their Buddhist card. Further, the article goes on to clarify that HHDL is not the "Buddhist Pope" and that he can't speak for the religion as a whole, so probably it is clear he is not promoting the views of the religion as a whole  It also says that he was perhaps proposing that those things be re-examined from a more modern point of view, which is more or less in line with what I was saying happens (is happening).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Ah thanks, trying to wrap my head around the intent of the rules. I seem to be holding a false view on what the intent is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Ah thanks, trying to wrap my head around the intent of the rules. I seem to be holding a false view on what the intent is. It's definitely understandable, especially as you mentioned enmity towards other religions, and so are probably stuck within that kind of paradigm. The precepts in Buddhism are training precepts, they're voluntary commitments a person takes because they reduce the suffering of that person. For example, the much maligned precept against taking intoxicants really does mean don't drink alcohol. This is because "drinking alcohol" tends to cause suffering. Buddhist definition of "good" and "evil" is pretty much in line with the idea that that which is good does not cause suffering, that which is evil causes suffering. The hardline stance about sex in Buddhism is pretty straightforward - it is a physical indulgence, a distraction, and orgasm is a sensory pleasure. Buddhism is not against pleasure! Pleasure is fine. But pleasure leads easily toward attachment and aversion - we like pleasure, we dislike the absence of pleasure. It is very easy for a person to indulge in pleasurable activities and become attached to that, such that they suffer when they are not engaging in those activities. One need not look far to find people for whom sex is a cause of incredible suffering, even though they think it is causing them pleasure. Look at "pickup artists" and so on! They are constantly thinking about sex, where to get sex, how to get sex, how to get the best sex. They never really are satisfied by sex, instead, sex becomes an obsession and a craving. This craving ultimately causes them suffering. There's nothing wrong about sex, but there's something very wrong about causing yourself suffering because you can't get enough sex. The training precept against sexual misconduct is meant to guard against this. The Vinaya precept of total celibacy is the best guard against it. Consider cigarettes. Sure, you can probably smoke a cigarette and not be addicted. It probably won't instantly give you cancer. Probably you will not burn for years in the hot hell realms or something. Probably you'll just smoke it and be done. But what little buzz it gives you? That will quickly be gone too! Maybe you really enjoyed it. If you really want that buzz, you'll smoke another. Then that buzz will go too! Soon you're smoking a lot, and you're at risk of cancer, your lung capacity is diminished, and so on so on. This does not happen to a person who just never smokes a cigarette at all. A celibate monk never has problems from sexual desire. A layperson who does not engage in sexual misconduct is at a much lower risk of suffering from his or her sexual activity within a committed relationship than a dude who bangs everyone he can, or a rapist, or whatever. HHDL's point is mainly that we should not engage in any sex activity that isn't procreative, not because it's inherently evil or bad or wrong or something, but because it can lead to bad things. "Just don't do it at all" is a great rule for making sure you don't get caught up in sexual desire all the time. "Just do it only if you want a kid" is another pretty good rule for it. "Just do it if you're not causing others to suffer and it serves some function" is yet another functional rule. The point is not to say "okay, never have sex because sex is evil." The point is that sex, like all actions, has consequences, and those consequences can be pretty negative, and they can cause you suffering, and they can prevent you from attaining enlightenment because they are distracting. Better to just never dabble with cigarettes. Edit: that's not to say that things aren't also wrong, or aren't wrong by default, precepts or not. Whether or not I hold a precept to abstain from intoxicants, intoxicants cause suffering. The point is rather that Buddha was an observer, not a potentate. He looked at the world and realized what is the cause of suffering. His teachings reduce suffering because they are based on observations, not on some kind of divine mandate. The five precepts don't say "don't kill" because Buddha felt like that was a good rule when he was thinking it up - they say "don't kill" because killing was observed to be a cause of suffering. They don't say "don't engage in sexual misconduct" because sex is icky and bad, they say this because sex is observed to be a behavior which generally causes suffering. It's ultimately a renunciate religion. The precepts train us to refrain from things that are "bad" because they cause suffering, not because Buddha decided we shouldn't do them arbitrarily. So, whether you're a vow holder or not, sexual misconduct (rape, etc.) are non-virtuous. Stealing is non-virtuous. Killing is non-virtuous. Drinking is non-virtuous. But they aren't non-virtuous because dammit, God says so! They're non-virtuous because they cause suffering. They are non-virtuous behaviors whether you're Buddhist or not. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Further, the article goes on to clarify that HHDL is not the "Buddhist Pope" and that he can't speak for the religion as a whole, so probably it is clear he is not promoting the views of the religion as a whole Are you questioning Avalokiteshvara?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Are you questioning Avalokiteshvara? Haha, nope, just pointing out that even if the emanation of compassion says a thing, it's not speaking for all Buddhists everywhere forever. It's certainly a very influential point, and, like I said, is really probably the "most correct," but not because of any kind of discriminating thing here - he's not saying "gay is icky, straight's coo though," he's saying "any sex is probably an indulgence and you probably shouldn't do it. If you're a layperson though I guess straight sex for procreative purposes is cool though, if you have to because you need children for your family." And even that is a much stronger approach than most Buddhists would take, even very influential ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Haha, nope, just pointing out that even if the emanation of compassion says a thing, it's not speaking for all Buddhists everywhere forever. It's certainly a very influential point, and, like I said, is really probably the "most correct," but not because of any kind of discriminating thing here - he's not saying "gay is icky, straight's coo though," he's saying "any sex is probably an indulgence and you probably shouldn't do it. If you're a layperson though I guess straight sex for procreative purposes is cool though, if you have to because you need children for your family." I find with H.H. that although his messages are relatively consistent, many of his teachings (the numerous ones I've seen/listened to/read) are certainly aimed at non-Buddhists or cafeteria-Buddhists, and are more general as to promoting compassion, peace, happiness (nebulous), etc. I would love to hear him get down and dirty discussing meditating on Green Tara (there is a YouTube video of him doing the Tara mantra at an unbelievably fast clip), but I understand his role from the 30,000 foot perspective, and on a grand scale, he's a pretty good representation of a "real-life" Avalokiteshvara (minus two or 998 arms, depending).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:44
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:I find with H.H. that although his messages are relatively consistent, many of his teachings (the numerous ones I've seen/listened to/read) are certainly aimed at non-Buddhists or cafeteria-Buddhists, and are more general as to promoting compassion, peace, happiness (nebulous), etc. I would love to hear him get down and dirty discussing meditating on Green Tara (there is a YouTube video of him doing the Tara mantra at an unbelievably fast clip), but I understand his role from the 30,000 foot perspective, and on a grand scale, he's a pretty good representation of a "real-life" Avalokiteshvara (minus two or 998 arms, depending). When I saw him give a talk in Ladakh he went balls in to theology for a while while addressing the large gathering of monks in front of him. We also benefitted from being at a gathering that was A: by far hugely ethnically Tibetan and B: basically in Tibet. I think the deal is he doesn't really get into theology at a deep level unless it's with a gathering of monks unless that's what he's explicitly there to do. I also think he's largely come to terms with how the West perceives him and he'd almost like to leave the actual hardcore religion stuff to others who seem to do a good job at it; he's basically preaching to his audience. This actually gets into a weird situation with Buddhism in the West which I know at least quantumfate and I find super interesting. It seems that lay-practice in the West is much more hands-on when it comes to theology than much of the lay-practice in the East. Since we can't really be "cultural" Buddhists and just passively be involved in a lip-service way, Western converts as a whole tend to be more into the nitty-gritty of theology than many people who grew up Buddhist. To be fair, I think this is possibly a fair analysis of converts to any religion, since part of the process of joining a faith is having a good understanding of it. We just don't really have a huge number of people born into Buddhism to talk to and thus we've got only ourselves to bounce these discussions off of much of the time. Count Freebasie posted:Are you questioning Avalokiteshvara? What happens when the Dalai Lama and the Sakya Kings disagree?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Western converts as a whole tend to be more into the nitty-gritty of theology than many people who grew up Buddhist. To be fair, I think this is possibly a fair analysis of converts to any religion, since part of the process of joining a faith is having a good understanding of it. This is all too true. My favorite, having been around enough to experience, is people who convert to Judaism. They go balls-to-the-wall hardcore and start celebrating holidays that are the Jewish equivalent of Arbor Day. My Jewish relatives would just roll their eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A celibate monk never has problems from sexual desire. Dunno where you got that idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Dunno where you got that idea. It's awkwardly phrased. They may have internal issues stemming from the desire itself, but they are not compounded and are overcome with discipline. Strictly speaking I'm certain monks, especially novice monks, feel suffering resultant from sexual desire, but it is made better, not worse, by keeping their vows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It's awkwardly phrased. They may have internal issues stemming from the desire itself, but they are not compounded and are overcome with discipline. Strictly speaking I'm certain monks, especially novice monks, feel suffering resultant from sexual desire, but it is made better, not worse, by keeping their vows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:To be a bit bald, are monks permitted to beat off in order to take the edge off such matters? I don't think so. The Vinaya prohibits this, but there are varying degrees of consequences depending on the act. Certain sexual offenses must be confessed to the sangha, while others (like actually having sex) result in the monk being "defeated", meaning he is expelled. This is from a Theravada perspective. Other traditions have different Vinaya details about certain topics I believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
This is just from an Ajahn Brahm talk, but I recall him saying that a good meditation as a cure for lust. Masturbation would be just as much an attachment as actual sex for monks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 08:17
|
|