|
Meditation on the impermanence of the body is often used as an antidote for lust. It is a meditation on the 32 parts of the body, basically walking you through the process of recognizing the physical body in its component parts, realizing you are a bag of bones, flesh, sinew, bile, phlegm, teeth and hair, etc. When one realizes the body in this way it is said to help curb lust. Obviously this isn't something laypeople need to do all that often unless you are on retreat, but it is used by monks when things get uncomfortable. It is discussed in the Visuddhimagga and also in some sutras that I can't think of off the top of my head.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Meditation on the impermanence of the body is often used as an antidote for lust. It is a meditation on the 32 parts of the body, basically walking you through the process of recognizing the physical body in its component parts, realizing you are a bag of bones, flesh, sinew, bile, phlegm, teeth and hair, etc. Also, from what I've read, meditating on the impermanence of the body by thinking of the person one desires sexually in various states of death and decomposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Ahahah that sounds more masochistic than buddhist to me. Desire is a part of life (some, like Nishijima, say that it is life itself) and it's beautiful. As long as you try your best to not make others suffer, i see no reason why you should not fall in love, have sex, and enjoy the whole process. The more i practice, the more i think that buddhism is just about falling in love, constantly, with life, and being happy. That includes other people. There is nothing harmful in sex and desire if it comes from true love and not from needs / clinging / trying to solve your own issues with other people. Of course things are not as easily done than said... Seeing buddhism as a path of extinction of all desire is just ONE interpretation of the noble truths. There are others. For example you can read Nishijima's "To meet the real dragon" for a very interesting point of view on the noble truths and desire. In fact things are really simple but we always make it complicated... Ugrok fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Ahahah that sounds more masochistic than buddhist to me. Edit: I totally agree that we should strive to enjoy life, the question is only what is more enjoyable. Ugrok posted:There is nothing harmful in sex and desire if it comes from true love and not from needs / clinging / trying to solve your own issues with other people. Of course things are not as easily done than said... Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Ahahah that sounds more masochistic than buddhist to me. I don't think anybody is saying sex is bad. Abstaining is meant for monastics or laypeople on meditation retreat, because they are on a more extreme version of the path than others, which is laid out in the Vinaya. quote:Seeing buddhism as a path of extinction of all desire is just ONE interpretation of the noble truths. There are others. For example you can read Nishijima's "To meet the real dragon" for a very interesting point of view on the noble truths and desire. In fact things are really simple but we always make it complicated... I haven't read much in the way of Zen, but if you'd like to break down his interpretation of the noble truths I would be interested in reading it. Count Freebasie posted:Also, from what I've read, meditating on the impermanence of the body by thinking of the person one desires sexually in various states of death and decomposition. That is correct, I forgot to include that key part. There are some lesser known meditation objects that are really fascinating - meditation on the recollection of death (marananussati), cemetary meditation, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I don't think anybody is saying sex is bad I mean, Buddha kind of did. That's also different than "don't have sex" because realistically Buddhism is for monks and not laity, and if you're some kind of sadist who punishes themselves for having a consensual relationship and feels super guilty about it then you're kind of missing the point of the teachings as they pertain to laity vs. monastics. Thankfully that's not a huge problem, since a vast majority of Buddhists around the world get the distinction between training vows and Vinaya, even if they look almost exactly the same in places.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I mean, Buddha kind of did. That's also different than "don't have sex" because realistically Buddhism is for monks and not laity, and if you're some kind of sadist who punishes themselves for having a consensual relationship and feels super guilty about it then you're kind of missing the point of the teachings as they pertain to laity vs. monastics. Do you know of any places where he specifically said sex is bad while speaking to laypeople? I can't think of any off the top of my head. I don't really agree that Buddhism is for monks and not laity. He accepted people as lay followers throughout the suttas, and gave them instructions on how to live according to the eightfold path. One of the more common recurring characters in the suttas, Anathapindika, was a lay follower. Monks can't exist without the laity, and the interrelationship between the two is kind of crucial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
I think the only question is : "does sex make you and others happy or not ?". Everyone has to find the answers, the causes, the consequences for himself, and they are necessarily different for everyone. Saying more than that is just blindly applying a rule. Maybe we also have to put buddhas teachings in perspective ; what he said is 2500 years old, we don't live in the same society anymore and we do not have the same knowledge and relationship to sex as he did, obviously. If you look at what the teachings are about, it's really simple : just act so that you and others are happy. That's about it. Of course the means to achieve this are not easily found and the point is that everyone has to find them for himself, considering his own determinations, his own experience, etc... Nishijima's interpretation of the four noble truths is as follows. The "classical" interpretation is that first truth is suffering, the second truth is that suffering has a cause : desire, the third truth is that to solve suffering you have to eradicate desire, and the fourth truth is the way to do this. This is what Nishijima writes about this interpretation : quote:When I was young, this traditional interpretation of the four noble truths became a real stumbling block for me. Even when i first encountered it, there seemed to be something wrong. To begin with, i could not accept the original premise. Of course there was suffering in the world, but was life only suffering ? Was there no happiness or satisfaction, no simple joy in living ? And the there was the attitude toward desire. Was desire really an evil element in human beings, something to be suppressed or eliminated ? Personally, i could not conceive life without desire ; they seemed so tightly intertwined as to be indivisble. To me, life and desire were simply two sides of the same coin. If Gautama Buddha really urged us to get rid of desire, it seemed that he was asking us to do the impossible. And finally there was the fourth truth, the ultimate way of the Buddhas. By this I understood the noble eightfold path of right view, right thinking, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, righet effort, right mind and right body. Here, the problem was not in the idea or theory itself but in the relationship to the other three three truths. I simply could not see any connection between them. I could not believe that this dogmatic, pessimistic and illogical theory was in any way related to the ultimate realization of the founder of the Buddhist religion. (Nishijima, To Meet the Real Dragon) Nishijima studied master Dogen's Shobogenzo during his whole life, and he adopted the way that Dogen sees Buddhism ; it always works from four points of view. Idealism, then materialism, then buddhist realism, and then the idea of a truth that is ineffable and beyond ideas or philosophy : reality itself. He applied this to the four noble truths, and it works quite well. The first noble truth according to Nishijima is about idealism : there is a basic suffering linked to human nature, and it is because people usually see the world in a very idealistic way, thinking that what they dream should be true. The fact that it is not is suffering. The second stage, the second truth, is the discovery of the materialistic rule of cause and effect. Things are chained, in a really concrete way, from cause to effect. This is in total conflict with the first truth of idealism, because if you base your view of the world on the law of cause and effects, and on the facts that things can always be decomposed in smaller parts, this leaves no room for mind or dreams. So the third truth, for Nishijima again, is about buddhist realism. To solve the conflict between idealism and materialism, you have to recognize the place where those two worlds meet : Here, and Now. Here and now is the place of action. "In action, the one real world appears". Suffering and conflict can be solved by acting. This is Nishijima's third truth interpretation. "A negation of the extreme in favor of a synthesis of the two". The fourth truth is about how to live this resolution of conflict. Real life is not about explanation or understanding. It is ineffable. You can't name it or describe it or tell truths about it. The fourth truth is about the way to discover, to experience, this ineffable reality that only manifests in action, thus resolving suffering : zazen, the act of sitting - pure action. This is why, i think, Zen masters always say to act and to become the action itself. In fact it is not limited to sitting, but i think if you learn to just sit, you have the purest and simplest form of action, and you can then act purely and simply in your whole life, becoming what you are : a process, an endlessly ongoing action. Sorry if this is a bit unclear or badly written ; if you are interested, read the book, it is much more detailed and well explained than the summary i just wrote ! This makes buddhism something that is not at all about metaphysics but on the contrary, that is all about acting. Action solves suffering. Always act to be happy and to make others happy. When asked what the meaning of life was, the Dalai Lama said : "Be happy". I think in the end it is the only buddhist message. It is really, really simple, but really, really hard, ahah ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:I think the only question is : "does sex make you and others happy or not ?". Everyone has to find the answers, the causes, the consequences for himself, and they are necessarily different for everyone. Saying more than that is just blindly applying a rule. Maybe we also have to put buddhas teachings in perspective ; what he said is 2500 years old, we don't live in the same society anymore and we do not have the same knowledge and relationship to sex as he did, obviously. If you look at what the teachings are about, it's really simple : just act so that you and others are happy. That's about it. Of course the means to achieve this are not easily found and the point is that everyone has to find them for himself, considering his own determinations, his own experience, etc... I guess I'm not following then - what is it specifically that the Buddha said, about sex, that you feel is antiquated? He did not prohibit sex among lay followers. The precept warns against "sexual misconduct", basically taken to mean sexual conduct that harms another, or is done outside the confines of a marriage, etc. I'm not sure how that is different now than it was when the Buddha was teaching. quote:
I think saying "Be happy" is fine, but I think it is also an overly broad generalization, and doesn't really do much to tell people how to be happy, which is by understanding the nature of suffering and attachment. That takes time, meditation, and study. It can't be done simply in intellectual terms. I will try and check out Nishijima when some time frees up. I haven't read much Zen and it would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think saying "Be happy" is fine, but I think it is also an overly broad generalization, and doesn't really do much to tell people how to be happy, which is by understanding the nature of suffering and attachment. That takes time, meditation, and study. It can't be done simply in intellectual terms. Yes, exactly, it's my point of view as well. What i meant is that the answer to "how to be happy" cannot be found in simple rules or even in the precepts. One has to find it for him/herself, and it's a lot of work. But saying "abstaining from sex will make you happy" is just as wrong as saying "having sex will make you happy". Things i said about sex were just an answer to the idea that desire is a thing to eradicate or "cure". It's really fascinating to see what we make of the teachings and the sayings. Somehow we always understand them the way we want. It's the same with a lot of the suttas, for example, the sutta where buddha says that the body is not self, the sensations are not self, etc etc is often interpretated as "there is no self". You read this A LOT. But Buddha never said that and refused to answer questions like "is there a self or no self". That's why, as you said, nothing can replace practice, experience, and finding our own truth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
One concern about simply saying "be happy" is that it is easy to take this as an endorsement of hedonism. Surely it is good to make sentient beings happy, and many are confused and think "if I have power, I'm happy" or "if I have money, I'm happy" or "if I have sex, I'm happy." As a bodhisattva we might hope they attain those things so they are happy temporarily. However, we also know better, that those things will not really make them happy in the long-term but be a cause of further suffering. As Buddhists, we practice to end our suffering and the suffering of all sentient beings. Part of that is realizing that things which might bring us temporary happiness do not bring us any kind of enduring happiness, and ultimately cause us suffering. Sex is certainly a kind of trap in this way. It brings us momentary pleasure, but can easily become an obsession. Like I said before, one need not look far too find people who are really craving sex all the time. Ultimately, Buddha must have considered sex and sexuality to be a distraction, or it would not be forbidden in the Vinaya. For lay practitioners, it is unreasonable to teach complete abstinence - we need families, procreation is important. But we should be mindful not to allow sex to become an attachment that brings us problems. For this reason, "sex for procreation only" is a reasonable interpretation of this precept. It is not universal by any means, however. Further, as with all precepts, do what you can do. If jerking off releases frustration that otherwise is hurting your path, then maybe do that, but it's not a virtue to jerk off. It's not necessarily a non-virtue, either, but it can quickly become an obsession or habit that distracts from the path. So basically, "do what makes you happy" is great advice, but only if you know enough to realize that sex, drugs, and rock and roll aren't really happiness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The question of sex really depends on what tradition you're looking at. For Theravada it seems it's way more conservative, and it sees it as a temporary diversion or attachment which doesn't help us eventually reach awakening and personal liberation. Within Mahayana, you'll see things such as Zen priests who get married, and indeed in Japan it was pretty common for the priesthood to be transmitted from father to son across the ages, if I recall correctly. Within the Vajrayana however, sex is not necessarily seen as an impediment, and in fact in certain practices seen as a complete necessity in order to reach liberation. For example, a lot of Mahamudra practices are explicitly sexual in nature, and there are lots of tantric consort practices commonly found within Tibetan Buddhism (the only form of Vajrayana Buddhism I'm anywhere near familiar with). Generally in the Vajrayana, anything is seen as a tool or message for awakening, so sex isn't seen as much of a problem or a distraction but as another opportunity to apply your practice, and if you've gone beyond ngondro and have received transmission or teachings of some of the sexually oriented practices, then sex takes on a whole new dimension of spirituality and usage for achieving awakening.
reversefungi fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
(Great and interesting discussion, btw !) Paramemetic : well, i guess if you get interested in Buddhism in the first place, it's because you experienced that sex, drugs and rock'n roll do not work ! Life should be trusted, mistakes should be trusted, so called "wrong" things should be trusted. There is a saying in zen, something like "a zen master's life is a continuous series of mistakes". It's a joke, but i really think it is important to allow people to live their lives and see what makes them suffer or not. If buddhism is just about "a set of rules to follow to become happy", it's just another moral prison. What is interesting in buddhism for me is that it's a path where you must explore things, you must discover what works, there are tools and suggestions, but in the end it's about you and what you do with this life. As someone else said before in the discussion, when you say "be happy", it is, of course, not that simple. When you begin to really search what is to be happy, you necessarily discover that it is a lot of work, that immediate pleasure doesn't satisfy, that craving is a suffering, etc etc. That's why i think "be happy" is a good buddhist motto, albeit maybe a bit simplistic. It forces you to begin to search about yourself, and it also pushes you to experience things. And at the same time, it sounds reassuring and simple, and not forced : there is nothing wrong in enjoying a simple moment, just be happy, man ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Yes, exactly, it's my point of view as well. What i meant is that the answer to "how to be happy" cannot be found in simple rules or even in the precepts. One has to find it for him/herself, and it's a lot of work. But saying "abstaining from sex will make you happy" is just as wrong as saying "having sex will make you happy". I think that is fair. I think abstaining from sex, in terms of the monastic community, is at least in part due to the fact that monks are held to a higher standard while undergoing training, and are basically expected to either be meditating, teaching, contemplating the Dhamma, or other activities related to the path. I think this is why we see similar monastic precepts in terms of prohibitions against beautifying the self, dancing and singing, entertainment in most cases, and that kind of thing. They are even sometimes described not as prohibitions, but freedoms - freedom from things we may normally cling to, and then suffer from as a result. Ugrok posted:Things i said about sex were just an answer to the idea that desire is a thing to eradicate or "cure". It's really fascinating to see what we make of the teachings and the sayings. Somehow we always understand them the way we want. It's the same with a lot of the suttas, for example, the sutta where buddha says that the body is not self, the sensations are not self, etc etc is often interpretated as "there is no self". You read this A LOT. But Buddha never said that and refused to answer questions like "is there a self or no self". That's why, as you said, nothing can replace practice, experience, and finding our own truth. I think interpreting those teachings as no-self is accurate. We consist of the 5 aggregates, and if all 5 aggregates are without self, which the Buddha claims repeatedly, then we are naturally going to conclude there is no permanent self, as all conditioned phenomenon are impermanent. The Buddha's reluctance to make declarations about the self or lack thereof have more to do with his warnings about being attached to views, in my opinion. The idea of the self is to eventually be abandoned as a view entirely, which happens when one achieves stream-entry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:(Great and interesting discussion, btw !) I agree. Ugrok posted:If buddhism is just about "a set of rules to follow to become happy", it's just another moral prison. What is interesting in buddhism for me is that it's a path where you must explore things, you must discover what works, there are tools and suggestions, but in the end it's about you and what you do with this life. I don't really consider the Dhamma to be a set of rules, rather than a prescription and a cure for suffering. The rules, in and of themselves, are simply indications of what is. If you cling to something, you will suffer, and a path has been laid out for you that will lead you toward being able to abandon that. I think blindly clinging to any kind of rule is probably not advisable - but I think that, upon reflecting on the precepts and other training rules, one can see that they clearly have an important purpose. The Buddha encountered many ascetics during his years as a teacher, many of them following seemingly arbitrary rules about how to purify themselves and acheive happiness. The Buddha's rules were instead founded on the direct experience that led to his own enlightenment, so I think they are important in that context especially. And honestly, there isn't anything wrong with saying "Be Happy", because that is really what we all want right? I know I do, but I suffer a lot in the process. All sentient beings want to be free from suffering. The precepts are a great way of helping that process along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Iirc marriage was forced upon Zen monks during the meiji reformation and chan monk's are still "conservative" and celibate
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think interpreting those teachings as no-self is accurate. We consist of the 5 aggregates, and if all 5 aggregates are without self, which the Buddha claims repeatedly, then we are naturally going to conclude there is no permanent self, as all conditioned phenomenon are impermanent. The Buddha's reluctance to make declarations about the self or lack thereof have more to do with his warnings about being attached to views, in my opinion. The idea of the self is to eventually be abandoned as a view entirely, which happens when one achieves stream-entry. I don't know about "stream-entry", but i don't think that just because none of the 5 aggregates is self, means that there is no self. It just means that : none of the aggregates, taken separately, is self. A wheel is not a car. It does not mean the car does not exist, and it does not mean the car exists without the wheel. It's just not the point ! I think it is accurate as you say : the idea of the existence of a self, or of the non existence of a self, is to be abandoned if one wants to be happy, because however you answer the question of there being a self or not, the answer causes suffering. Which is not the same as saying that there is or there is no self. It's just not a relevant question for someone who wants to suffer less. I found this very good and clear article on the subject, where the author discusses "no self" vs "not self" : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html Ugrok fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:I don't know about "stream-entry", but i don't think that just because none of the 5 aggregates is self, means that there is no self. It just means that : none of the aggregates, taken separately, is self. If the aggregates are not self, what else is there that could constitute self? I have actually read that article before. I almost linked it in my last post as it reminded me of what you were saying! It is a touchy subject and I can appreciate both sides of the debate. I will say that, for what it is worth, Thanissaro has drawn some criticism for his view that anatta is a "strategy" instead of an actual doctrinal position. There was a monk at Dhammawheel who had some pretty strong opinions to the contrary and dissected this essay. I thought I had it bookmarked but I can't find it now. A wheel is not a car. But if a wheel isn't a car, and neither is a frame, or an engine, or paint or seats or interior - if even when combined they aren't a car, then the concept of a car isn't really very useful. The idea of anatta goes beyond what we consider to be ourselves, as it refers to the fact that all conditioned things are without self, meaning any kind of inherent and lasting essence. But you are right, the Buddha didn't make firm declarations of the sort, and in fact he avoided making declarations about a lot of things that may have resulted in attachment to views. It is a very interesting part of the Dhamma to think about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:(Great and interesting discussion, btw !) Certainly I agree here, for laypersons, that pursuing happiness to some degree is important. Certainly people should be free to explore and determine things for themselves. This is certainly true. Nobody is required to take the precepts! Many people take the precepts when they have some reason to understand the precepts better, usually from experience. I think the much maligned Kalama Sutta, so commonly misunderstood, means exactly this. It does not mean "no rules, do what you want maaaan," it means that you should practice that which concurs with your experience, assessed earnestly and honestly. I did not learn the Four Noble Truths and immediately go "oh, I should stop drinking at once!" Even when I first decided to practice the precepts, I did not follow that one. However, over time, I realized that I should follow the fifth precept because my experience taught me alcohol does nothing for me. That was my karma, to learn that way. For others, they can go "oh, I have read this is a nonvirtuous practice, and that makes sense, of course. So I won't do that thing." That is honestly better, I think, because it spares someone a lot of mistakes. It's not for everyone! For many, those mistakes are necessary to the learning process. We need to learn, we're not all Buddhas yet! But for some they don't need to test the precepts, they already understand the reasons and are able to practice this. Mistakes and wrong things should be trusted as valid experiences that one learns from. They should not be trusted or relied on as virtuous, of course. So, if you want to have sex and it is consensual and so on you can do that, that's fine. But be honestly mindful of the results and outcomes, and decide from there whether or not to continue that practice, and so on. If you hold the precept against sexual misconduct, or even if you don't, be mindful of the results and decide then whether or not what you're doing constitutes misconduct. Ugrok posted:I don't know about "stream-entry", but i don't think that just because none of the 5 aggregates is self, means that there is no self. It just means that : none of the aggregates, taken separately, is self. A wheel is not a car. It does not mean the car does not exist, and it does not mean the car exists without the wheel. It's just not the point ! On the issue of a self, the Madhyamaka resolution to this problem is that of course there is no self, because a self is a conditioned, compounded, dependently arisen thing, and the configuration of the things that bring about the self are subject to change. There can be no "self" because nothing that is comprised of other things can be said to exist in a permanent way. There is of course a self in the practical, pragmatic way. There is a self that is typing this sentence. But this self is not "real" because it is not enduring. It is, ultimately, simply arisen from emptiness, same as anything else. Because it is arisen from emptiness same as everything else, it is not distinct from anything else. The experience of "I" is as ephemeral as clouds in the sky. But still "I" exist, the same as those clouds - impermanent, empty, without essence. This affects moral conduct because indulging in sense-pleasures serves only to reaffirm the sense of self. If I'm having hell of good sex, I'm thinking "oh drat, this is good sex I'm having, man is this just the best sex." This reaffirms "I." That's okay. Everything does. Even meditating, one might think "oh drat, this is good meditation I'm having, man is this just the best meditation." But the codes of moral conduct generally serve to mitigate this as best as possible. Like I mentioned before, there's nothing wrong with pleasure. Pleasure is good! You should be happy! Every sentient being should have happiness. However, if I am constantly seeking happiness, I am constantly affirming "I." "I am feeling horny, I should have sex, this makes me happy." "I am feeling bored, I should watch TV, then I will not be bored." "I am feeling hungry, I should eat, then I will not be hungry." All of these fall prey to the assumption that the ego is real, that there is an "I" which can experience sadness, horniness, hunger, boredom, or even happiness. Chasing this illusory thing reaffirms the ego. By reaffirming the ego, we are grasping and attaching. Grasping in such a way leads to our continued rebirth as we grasp for "self" upon the expiration of this body. Basically, "be happy" is good, it really is the goal. We seek cessation of suffering. But immediate gratification is not the best way to attain this. For some beings, it's probably the best right now. Some beings need to have these experiences, some beings need to learn things the hard way. I am stupid, and often need to be burned before I learn fire is hot! But some other beings are not so stupid as I, and can realize "oh, this would cause suffering if I did this, I should not do this." They can be told "don't touch fire, you'll be burned" and understand that without needing to test it out. And some people, monks and nuns, are able to demonstrate even more strict moral conduct, to show that not only is it possible, but it is the better way. So like I said, the bodhisattva eases the suffering of all beings, even if the fix is a small fix. But the bodhisattva also recognizes the ephemeral nature of self, and does not indulge in temporary pleasures, instead working towards "the happiness which is free from suffering," that which is found in the practice of Dharma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Thanks paramemetic ! I don't know if "I", "Self", and "Ego" should be viewed as equivalent terms. Any of this terms is incredibly difficult to define anyway. Really, i think this question should just be put aside ; because when you think about ego, you already are lost. If you follow what "I" says, you reinforce it ; if you don't follow what "I" says, you reinforce it as well. Answering this question is a lose/lose situation ! So "just let it be and live your life as best as you can" is the best thing i found yet. "I" is part of everyone's life and should just be treated as any part of one's life, i guess. With care, with love, without getting attached to it, without rejecting it or attempting to destroy it. I agree that happiness cannot come from trying to fulfill what "I" wants to do. It still can be very fun to try, though. It also can be more suffering... In zen, i think happiness is just true, balanced action, which means pure action, without an idea or care about who is doing what. Like when you're totally absorbed in what you do ; this would be a great way of living if one could always be in that state. There is in taoism this concept of "wei wu wei", "doing not doing" or something like that. When your life lives itself, you are happy... Letting things flow as they are, even if things contain an "I", maybe is the answer. "I" am still far from living it everyday though ! I have the exact same stance on the precepts as the one you described. Lived the same thing with alcohol ! But i'm not rigid with that. Sometimes, a good fresh beer is just great. I pay the price, alright ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Here's the translation of my card thing from the Chinese thread:Brennanite posted:Translation: The Diamond Sage Mother with a bun at the nape [of her neck who is] concealed in the Great Vastness gather the Sage Mother with a thousand hands [and] the Sage Mother with a thousand faces, and the Sage Mother with hundreds of thousands of ten thousands eyes, not making two 熾 and 燃, gather the Diamond Mother of the Buddhas under the Great White Canopy, the forces that control the Three Realms and the Central Kingdom, to bring me and the myriad of living creatures having the marks of grievance and those lacking the marks of Maras, reaching to the earth, water, fire, wind, the four greats which arise, all kinds of calamities and harm dispel. Further, allow the various Buddhas, bodhisattvas, the sun, the moon, the stars of the Dipper, beneficent divinities to protect and support me, [and grant me] great fortune, health, tranquility and happiness. So... yeah. Paramemetic posted: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. Please do. I did find another, cleaner image of the card though: 
Cacator fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
I would be profoundly, immensely surprised if there is even one single totally celibate Buddhist temple, monastery, or practice place anywhere on the planet. If your main source on Buddhist positions on sexuality is two thousand year old writings, uh the modern situation is a bit different. Precious few people are totally celibate (and it often isn't even encouraged in multiple traditions because it tends to lead to people getting all strange and repressed---see how that worked out for the Catholics). Yeah, chasteness is theoretically included in a lot of vows and precepts, but the reality is that that is probably the most commonly violated vow or precept of all time. Like, it is (and has always been) endemically not practiced. That has been accepted mostly because fighting biological urges is pretty much invariably going to be a losing struggle. Really, the only people who might realistically be expected to be completely celibate are literally people on long-term solo retreats (but even then people often sneak around). Honestly, it may be a vow for some, but it is kind of expected that people will do what they have to/are going to. Not to be all Debbie Downer about this, it is just a nice one to be aware of before hand rather than expecting that Buddhist practitioners are all celibate (or, for that matter, even care about celibacy). That said, if you sign up for a retreat that asks you to refrain from sexual activity or whatever, it would be respectful to make a real effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 03:53
|
|
The-Mole posted:I would be profoundly, immensely surprised if there is even one single totally celibate Buddhist temple, monastery This is obviously a really hard thing to gauge but I can't tell if you mean something that's open or someone just loving around breaking the Vinaya.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Nevermind
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is obviously a really hard thing to gauge but I can't tell if you mean something that's open or someone just loving around breaking the Vinaya. I'm not sure what you mean by open, but as to the second part (and assuming that by open you basically mean that most people in practice settings haven't vowed to live by any stricter standard than abstaining from sexual misconduct, which, imo, is far more important than celibacy), yeah some amount of that happens. Mostly I was referring to a misconception about Buddhism that monks are a bunch of totally celibate people who feel no lust or desire ever, which is patently false. Basically, vows of celibacy are pretty rare, and not something a casual Buddhist is ever going to be encouraged to take. There is a lot of debate about whether or not it is even healthy to undertake something that extreme. Trying to completely resist biological drives is almost inevitably a losing battle. As to people who actually take the full Bhikku vows, even among them it is customary to simply ignore others' "indiscretions" and maybe describe the conduct as "less than skillful" at worst. Even the traditions that allow/expect priests/monastics to marry (i.e. Vajrayana, Mahayana) still have all the same problems any other comparably large group of humans would have. Not only do you have some people breaking vows, you have other teachers that are specifically sexually assaulting students (Eido Roshi, to name one, Sogyal Rinpoche, to name another). And there are other teachers that exploit the power differential of a teacher-student relationship. There are serious predators in robes, some known, others still unknown. So to put it clearly: I/you/we/people gotta be realistic and be aware. It's important to see people's qualities while not being blind to everything else about them. Anyways, I'll shut up now because I'm probably going to start really pissing a lot of people off if I keep going on about this. I will say, though, that as the kid of a former monk, I've since met quite a few other children of monks from both Buddhist and Christian/Catholic backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:14
|
|
The-Mole posted:Basically, vows of celibacy are pretty rare, and not something a casual Buddhist is ever going to be encouraged to take. Nobody here is suggesting celibacy for anyone other than monks. The-Mole posted:As to people who actually take the full Bhikku vows, even among them it is customary to simply ignore others' "indiscretions" and maybe describe the conduct as "less than skillful" at worst. I, too, like to make pretty broad sweeping claims that Sanghas are basically disguised orgies then bow out of a thread when asked for anything to back that up.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that Bhikkhus are perfect in their adherence to the Vinaya in any way. Buddhist monks have their share of scandals, sexual, financial and otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
A sangha is a gathering of monks, not a a gathering of Arahats. Of course they're going to gently caress
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Why is a monk expelled from the order if he is 'defeated'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Why is a monk expelled from the order if he is 'defeated'? Because the entire purpose of a monastic order is to create a system of mutual support wherein it is easier to follow the precepts because the whole community is adhering to those things. If someone is utterly failing, it's a liability. There is in fact an elaborate process of confession that monks have available to them to use before they are defeated, but if you're a celibate monk and you start banging women you're further gone than the dude having unchaste thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
How do you think Buddhism and to a lesser extent other religions would respond to the possibility of a fully formed AI? Or the idea of attainment of eternal life through science?
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Again, Buddhism is a lot of different traditions under one umbrella, so I cannot answer for "Buddhism," however, personally I think a fully sentient computer would be just another sentient being, and immortality would definitely make it easier to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Would a fully sentient machine be able to achieve nirvana or would it somehow be exempt from the idea of Samara and suffering?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Well at least then you could call the power supply frying "supreme nirvana."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Would a fully sentient machine be able to achieve nirvana or would it somehow be exempt from the idea of Samara and suffering?  Or you could say that Buddhism really only applies to beings that have the capacity to suffer in the first place, so why would an AI like that need to achieve nirvana? Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
So do you believe with enough science thrown at the issue humans could achieve something akin to nirvana here on earth? I.e. something akin to a utopia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
That's kind of what buddhism is. A science to allow us to attain a freedom from that arisen consciousness, to be without desires, without ideation, without ignorance. To experience the world as it is, objectively, without subjective input. I don't think that with any feasible science we could attain nirvana through artificial means. By putting ourselves into computers we still have the problem of ideation or how to reconcile having that artificial mediator between the world and ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I am just mainly wondering as an atheist if you guys believe we can achieve in our physical existence what religions promise through spiritual existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Is it really the goal of buddhism to experience the world without subjectivity ? Where does this idea come from ? Because we have examples of human beings who do just that : newborn babies, and it doesn't look like a ton of fun. In everything i read (always coming from a zen background), buddhism has nothing to do with the destruction of the subject or the subjectivity ; it has to do only with this very life, and how to not suffer in it. I once asked my teacher if the personality or subjectivity disappears with enlightenment, whatever that is ; he just said "no, personality does not disappear. It just gets brighter". Ahaha, i don't know if this was a joke or not but it was fun anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Would a fully sentient machine be able to achieve nirvana or would it somehow be exempt from the idea of Samara and suffering? There are humans who do not feel physical pain, but I don't think that makes them immune from depression or anxiety or just general existential angst. Why shouldn't an AI have existential angst? ShadowMoo posted:I am just mainly wondering as an atheist if you guys believe we can achieve in our physical existence what religions promise through spiritual existence. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 18:22
|
|