|
Shnooks posted:I am in Boston! Do I know you? I was attending Boston Old Path meetings but their times are inconvenient and/or the meetings were entirely retired people in their 60s. I've been looking for another sangha that has better times to meet. Do you have any other recommendations? All of my experience with Zen involves rather old people as well, I can't even imagine what a Zen group for younger people would be like. Then again, I don't live anywhere near a big city, so I probably will not be finding that out any time soon. I hope you find a good group though, the Boundless Zen people I know nothing about, but their liturgy is absolutely worth reading if you're into that stuff at all. Some serious classics in there. Ugrok posted:Thank you all for the discussion, it's really great to be able to talk about this ! That was a chunk of the "Song of the Jewel Mirror Samadhi" by (supposedly) Dongshan Liangjie. AFAIK, the full version of it is used in some Zen liturgies. It's a memorable one.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
For the benefit of you Boston folks, and anyone generally in the NE, and all sentient beings, I would like to mention there is a Jowo Shakyamuni Rinpoche emanation replica now at the Drikung Meditation Center in Arlington. The statue is a replica of the Jowo Rinpoche at Jokhang Temple, and has the same effects, being that it can cause liberation on sight for many beings and grant the wishes of others as well as generally improving practice. It has been brought to the US in order to provide a pilgrimage site for people in America. They are in the process of building a very ambitious associated temple and retreat center to house it, but for now it is open to the public for visitation. Further information here. Additionally, I know Lama Konchok Sonam personally and he is an amazing individual, full of compassion and bodhicitta. Basically he's a great dude. Okay that's all from me about Boston.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
I'm not Buddhist myself, but i'll graciously take advantage of the opportunity to ask some practitioners for their opinions if you all don't mind! Feel free to answer any or none or all of these, they're just a grab bag of things i'd like to hear your perspective on. I just finished reading a book called The Accidental Buddhist by Dinty Moore, which is sort of a narrative survey of Buddhism in America as of 1997, and I enjoyed reading but i'm not sure how I feel about it and the author. For starters, has anyone in this thread read it by any chance, and if so what did you think of it? Are the retreats and practices it describes representative of the ones you see today? More specifically, i'm interested in hearing any opinions about some of the premises or ideas raised in the book. One of the most striking suggestions to me was that "the future of Buddhism is in the West". That is, American (for instance) Buddhists don't have the cultural associations a Japanese (for instance) person would where Buddhism is a culturally ingrained source of weddings and funerals and not a belief system which is seriously studied and practiced, they're approaching and living the precepts of Buddhism for the first time and approaching it with a zeal that isn't really seen in Asian countries. There's a potential for growth in the West that doesn't exist so much in countries where it has already been established for centuries. What do you think of that assertion? And on a related note, do you have any thoughts or opinions about Buddhism and Buddhists (especially the lay population at large) in countries like Vietnam, Japan, Thailand where it's a well-established religion? Do you feel that you see and practice your religion in the same way that someone who's been raised in it does, or is that something that you don't give much thought? One of the other ideas that interested me is presented by the Dalai Lama (who of course does not speak for all Buddhists by any means) and the author sort of wrestles with it. What he says is that, not unlike the traditional practice of initially refusing a request to convert to Judaism three times, he encourages people in the West who are interested in converting to Buddhism to first look more deeply inside their own traditions (most obviously Christianity) to see if they can find what they're looking for there, discouraging people from converting because it's exotic and celebrities practice it and so on. I also know that in general there's a school of thought that many American Buddhists are converting as an act of rebellion against their upbringing. What do you think about those ideas? Is that something you hear a lot? Speaking from a place of total respect for the choice to convert, it seems like most of the people who post in this thread converted to or adopted Buddhism rather than being born into it. If that's you, was there something in particular about Buddhist teachings and practice that resonated with you in a way your previous religion or lack thereof didn't? Do you think of what you believe and practice now in contrast to what you believed before? The book spends a lot of words on meditation, different ideas on the proper way to meditate, zazen (and Zen in general for that matter). One of the things that stood out to me was the idea that meditation as an activity has tangible physical benefits, which is not something I frequently hear about prayer for example. It looks like there was some discussion in the last few pages about whether the merit of meditation is in the physical reward of calmness- I guess this is a big focus for secular Buddhists. There's been plenty of promotion of meditation and breathing exercises as valuable for anyone in the culture at large, Buddhist or not. Why do you meditate? Do you see meditation as a major part of your personal religious practice? If you converted to Buddhism, was it related to having practiced meditation? That's all for now- i'd appreciate any responses!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:That's all for now- i'd appreciate any responses! You can either confirm or debunk the teachings via your own direct experience. The validity of the teachings (to you as a person) ultimately rests on that. It is clear from the teachings themselves that it's not enough to just believe they are true, the whole point of the path is to experience it for yourself. The purpose of meditation is to train the mind and to investigate reality. When you meditate you train the mind to be still, when the mind is still it is in a state where it can investigate reality. The physical and mental benefits are well documented in the scientific literature (just type 'mindfulness' or 'meditation' into google scholar) but the well-being that follows from meditation is just a nice side-effect and not its ultimate purpose. Basically, the Buddha said "reality is like this" and then he left behind a detailed instruction manual on how to come to the same conclusions as he did. The instruction manual is of course the noble eightfold path, which can be followed and implemented by anyone. Edit: I started out with mindfulness meditation for stress relief in a completely secular setting. Then I stumbled over a Dhamma talk on youtube, and I felt it put everything I had seen in meditation in place. That's how I got into Buddhism. Experiences in meditation is for me a major motivator for continuing the practice. Also just the general pain relief that follows from practice. It is a path to end suffering after all 
Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
It should also be said, to be honest, that practice is hard. Don't get into meditation thinking that you will sail a tranquil river, and that everything will be beautiful. It's also about confronting our most profound difficulties - as persons and more generally as human beings - and at times can really be very difficult and unsettling. There are no rules, though. Sometimes you sit down while feeling great, and while sitting you feel like a total crap ; sometimes life is really hard, and when you sit you feel totally great. All of this comes and goes. It's a neverending, ongoing process, and the key is to just keep doing it and not attaching to what you feel, which is really hard when things seem to fall apart. So don't begin if you do it only to feel good. Being human is also accepting that sometimes, life sucks. I'd say if your life showed you time after time that you don't get out of problems by fleeing them, but rather by confronting them face to face, then buddhism might be a path for you. If you want to have a general idea about practice, i would recommend the books of Pema Chodron, "the wisdom of no escape", for example. It really describes very well what you go through when practicing, and the "peaceful and compassionate warrior" state of mind. You can also read "zen mind, beginner's mind" from shunryu suzuki for a very complete view of zen practice. Edit : just as Rhymenoceros above, i started practicing to get relief from stress and anxiety, and to face some tough questions about who i am and what do i do with this life, whatever it is. Of course it did not work, ahah, at least not in the way i planned at the time. During the course of my practice, i've had very good times, and very difficult times as well (going through one at the moment, which might explain the overly dramatic tone of this post, ahahahha, sorry about that). Ugrok fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:For me, you can't really 'convert' to Buddhism. You can adopt Buddhism as a working hypothesis about the nature of reality, but there's no point in believing for beliefs sake. I'd just like to interject that the eightfold path can be followed by anyone of relatively sound mind. Would you recommend Buddhism to a paranoid schizophrenic, for example? I find that some Buddhist practitioners experience so many changes in themselves that they begin to generalize it, not necessarily being mindful of the state of mind that would provide a good bed for seeds of dharma to grow. For people whose minds are already "off" from the norm... well, they might come up with some really weird ideas(*cough*ThePriceJustWentUp) and manipulate the dharma, not even maliciously, but still harmfully. What are Buddhist positions on mental illness, in general? I feel personally that it can aid in issues of anxiety and depression but I'm very hesitant to put it forward as a panacea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:More specifically, i'm interested in hearing any opinions about some of the premises or ideas raised in the book. One of the most striking suggestions to me was that "the future of Buddhism is in the West". That is, American (for instance) Buddhists don't have the cultural associations a Japanese (for instance) person would where Buddhism is a culturally ingrained source of weddings and funerals and not a belief system which is seriously studied and practiced, they're approaching and living the precepts of Buddhism for the first time and approaching it with a zeal that isn't really seen in Asian countries. There's a potential for growth in the West that doesn't exist so much in countries where it has already been established for centuries. What do you think of that assertion? And on a related note, do you have any thoughts or opinions about Buddhism and Buddhists (especially the lay population at large) in countries like Vietnam, Japan, Thailand where it's a well-established religion? Do you feel that you see and practice your religion in the same way that someone who's been raised in it does, or is that something that you don't give much thought? I can't speak to the points in the book as I haven't read it, however I can comment briefly on this. In my opinion and experience, these things are true - in some Asian countries, Buddhism is just a part of their cultural practices and generally not taken to be a "for real" thing. This is more true in the more developed countries I think, but it is pretty generally true. Just like in the West there are a lot of Christians who love Jesus and have a firm testimony of Christianity despite never having actually read the Gospels and even those selectively, and many of whom could certainly not expound on, say, the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation or the importance of the Nicene Creed and so on, there are a lot of Asians who love Buddha and know the path is good, but that's about it. And that's okay! There's nothing "wrong" with this. But I think it is an accurate observation. There ain't no zealot like a convert, as the saying goes. When people convert, they dedicate resources towards something, so they pursue it much more fervently to try to get back what they put in, so to speak. Also to justify it to themselves, and so on. A lot could be said about the psychology of converts. When people are born in a religion, however, it's just part of them. Consider it if you moved to a new country. You'd make an effort to fit in, an effort to make sure you dress appropriately, to understand the culture, to speak the language if necessary, and so on. Contrast this with someone who has always lived there, who just knows those things, and they don't make any effort to do those things because they don't have to - unless they really interest on them, in which case they'll become a monk or priest or I guess anthropologist, in the metaphor. Further, certainly in Tibetan Buddhism, there has been a very concerted push to carry Buddhism to the West, and in many cases to make the practices approachable by the West. Certainly, Shambhala holds that the future of Buddhism is in the West. So to do other traditions that are both actively establishing centers in the West as well as simply carrying their traditions and practices along with the diaspora. To be honest, a lot of it is probably simply the continuation of inter-tradition and inter-monastery politicking that has gone on for centuries, but the fact is many great and highly accomplished teachers are heavily involved in the dissemination of Buddhism in the West, and this is a huge boon and very fortunate for us. I don't know that I would say that the future of Buddhism is the West, I think the future of Buddhism is the whole world, but it's already established in Asia where I feel like it is only just starting to flourish in the States and Europe. quote:One of the other ideas that interested me is presented by the Dalai Lama (who of course does not speak for all Buddhists by any means) and the author sort of wrestles with it. What he says is that, not unlike the traditional practice of initially refusing a request to convert to Judaism three times, he encourages people in the West who are interested in converting to Buddhism to first look more deeply inside their own traditions (most obviously Christianity) to see if they can find what they're looking for there, discouraging people from converting because it's exotic and celebrities practice it and so on. I also know that in general there's a school of thought that many American Buddhists are converting as an act of rebellion against their upbringing. What do you think about those ideas? Is that something you hear a lot? Speaking from a place of total respect for the choice to convert, it seems like most of the people who post in this thread converted to or adopted Buddhism rather than being born into it. If that's you, was there something in particular about Buddhist teachings and practice that resonated with you in a way your previous religion or lack thereof didn't? Do you think of what you believe and practice now in contrast to what you believed before? Buddhism offered a pragmatic and practical approach to problems that is both reasonable and practicable. It avoids guilt and shame and the "carrot and stick" approach to encourage good behavior in its adherents. But really, most importantly, it works. Try practicing even one of the precepts, and see if your life does not become more satisfying and wholesome. Acknowledging even a shell of the four noble truths, we can see a very reasonable set of premises and draw from it a fair conclusion. It is internally consistent, which is a major draw to me for any system, and each thing follows from another. As for following your own religious traditions, my Khenpo is fond of saying that if you practice other religions and the result is you are happy and demonstrate good moral conduct, then that is a positive and you should continue that. If you are unhappy or your conduct is immoral, then you should consider switching things up. A lot of people can benefit from a real study of Christianity. There's not a lot of in depth study of native religions I think, even in Catholic school my Catholic education was pretty superficial (see also the question of Buddhists in Buddhist nations), and I think people can benefit from an actual in depth study of scripture and so on. I think people who do it out of a sense of rebellion or what not will find that reason unsatisfying and will either lapse without developing a true practice and so be a wash, or will ultimately rectify their reasons over time through exposure to genuine practice. quote:The book spends a lot of words on meditation, different ideas on the proper way to meditate, zazen (and Zen in general for that matter). One of the things that stood out to me was the idea that meditation as an activity has tangible physical benefits, which is not something I frequently hear about prayer for example. It looks like there was some discussion in the last few pages about whether the merit of meditation is in the physical reward of calmness- I guess this is a big focus for secular Buddhists. There's been plenty of promotion of meditation and breathing exercises as valuable for anyone in the culture at large, Buddhist or not. Why do you meditate? Do you see meditation as a major part of your personal religious practice? If you converted to Buddhism, was it related to having practiced meditation? Meditation is an important part of a lot of traditions but I don't consider it part of my bread and butter. I think in the West we really like the image of the yogi sitting there meditating and thus conquering everything, but I don't think we really "get it" and I think too often that becomes too major a focus. I should meditate more, because meditation is the foundation and good meditational practice supports good yoga practices by allowing one to better generate visualization fields and to maintain visualization fields and so on better. It is also virtuous in its own right, as it supports right concentration. Inasmuch as deity yoga, guru yoga, and so on are a kind of meditative activity, I suppose it is a major part of my practice, and inasmuch as simple contemplation is a meditative act, I meditate frequently, but in terms of structured "sit and meditate" or "just sit" meditation, no, it's not so important to me. Better practice is service and directly benefiting sentient beings. That said, people who meditate are really to be admired. Milarepa taught that it is important to accomplish meditation before trying to help others, because our capacities to help others are inferior unless we first attain some degree of accomplishment. But that opens a whole other can of worms about accomplishments and attainments and seeking those out instead of focusing on actually practicing correctly, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I'd just like to interject that the eightfold path can be followed by anyone of relatively sound mind. I don't see how anyone could be worse off from trying to be more generous, compassionate and kind. I don't see how anyone could be worse off by striving not to harm themselves or others. I don't see how anyone could be worse off by letting go of anger and ill-will. I think ThePriceJustWentUp should be treated with respect and compassion. If you want to criticize someone, I think you should check your own intentions thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Has anyone read anything on the Japanese Shingon Sect? Like specifically Compare/Contrasts with the Tibetan branches or Zen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses, I really appreciate it. This reminded me of something else:Rhymenoceros posted:For me, you can't really 'convert' to Buddhism. You can adopt Buddhism as a working hypothesis about the nature of reality, but there's no point in believing for beliefs sake. How do you think of figures like Guanyin, Ksitigarbha, or Maitreya? What do they mean to you, and how are they perceived in your tradition? Are bodhisattvas venerated, or do they not have a large presence in the West?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Thank you all for the thoughtful responses, I really appreciate it. This reminded me of something else: Edit: Maybe 'practically oriented' isn't the best expression. It focuses on meditation and living a lifestyle that supports meditation, you can read about it here. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Thank you all for the thoughtful responses, I really appreciate it. This reminded me of something else: The bodhisattva ideal doesn't really exist in Theravada, at least not in the way it does in Mahayana traditions. There is the concept of a figure known as a bodhisatta, which is used to refer to a Buddha who hasn't quite reached Buddhahood yet. When the Buddha speaks of himself before his enlightenment, the lead-in to the teaching will often be something like "Once, when I was an unenlightened bodhisatta....", and so on. Maitreya exists in Theravada as Metteyya, who is foretold to be the next Buddha, who will appear once the Dhamma has been lost or disappeared from the earth. I'm not aware of any kind of veneration or anything like that, though I am speaking as a westerner who practices mainly with other westerners. It could be that in countries with Buddhism as a native religion, Metteyya is a more important figure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:For the benefit of you Boston folks, and anyone generally in the NE, and all sentient beings, I would like to mention there is a Jowo Shakyamuni Rinpoche emanation replica now at the Drikung Meditation Center in Arlington. The statue is a replica of the Jowo Rinpoche at Jokhang Temple, and has the same effects, being that it can cause liberation on sight for many beings and grant the wishes of others as well as generally improving practice. I wanted to ask you about this a while back but I forgot until just now. Is this a common thing in Tibetan buddhism? The idea that viewing a particular statue can cause one to become enlightened? I haven't ever heard anything like this and it is kind of fascinating, and I am wondering if emanations are often considered to be imbued with some kind of power, etc. I'm not even sure about the concept of emanations themselves, as to what they are and how they work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
I have a question about the Noble Eightfold Path and something somewhat problematic to me about it. "Right" is thrown around without qualifying it. What makes those actions described right? How are they qualified as being the correct way to view/think/act/etc?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I have a question about the Noble Eightfold Path and something somewhat problematic to me about it. "Right" is thrown around without qualifying it. What makes those actions described right? How are they qualified as being the correct way to view/think/act/etc? It's inaccurate to say they aren't qualified. Maybe if you read a list of them they aren't, but original Pali suttas describe them in depth. I suggest reading this as a start: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html quote:"And what, friends, is the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. edit: other suttas go in depth into each, e.g. for right view the Sammaditthi Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:It's inaccurate to say they aren't qualified. Maybe if you read a list of them they aren't, but original Pali suttas describe them in depth. I admit that my practice is not based in sutta study. This is new territory for me, back to fundamentals. Thank you for the links and bare with me as I ask a few questions. After reading, my cursory and perhaps wrong understanding is that the "right"-ness of the Noble Eightfold Path comes from: the claim that the described actions alleviate 'stress'(suffering?); and are not born of hate, greed, or delusion. Is that the short of it? If so, I don't understand it. How can it be that taking life is unequivocally born of hatred, greed, or delusion? Taking life is an absolutely fundamental piece of human's existence on earth. Without the practice of taking life, none of us would be here. Even the most avowed vegan takes the life of plants and bacterial organisms regularly - where is the arbitrary line drawn? To go against taking life is to go against the same forces that gave rise to my life. Further, I don't understand how it is even possible to eliminate taking life. I feel similarly to other things described on the list: greed, causing harm, anxiety, sexual misconduct. It seems as if these are inherent to existence. While it's a good idea to shave the edge off here and there, suggesting that acting in such ways are 'wrong' and need to be wiped out seems to be unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:If so, I don't understand it. How can it be that taking life is unequivocally born of hatred, greed, or delusion? Taking life is an absolutely fundamental piece of human's existence on earth. Without the practice of taking life, none of us would be here. Even the most avowed vegan takes the life of plants and bacterial organisms regularly - where is the arbitrary line drawn? To go against taking life is to go against the same forces that gave rise to my life. Firstly, taking life typically is regarded as referring to that of sentient beings. The definition there varies, but it is generally accepted to be "things that look like they suffer." It's not a very scientifically rigorous taxonomy, and yet it works because we tend to empathize naturally. So like, bugs, for example, are sentient, because when a bug is trapped in a spider's web, it looks like it is suffering. When a bug's leg is off, it looks like it is suffering. Bacteria? Not so much. Fish? They look like they suffer when we fish them up, so yes they are sentient. And so on. Taking life is an act of hatred, greed, or delusion because there are no circumstances I can think of that one would need to kill that do not involve that. Killing for food? Greed - why is your life worth more than the lives of your prey? Delusion - why do we tend to think the lives of predators are worth more than those of prey? We're all the same. And so on. Yes, it is part of the human condition that we must live with exploitation, that a lot of what we have is based on exploitation and killing and so on. But then again, of course it is! We're in samsara! If we weren't in samsara, there would be no suffering, and there would be no problems from killing, and so on. But we are in samsara, and everything is dukkha. So, practice the noble eightfold path. Don't kill things. If you must kill things, such as to survive, be mindful of this. If you must benefit from killing of things indirectly, such as by eating meat, be mindful of this. Keep these things in your mind so even as you commit them bodily, you renounce them mentally, until you can renounce them completely. quote:Further, I don't understand how it is even possible to eliminate taking life. I feel similarly to other things described on the list: greed, causing harm, anxiety, sexual misconduct. It seems as if these are inherent to existence. While it's a good idea to shave the edge off here and there, suggesting that acting in such ways are 'wrong' and need to be wiped out seems to be unrealistic. They are inherent to a samsaric existence involving suffering. They are not inherent to a liberated existence. There is no suggestion they are "wrong." "Right" and "wrong" here are not meant as moral judgment. They are not saying that all sexual activity is a moral bad thing and you'll go to the hell realms for it. Rather, sexual activity is a worldly pleasure, indulgence in it encourages desire and egoistic grasping. Desire is suffering, because desire cannot be fulfilled permanently. Therefore, desiring sexual activity is a cause of suffering. Renouncing sexual activity is a cause of the cessation of suffering. Greed is suffering, because desire of material things is suffering. Renouncing material possessions and renouncing greed and jealousy is a cause of cessation of suffering. Do we need money to survive? Yes. Should we want to survive? Yes, of course, to benefit sentient beings. So do we need to work to earn some money to benefit sentient beings? Yes, naturally. But! That's not greed. That's compassion and lovingkindness. Can we get money totally without exploitation, totally without suffering? Sadly, no, not in the global economy in which we live. But we can do our best. The Noble Eightfold Path is not a "do all these things and you win" checklist. It is a guideline for the kind of moral conduct that leads to the cessation of suffering. By practicing the path, we reduce our suffering. Perfection of the path comes later, don't worry about perfecting your practice of the path. Do your best, use the path as a map to get where you're going. Straying from the path leads to suffering, but that is expected! We're here in samsara ruled by suffering. Our desires, grasping, attachment, aversion, and so on, all of this causes suffering. We need to reduce this. We reduce this by practicing the eightfold path as best we can. There is no judgement in the noble eightfold path. Just action and result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Further, I don't understand how it is even possible to eliminate taking life. I feel similarly to other things described on the list: greed, causing harm, anxiety, sexual misconduct. It seems as if these are inherent to existence. While it's a good idea to shave the edge off here and there, suggesting that acting in such ways are 'wrong' and need to be wiped out seems to be unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I wanted to ask you about this a while back but I forgot until just now. Is this a common thing in Tibetan buddhism? The idea that viewing a particular statue can cause one to become enlightened? I haven't ever heard anything like this and it is kind of fascinating, and I am wondering if emanations are often considered to be imbued with some kind of power, etc. I'm not even sure about the concept of emanations themselves, as to what they are and how they work. Hmm, yes. I guess it's common in that it's accepted. There are not a lot of these things out there, but it is known that such things exist. The Jowo Rinpoche (lit. "precious statue") has a history of being crafted during Buddha Shakyamuni's time by an emanation of Shakyamuni, it is one of only two remaining in the world, the other standing still at Bodhgaya. At some point it was brought to Tibet, and got "upgraded" from Nirmanakaya form ("created body," which exists in time and space, and which most Buddha statues are in) to Sambhogakaya form ("enjoyment body," represents the illusory body form, and is adorned with all the precious jewels and so on). It is a beautiful statue, and is a pilgrimage site. So, the reason it's the Jowo Rinpoche is not only its lineage - lots of statues have had similar stories. The main reason is that almost all Tibetans recognize this statue and acknowledge it with devotion. One of the things of Tibetan Buddhism is a belief that devotion transforms things. When we picture for example our lama as the Buddha, and the lama gives us a blessing, it is as if we receive the blessing from the Buddha. If we make offerings to a statue of Buddha with devotion and faith then this is the same as making those offerings to the Buddha himself. So, with millions of Tibetans having so much devotion to this statue, it is very much like the actual Buddha. In this way, it is transformed from just a very beautiful statue to the literal presence of Buddha, and so being in that presence can be a cause for liberation. In terms of other things, like the Liberation by Seeing Mantra and such, the idea is that the Buddha did not provide one single path to liberation. The Buddha provided 80,000 paths to liberation. There are paths for beings of all sorts and all levels of ability. Some beings are able to practice very strongly, lots of in depth rituals and so on. Some beings cannot do this, for them, there are other ways. For one person the best practices might be the various deity yogas or so on, but for another a better practice is simply to vacuum the shrine room. We do not need to practice every practice at once or perfectly. We just need to practice what we can, to the best of our ability. For some sentient beings, there is no real ability to practice, either because they are stubborn or disabled or simply not exposed to Dharma. For these beings, there other methods of liberation, such as liberation by hearing, liberation by seeing, liberation by touch. It's important to note that all those things mainly plant a seed. Some people have already the karma so they see the Jowo Rinpoche and are liberated instantly. For others, maybe they do not have that karma yet, maybe there are obstacles, but seeing Jowo Rinpoche plants the seed that inevitably blossoms into liberation. It might not occur in this lifetime, but it becomes part of their mindstream. It's not tending to be that just looking at the statue is enough, it's not meant as a kind of "shortcut" or whatever. Just seeing the statue does not guarantee you will be instantly liberated. But it does plant a seed, and it does help to be in its presence, regardless of your level of practice. And Tibetan Buddhism is all about that, because Vajrayana is basically all about practices meant to expedite enlightenment in order to benefit sentient beings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:To go against taking life is to go against the same forces that gave rise to my life. You really hit the nail on the head here. To sustain our life we have to kill, but because of karma we have to experience the negative consequences of that killing, in this life or the next. So you can see that there's no way to live in samsara without suffering, so the only way to not suffer is to get out of samsara, which is the end goal of the noble eightfold path.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Exactly! What's being out of samsara like? I've never thought about it. I mostly just meditate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What's being out of samsara like? I've never thought about it. I mostly just meditate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
I ran out of reading material and I am looking for recommendations. I would prefer a book of essays or teachings such as Suzuki Roshi's "Zen Mind, Begginer's Mind" because that's a good format for my evening 10-30 minutes of Buddhist reading, but would gladly read anything else. I've read and enjoyed books by Gil Fronsdal, Jack Kornfield, Walpola Rahula, Chogyam Trungpa, even Stephen Batchelor. I didn't like Thich Nhat Hanh's writing, Daniel Ingram and Dzogchen Ponlop. I hope you guys can recommend something interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Three Pillars of Zen lends itself to short readings if you haven't checked it out yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Firstly, taking life typically is regarded as referring to that of sentient beings. The definition there varies, but it is generally accepted to be "things that look like they suffer." It's not a very scientifically rigorous taxonomy, and yet it works because we tend to empathize naturally. So like, bugs, for example, are sentient, because when a bug is trapped in a spider's web, it looks like it is suffering. When a bug's leg is off, it looks like it is suffering. Bacteria? Not so much. Fish? They look like they suffer when we fish them up, so yes they are sentient. And so on. Thanks for your reply. I've been reading the thread for a while and really appreciate your posting style! I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the arbitrary and emotionally charged nature of "these lives are more valuable because they're more human like so we empathize". quote:Taking life is an act of hatred, greed, or delusion because there are no circumstances I can think of that one would need to kill that do not involve that. Killing for food? Greed - why is your life worth more than the lives of your prey? Delusion - why do we tend to think the lives of predators are worth more than those of prey? We're all the same. And so on. Can we talk this through? I want to live my life and alleviate the suffering of beings and reduce cruelty. This desire to live is inborn in every living thing, including predators and prey. If I am attacked by someone who has the intention of killing me, I will defend myself as a matter of deep instinct as a gazelle will attempt to defend themselves from a lion. Further, if someone attacks those who I love, I will defend them to the death if necessary. While perhaps it is delusional to rank my beloved's life as more important than a murderer, it also seems that I become very untrustworthy if I'm not able to stand up for myself and my loved ones. I'm also allowing for someone who is perpetuating deep suffering through murder to act unchecked...how does this make sense? Also, I went to Veg Fest in Seattle the other day and fully 90% of people there looked weak, pale, and anemic due to their choice to not take life. Does it really reduce suffering if it makes many people sick? quote:Yes, it is part of the human condition that we must live with exploitation, that a lot of what we have is based on exploitation and killing and so on. But then again, of course it is! We're in samsara! If we weren't in samsara, there would be no suffering, and there would be no problems from killing, and so on. But we are in samsara, and everything is dukkha. So, practice the noble eightfold path. Don't kill things. If you must kill things, such as to survive, be mindful of this. If you must benefit from killing of things indirectly, such as by eating meat, be mindful of this. Keep these things in your mind so even as you commit them bodily, you renounce them mentally, until you can renounce them completely. This is wonderful. So, in effect, the attitude is to fully accept "I am a killer who survives based on the exploitation of other beings because that is the nature of my karmic situation". I appreciate this, and it is in line with what I have heard and read. That said, what then becomes the moral guidance for making ethical decisions in this world? If I accept that my existence is presupposed by killing and exploitation, then the 8-fold path becomes a set of ideal actions that aren't totally executable in samsaric existence. It seems like another set of guidelines for the samsaric mind might be helpful. quote:They are inherent to a samsaric existence involving suffering. They are not inherent to a liberated existence. There is no suggestion they are "wrong." "Right" and "wrong" here are not meant as moral judgment. They are not saying that all sexual activity is a moral bad thing and you'll go to the hell realms for it. Rather, sexual activity is a worldly pleasure, indulgence in it encourages desire and egoistic grasping. Desire is suffering, because desire cannot be fulfilled permanently. Therefore, desiring sexual activity is a cause of suffering. Renouncing sexual activity is a cause of the cessation of suffering. I hear what you're saying, and am generally familiar with the idea of right meaning more along the lines of complete/fundamental/coherent rather than moralization. Thanks for reminding me. Sex is a fundamental part of all life on earth, as is exploitation and taking of life. If all beings renounced sexual activity, there would be no beings to liberate because all life would cease. Looking at the misdeeds of those in the priest class of Catholicism (I'm sure other examples exist), the effects of renouncing sexual activity are NOT the cessation of suffering but rather the propagation of further suffering on others. Again, in an ideal non-samsaric world I get the ideal, but it seems to be pointing towards an unattainable ideal. quote:Greed is suffering, because desire of material things is suffering. Renouncing material possessions and renouncing greed and jealousy is a cause of cessation of suffering. ...and I feel that your final full paragraph totally addresses my above concerns. I guess it boils down to the idea that perfecting the path is impossible for all but the enlightened ones and so its value seems to be diminished as a practical guide for living. As an expounding of almost scientific X causes Y, so -X will lead to -Y, it's wonderful. I'm just looking for a practical ethical guide as a 30 year old white male living in the US. Again, thanks Paramemetic and the other thread stars for helping reduce confusion and being willing to engage in the myriad questions that arise from the path. You're awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Can we talk this through? I want to live my life and alleviate the suffering of beings and reduce cruelty. This desire to live is inborn in every living thing, including predators and prey. If I am attacked by someone who has the intention of killing me, I will defend myself as a matter of deep instinct as a gazelle will attempt to defend themselves from a lion. Further, if someone attacks those who I love, I will defend them to the death if necessary. While perhaps it is delusional to rank my beloved's life as more important than a murderer, it also seems that I become very untrustworthy if I'm not able to stand up for myself and my loved ones. I'm also allowing for someone who is perpetuating deep suffering through murder to act unchecked...how does this make sense? Right, so I used to have a concealed carry permit. I used to keep a gun by my bed. My reasoning was exactly that I have a wife that I would want to protect, I have a life I should protect. If I am killed such as by a murderer, how can I benefit others? I have things I want to do. Ah, but there is the greed. The choice to commit violence on others in order to benefit myself is founded in greed. Even a noble greed, like protecting a loved one, is a greed. If I am free from greed, I have no need to defend myself to protect this life. I am going to die. It will happen whether by the hand of a villain or by old age. Such is writ in stone, the true cause of death is birth! So, I do not have a gun by my bed now. I would not defend myself through violent means. I would probably defend my wife, but by so doing I would have to accept the karmic result of my actions, and I can only hope that I would be motivated by true compassion and not by anger or fear or greed or desire. It is possible, certainly, to defend oneself or others out of compassion, but such compassion must be cultivated and cultivating such compassion is impossible when clinging so hard to our lives, our loved ones, and so on. Killing a murderer in self defense has the same exact result as if one were simply murdered. A person dies either way! Why should I choose to inflict suffering on another who values his life, the murderer, when I can allow this body to be destroyed as it already inevitably will be, which I accept, and so will not suffer so much? If you kill your attempted murderer, you are causing an equal amount of deep suffering. He, too, has a mother who will grieve. He, too, has friends who will mourn. By killing someone who wishes to kill you, you inflict incredible suffering. How does it make sense to inflict suffering on others? quote:Also, I went to Veg Fest in Seattle the other day and fully 90% of people there looked weak, pale, and anemic due to their choice to not take life. Does it really reduce suffering if it makes many people sick? If they are truly sick, then that is unfortunate. If it is your assessment that they are sick, because of your own perception of an ideal of how they should be, then that is also unfortunate. I've eaten meat once since March. I stopped as a temporary fast, but have continued mainly because I haven't noticed any change in my health status, and see no need to seek out the flesh of an animal. I will eat it if it's served to me without question, and if it is the only thing on the menu, fine. I acknowledge that this animal has been killed already, and I hope that its death will become a positive by feeding others, and that it will be reborn in a more auspicious way. But I'm not probably the best one to defend the practice of vegetarianism, neither I nor my tradition practice it strictly. quote:This is wonderful. So, in effect, the attitude is to fully accept "I am a killer who survives based on the exploitation of other beings because that is the nature of my karmic situation". I appreciate this, and it is in line with what I have heard and read. That said, what then becomes the moral guidance for making ethical decisions in this world? If I accept that my existence is presupposed by killing and exploitation, then the 8-fold path becomes a set of ideal actions that aren't totally executable in samsaric existence. It seems like another set of guidelines for the samsaric mind might be helpful. There's no need for this. The goal is escape from samsara. Practicing the path is transformative. From our current place, the cessation of suffering seems impossible, following the eightfold path seems impossible. But from somewhere down the path, it may seem much more feasible. When running a very long race, from the onset if you think too hard about how long the race is, you become very tired. If, however, you don't dwell on it, and you just run, and you just stay with that moment, without grasping for the future, soon enough you find yourself at the end of the race. So, practice the noble eightfold path in this minute, without concerning yourself about whether or not you'll be somewhere else in the future. Right now, do not kill. Right now, practice right speech. Right now, practice right mindfulness. Don't worry about the result - it comes necessarily, as surely as the seed becomes a plant. quote:Sex is a fundamental part of all life on earth, as is exploitation and taking of life. If all beings renounced sexual activity, there would be no beings to liberate because all life would cease. Looking at the misdeeds of those in the priest class of Catholicism (I'm sure other examples exist), the effects of renouncing sexual activity are NOT the cessation of suffering but rather the propagation of further suffering on others. Again, in an ideal non-samsaric world I get the ideal, but it seems to be pointing towards an unattainable ideal. Sex is necessary for the perpetuation of society. If all beings renounced sexual activity, there would be no beings to liberate because all life would cease. Sure, this is true, but what is wrong with that? If there are no beings to liberate because there are no beings, then there are no suffering beings. The path is accomplished! But that seems nihilistic, doesn't it? No, sexual activity is not a bad thing, clinging to sexual activity is a problem. Being driven by desire is the problem. Renouncing sexual activity means no longer being driven by that desire. I would argue that renouncing sexual activity is not the cause of these problems you mention such as with Catholic priesthood - celibacy is the problem, when the celibant is not a renunciate. The renunciation of sexual activity is more than "I don't have sex." It is "I don't have sex and don't want sex, I am indifferent to sex. Sex is not a desire of mine, nor is it a concern." There are no problems from celibate priests. There are problems from priests who fail to remain celibate. Celibacy does not cause failure of celibacy. quote:...and I feel that your final full paragraph totally addresses my above concerns. I guess it boils down to the idea that perfecting the path is impossible for all but the enlightened ones and so its value seems to be diminished as a practical guide for living. As an expounding of almost scientific X causes Y, so -X will lead to -Y, it's wonderful. I'm just looking for a practical ethical guide as a 30 year old white male living in the US. Perfecting the path is possible for all sentient beings because all sentient beings possess an enlightened nature. It may not be possible immediately, because again, it's transformative. There is progress to be made. Right this minute, I cannot perfectly practice right speech. I stumble over words, I lack pith and intelligence, I lack knowledge and I have imperfect diction. But there is no benefit to be had going "well, I'm not a perfect speaker, I should not bother." All being should practice according to their various abilities. With time, through the efforts of bodhisattvas, all beings will achieve liberation. Do what you can, but in good faith. I am not a perfect enlightened Tathagata right this moment, but this moment is fleeting and ephemeral. By practicing good moral conduct, perhaps I am a Tathagata in the next moment. If not? Then maybe the next one. No sense in worrying about it, it will happen eventually. Right now, there is only this moment, and in this moment, I will do what I can. quote:Again, thanks Paramemetic and the other thread stars for helping reduce confusion and being willing to engage in the myriad questions that arise from the path. You're awesome. I'm glad you're finding some help in what I write. It is probably not perfect, but I hope I'm able to help, or at least not to make things worse. It's good to hear you're finding some value in these walls of text I write, I hope soon we'll both have perfect understanding. =] Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Indeed, thank you for your writings here, paramemetic. It IS awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
mcustic posted:I ran out of reading material and I am looking for recommendations. I would prefer a book of essays or teachings such as Suzuki Roshi's "Zen Mind, Begginer's Mind" because that's a good format for my evening 10-30 minutes of Buddhist reading, but would gladly read anything else. I've read and enjoyed books by Gil Fronsdal, Jack Kornfield, Walpola Rahula, Chogyam Trungpa, even Stephen Batchelor. I didn't like Thich Nhat Hanh's writing, Daniel Ingram and Dzogchen Ponlop. I hope you guys can recommend something interesting. If you have enjoyed Gil Fronsdal and Jack Kornfield, you might like the writings of Ajahn Chah. Actually there are a few books by him, and also by some of the Thai Forest monks who ordained under him, that are really worth looking into. They range from easy-to-read overviews of the practice and meditation, to specific books about doctrinal issues. A few that I think are worth looking into are offered as pdfs: The collected teachings of Ajahn Chah - This is pretty big, but the teachings are given in small segments so it is very easy to read one or two chapters at a time and then come back to it later. His writings are really what sold me on the Thai forest tradition. The Island: Teachings on Nibbana - this is the next book I'm going to tackle once I get back to my practice in a real way Kamma and the end of Kamma - this was the text we used recently for our Dhamma study class, and I enjoyed it. Forest Sangha has a ton of really good free books like this, a lot of which you can get as epub/mobi, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Thank you guys. I love the recommendations, especially the Forest Sangha library.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Right, so I used to have a concealed carry permit. I used to keep a gun by my bed. My reasoning was exactly that I have a wife that I would want to protect, I have a life I should protect. If I am killed such as by a murderer, how can I benefit others? I have things I want to do. Ah, but there is the greed. The choice to commit violence on others in order to benefit myself is founded in greed. Even a noble greed, like protecting a loved one, is a greed. If I am free from greed, I have no need to defend myself to protect this life. I am going to die. It will happen whether by the hand of a villain or by old age. Such is writ in stone, the true cause of death is birth! So, I do not have a gun by my bed now. I would not defend myself through violent means. I would probably defend my wife, but by so doing I would have to accept the karmic result of my actions, and I can only hope that I would be motivated by true compassion and not by anger or fear or greed or desire. Your continued existence might lead to less suffering! You spread the dharma, you show people a different example, and maybe all beings would be better off with you being present than the murderer! It's hard to evaluate such a thing... But it's worth keeping in mind that the Shaolin Monks were Buddhist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
A fair point, but being mindful of the present, by not killing I avoid suffering right now. By killing I ensure suffering right now. By willingly giving my life, perhaps I can even spare the murderer some of his negative karma. As for benefitting people in the future, I can do that just the same in a future life. Because I do not possess the wisdom eye, such that I can perfectly see cause and effect, I choose not to engage in non-virtue in this moment, even if it leads to my death. This doesn't mean I won't try to escape, or take reasonable precautions, and so on, but I cannot justify a non-virtuous deed like killing by a potential future. Better not to engage in killing, even if it means being killed, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A fair point, but being mindful of the present, by not killing I avoid suffering right now. By killing I ensure suffering right now. By willingly giving my life, perhaps I can even spare the murderer some of his negative karma. Just to round out this idea a little for those who are curious, this is directly addressed in a sutta where the Buddha explains to monks that, even under the threat of being murdered, one should not even go so far as to harbor ill-will toward your killer: quote:"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves. This is obviously easier said than done, but the idea comes up several times in the teachings. People Stew fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A fair point, but being mindful of the present, by not killing I avoid suffering right now. By killing I ensure suffering right now. By willingly giving my life, perhaps I can even spare the murderer some of his negative karma. Wait, wait, wait, woah. Your murder at the hands of a murderer will not spare him anything, don't kid yourself. He who murders, absorbs the murder. Your willingness to accept being murdered by him might make him pause enough to turn his whole world around...if he finds it disconcerting enough to ask you why. Your peace and strength of conviction can reach him at that moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A fair point, but being mindful of the present, by not killing I avoid suffering right now. By killing I ensure suffering right now. By willingly giving my life, perhaps I can even spare the murderer some of his negative karma. Your opinions agree with everything in the suttas. Like http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.015.than.html makes a case for ending the cycle of violence: code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Wait, wait, wait, woah. Your murder at the hands of a murderer will not spare him anything, don't kid yourself. He who murders, absorbs the murder. No, of course that is true. Our karma is what it is. But out of compassion we can do our best for those who wrong us. If we are robbed, we can give generously out of compassion with the hope that they take a gift rather than steal. So with life we can sacrifice. They must still feel the results of their actions, the idea is simply to give a compassionate act out of loving kindness. Basically in line with Prickly Pete's apt sutta quote. By offering up to them, we harbor no ill will. By offering ourselves as a sacrifice, we don't spare them the karma of killing, but we might soften it? It's perhaps the best we can do. Of course, we can hope to give them pause, and that is perhaps the best outcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
I might guess influence from Daoism might have influenced it. Precepts are broken all the time by Buddhists. After all, if one were to follow it to the greatest degree you'd follow all 8 precepts directed towards monks to better hasten enlightenment of all beings. Does anyone here follow the 7th precept(no singing, dancing, playing instruments, garlands, music listening)? But then it would prevent you from being an upasaka if you broke the five precepts intentionally, and the suttas did specifically lay out two lines: upasaka(lay followers) and bikkhuni(monks). ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Re: violence and buddhism, is anyone familiar with the extremists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, who advocate violence against muslims? http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21582321-fuelled-dangerous-brew-faith-ethnicity-and-politics-tit-tat-conflict-escalating
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Re: violence and buddhism, is anyone familiar with the extremists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, who advocate violence against muslims? This short paper investigates their bases: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/vroom-review.pdf Basically... nothing scriptural, again. The Sri Lankans seem to use the argument that early Buddhist societies used violence to justify themselves. The actual rhetoric focuses on the evils of the Muslims in their county rather than any attempted Buddhist justification for it. The book "In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka" would be a place to learn more. See also: http://www.academia.edu/196626/Norms_of_War_in_Theravada_Buddhism The Cakkavatti-Sihanada sutta features Buddha telling a Dharmic king how to rule: http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=29 The King is described as having soldiers and retinue, but I'm not sure in what sense it's meant -- in it, he conquers "without sword or stick, but by law"(law being dharma?). In any regard, the text is strictly anti-violence unless cherry-picked and misinterpreted and describes how the cycles continue. Edit: I am disappointed, because I often hear the argument that the war is religiously motivated and Buddhist justification is given for it, but I'm unable to find any evidence of this talking point. The book "In Defense of Dharma" even makes that case. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Therevada Attitudes Towards Violence, Journal of Buddhist Ethics: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/12/Deegalle.pdf quote:But being metaphorical is not protection against misplaced literalism, as in the case reported by Ling, where the Buddhist Patriarch at the coronation of King Rama VI of Thailand quoted the words of Buddha 'As a town situated on the frontier must be prepared internally and externally, so too should you be prepared' in support of his assertion that 'Wars must be prepared for even in time of peace'. (Ling, Buddhism, imperialism and war, p. 137) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~stroble/BUDDWAR.HTM ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Can someone explain how the animal and human realms are differentiated? Accepting evolution says to me that I'm no different from any other animal. Given time and nurturement, sentient animal species could theoretically evolve to similar intelligence and emotional capability. Yet still there's a differentiation between human and animal in Buddhism. How do you reconcile that with evolution?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Can someone explain how the animal and human realms are differentiated? Accepting evolution says to me that I'm no different from any other animal. Given time and nurturement, sentient animal species could theoretically evolve to similar intelligence and emotional capability. Humans are conditioned by desire, animals are conditioned by ignorance. Humans have the capacity to practice Dharma through understanding the Four Noble Truths and enacting the Noble Eightfold Path, while animals cannot understand the Four Noble Truths (due to ignorance) and so it is much more difficult for them to practice Dharma. Therefore, animals possess an unfavorable birth, while humans possess a favorable birth. Scientifically, taxonomically, you're an animal, but this is not a scientific taxonomy, and it is not intended to differentiate humans from animals in a scientific manner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:27
|
|