Impermanent posted:I've heard this line of thought before but I don't fully understand it. Dharma itself is impermanent, but knowledge of the Dharma will fade. In more simple terms, while the truths of Buddhism will never suddenly be untrue, Buddhism as a faith will die. The birth of the next Buddha (Maitreya) will bring "Buddhism" back as Maitreya will independently discover the Dharma, as Buddha did before. Impermanent posted:Can you recommend other resources or speak to the idea of the decline of Dharma and how it fits in to a current context? On Wikipedia it talks more about Mahayana Buddhism's idea of the decline of Dharma than the other traditions. No idea, really, beyond the core texts. Quantumfate might be able to lend a hand here. Impermanent posted:Are we doomed to continue a cycle of increasingly-unlikely rebirths into less and less Dharma-filled times? Does Rebirth necessarily even involve a respect for chronology (could I be reborn in the 500s?) Basically, though eventually at some point in a time with no Dharma Dharma will arise again. And yes, it's a really popular thought experiment among new Buddhists but every theological source I've ever seen has expressed that time is necessarily linear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What's the end-state of universal enlightenment? These are some tough questions, indeed... they require someone nearby with a big stick to smack you hard whenever you ask them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
But seriously, what do you mean does nirvana have aspects of rebirth? A person may experience nirvana partly or wholly and not anchor in nirvana- they will be reborn. They may experience paranirvana partly or wholly and not anchor in paranirvana- they will be reborn. Isn't this in the scriptures somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
There are suttas that go into detail on nature of nibbana but I can't think of one off the top of my head. There are also suttas which cover these kinds of speculative questions, which usually end with the Buddha telling people not to waste their time with them, as contemplation of these things does not lead to the end of suffering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:But seriously, what do you mean does nirvana have aspects of rebirth? I guess that's it, what is paranirvana/which suttas go over it? I only know what I've encountered  I know about the rejection of metaphysical questioning... I've mostly seen it from Zen folks though, the Tibetans seem a lot more open to it. Not sure about other schools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Theravada has this idea as well. It was discussed by the Buddha on several occasions, one of the most well known being the Cula-Malunkyovada Suttaquote:Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned... The tendency to get hung up on metaphysical questions or hypothetical positions is pretty common. It happens to all of us. But it is a distraction from the actual teachings of the Buddha. There are other suttas where this issue is treated but I feel this one is the most direct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:It's possible, with varying degrees of likeliness depending on your school (Vajrayana holds it to be possible moreso than other schools). Actually, the likelihood of attaining nirvana has far less to do with your school or teacher's lineage and far more to do with how willing you are to actually achieve it. The school you choose is far more likely to be determined by your culture and personal nature than it is to be decided by "well in this school there's only a 5% change of enlightenment but in this one it's 7%." There's a 100% chance for all those who follow Dharma completely (not saying that it's easy, just that it has a conditional guarantee).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:14
|
|
Jacobeus posted:Actually, the likelihood of attaining nirvana has far less to do with your school or teacher's lineage and far more to do with how willing you are to actually achieve it. The school you choose is far more likely to be determined by your culture and personal nature than it is to be decided by "well in this school there's only a 5% change of enlightenment but in this one it's 7%." There's a 100% chance for all those who follow Dharma completely (not saying that it's easy, just that it has a conditional guarantee). You misunderstood me; different traditions make different claims to the expediency of their teachings. While all schools recognize all other schools paths as valid paths to enlightenment, you don't see Theravadins doing Tantric initiations en masse just because Vajrayana makes the claim that it is a shortcut to enlightenment.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Well yeah, there's a 100% chance for anyone fully committed to the Dharma, but as far as I understand it, through the teachings and techniques of Theravada you're lucky if you reach enlightenment in this lifetime, but most likely you could at least reach stream entry or something along those lines. With the Vajrayana they usually claim that if you follow everything you could most certainly reach enlightenment within this lifetime, and some Dzogchen lineages claim it's possible within a decade! As to whether any of that matters, who's to say? All I know that is that the Vajrayana definitely seems like a lot more precarious of a bridge, but the limited exposure I've had to the teachings have had a tremendous impact on me, so I can't even begin to imagine how powerful the more private/esoteric teachings are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:You misunderstood me; different traditions make different claims to the expediency of their teachings. While all schools recognize all other schools paths as valid paths to enlightenment, you don't see Theravadins doing Tantric initiations en masse just because Vajrayana makes the claim that it is a shortcut to enlightenment. My mistake, I read it as likelihood rather than speed. I suppose it's possible to equate expediency with likelihood, but there are more factors at play to achieving enlightenment within this lifetime than just how long it takes. Sure, you might die before you reach the end of the path - but in the process you might have given yourself a really favorable rebirth. On the contrary you may have attempted to take a "quicker," perhaps more risky path, and unintentionally hurt yourself in the process. Although I read a quote somewhere, I believe by Bhante Gunaratana, that the Buddha claimed that you could reach enlightenment in as few as seven days if you follow his instructions perfectly. But maybe the claims of expediency have more to do more with relative difficulty, so that seven days minimum might not mean a whole lot. Then again, I've never heard that a particular school was both easier and quicker, usually just one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:There are suttas that go into detail on nature of nibbana but I can't think of one off the top of my head. The 14 unanswerable questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
If I don't exist, why is it important that I achieve enlightenment? Even if I don't, it's some other poor sap left holding the bag, right? What's to prevent "me" from doing what I want, knowing the whole concept of an "I" for things to happen to is an illusion? I take this view feeling like there's an answer for it, but not knowing how to answer it myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:If I don't exist, why is it important that I achieve enlightenment? Even if I don't, it's some other poor sap left holding the bag, right? What's to prevent "me" from doing what I want, knowing the whole concept of an "I" for things to happen to is an illusion? No matter who you think you are or aren't, or whether you think you exist or not, if you have dukkha in your life then that's the problem. Edit: Why don't you sell everything you own and spend all your money on drugs and unprotected sex with prostitutes? The you of two months from now is just some poor sap left holding the bag, right? Edit2: Or would you in exchange for 5 million dollars now, agree to - after 5 years - to be brutally tortured for days before being murdered? Let's say in those five years you totally change perspective on things, you're almost a different person - who is it that is experiencing that torture? Is it even relevant to the you of now? Why not do it? Say you deliberately change every opinion you have and change every interest and immigrate to a new country and you learn a new language over those 5 years, get new friends, a new significant other, the whole works. You even wipe your memory of ever making that deal and the person you were before. Would you do it? Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Existing or not existing is irrelevant. The cultural impositions and symbols with which you understand yourself and the world do not exist. Mental activity, basically, does not exist. Certainly not in the way we manipulate it into a permanent identity with specific characteristics in relation to the specific characteristics we perceive of the world. Self-hood is a complex filter. For all practical purposes, you exist as an organism, a thinking ape, whatever. Maybe even that isn't real but that isn't something you can know in this life. Something that is fun to think about, though, is that you are setting yourself up to perceive space and discrete objects. All sensory information is really coming to you from inside of you, but you perceive it as coming from discrete parts because you are running it through your cultural interpreter. There is no separation, but that doesn't mean there is nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Dharma itself is impermanent, but knowledge of the Dharma will fade. In more simple terms, while the truths of Buddhism will never suddenly be untrue, Buddhism as a faith will die. The birth of the next Buddha (Maitreya) will bring "Buddhism" back as Maitreya will independently discover the Dharma, as Buddha did before. Seeing how this is tied to yugas, would he buddhism of one period be better than our degenerate Kali yuga? Are there Buddhist equivalents of antedeluvian magic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Does anyone know if there's maybe something like a weekly podcast for things related to buddhism? Say interviews, book reviews, discussion of suttras... that sort of thing. *IIRC There's Ajahn Brahm's weekly Dhamma talks that get put out on youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6M_EhnSSdTG_SXUp6IAWmQ (there's also a live stream). And there's videos from meditation retreats held by Ajahn Brahm and his monks https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeUbNwIp0YpsTieq_SQo8Yg. Personally I really like the Q&A videos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for all the suggestions! Some great stuff there. In addition, a guy from my temple gave me like 300 hours worth of talks from Steve Hagen. I'm settled for now...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:If I don't exist, why is it important that I achieve enlightenment? Even if I don't, it's some other poor sap left holding the bag, right? What's to prevent "me" from doing what I want, knowing the whole concept of an "I" for things to happen to is an illusion? Rhymenoceros gave a good answer. You can also check out this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu for an answer to your question grounded in the suttas. It's worth reading the whole thing but you can skip to the last paragraph on page 7 (starts with "Notice") for the part most relevant to your question. Here's an excerpt from page 12: Thanissaro Bhikkhu posted:On a more refined level, the act of holding to the view that there is no self contains a fetter in the very act of holding to the view. It can also lead a meditator to become fettered to any experience of peace or equanimity that meditating on this view might produce. As MN 106 points out, the perception of not-self, when consistently applied to all experience through the senses, can lead to a formless level of meditative absorption called the dimension of nothingness. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I know this is a longshot, but if there are any Thai Forest practitioners (or otherwise Theravada) posting here or lurking who live in or near Portland, some of the most senior monks of the tradition are going to be visiting throughout the summer. Thanissaro, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Passano, Ajahn Amaro, and a few others will be teaching at Portland Friends of the Dhamma. This could very well be the last chance for anyone not near Abhayagiri to see Ajahn Sumedho teach in person as he is getting quite old. He is the most senior western disciple of Ajahn Chah, and he is getting up there in years, but he still gives great talks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Question: I know that the animal realm is conditioned by ignorance, while the human realm is conditioned by desire. Do the other four realms have their own specific flavor of conditioning?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Question: I know that the animal realm is conditioned by ignorance, while the human realm is conditioned by desire. Do the other four realms have their own specific flavor of conditioning? The general understanding, as delineated eloquently by HE Thrangu Rinpoche, is that the realms are conditioned as such: Devas are gods existing in the blissful heavenly realms, conditioned by pride. Asuras are lesser gods existing in the lower heavenly realms, constantly fighting one with another for more power, conditioned by jealousy. Humans are the most auspicious, existing here and conditioned by the five afflictive emotions, or more simply, just desire/craving. Animals are conditioned by ignorance. Hungry ghosts are conditioned by desire/greed/hunger. Hell realm beings are conditioned by anger and hatred. Of these rebirths, humans are the most auspicious because they suffer, but are able to overcome ignorance. This suffering motivates them to escape suffering, and their ability to overcome ignorance gives them the means. Other beings, like the devas and asuras, suffer, but they suffer much less, and so often lack motivation to escape rebirth. Devas for example exist in a world of perfect bliss, where they have no unmet needs, until they ultimately die. However, they do ultimately die, so they suffer the suffering of impermanence, and additionally this existence they live "burns" a lot of merit. Without motivation to practice Dharma, even though they are not ignorant, they are able to delude themselves. Asuras, similarly, are too concerned with trying to "keep up with the Joneses" and defeat and conquer other Asuras, so they do not bother trying to practice Dharma, as most of their main needs are met. Animals lack the capacity to understand Dharma, so they get stuck there for a long time, but they have consciousness and agency, so they are able to overcome through good deeds, even though they do not know the difference between good and evil acts. Hungry ghosts and hell realm beings are conditioned by desire and anger, and so often do not have the ability to exercise agency freely, so driven are they by their situation. They often exist in this realm for a long time, but eventually they "burn up" their negative karma, and come back to the neutral animal realms. Nobody is stuck in their condition permanently, but based on the degree of karma that has led to their births in the various realms, they may stay there for varying amounts of time. Not universal to Buddhism, but generally accepted in certain flavors of Tibetan Buddhism, is how this works based on the Tibetan understanding of death and rebirth. Essentially, in the Tibetan tradition, it is understood that when a being dies, all of the sensory information is peeled away, and the consciousness in its dying moments is confronted with emptiness and such-ness, and see all sorts of terrible forms arising from it such as yidams and dharmapalas and so on. For most beings, this is terrifying, and so out of fear, they grasp for less terrifying mental information. By so grasping, they manifest for themselves out of the emptiness a new form, which is based upon their mental conditioning. So a person who has lived their life conditioned by greed, upon death, might grasp for wealth out of habit, and because they habitually grasp for wealth, they become a hungry ghost, unable to get enough wealth to satiate their desire. This is important to various Tibetan practices called Phowa, where the practitioner trains their mind to instinctively/reflexively do certain things such that upon death, when confronted with that vast emptiness, they recognize what is going on and instead of acting out of fear, they are able to conceptually manifest the Buddha and yidam and retinue, and so become reborn in a pure land, so they can become liberated and then return later to benefit sentient beings. Edit: Here is some good information on the wheel of life and so on: http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_rebirth.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Thank you for all the information! I really appreciate it, and I'll definitely be reading through that link once I have more time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Access to Insight has a nice quick breakdown of the various planes of existence as well, including the various actions and mental factors that can lead to rebirth in these realms. It is a pretty interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:This is important to various Tibetan practices called Phowa, where the practitioner trains their mind to instinctively/reflexively do certain things such that upon death, when confronted with that vast emptiness, they recognize what is going on and instead of acting out of fear, they are able to conceptually manifest the Buddha and yidam and retinue, and so become reborn in a pure land, so they can become liberated and then return later to benefit sentient beings. I remember reading about that, and of course the first thing that comes to mind then and now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X48G7Y0VWW4 Count Freebasie fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted: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. Emphasis mine above. The eightfold path is a support system for meditation. It exists to prime the mind for awakening. If meditation can become "too major a focus" for laypeople, what's the correct proportion of activities? What else are we supposed to be doing? quote: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. Don't you eliminate the most suffering by awakening yourself and teaching others to do so? What other activity could be a better long-term service and benefit to other beings? quote: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. Isn't the gradual accumulation of "accomplishments and attainments" (in the form of relinquishing wrong actions and views) ultimately the only way that you know you're practicing correctly? Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:Emphasis mine above. The eightfold path is a support system for meditation. It exists to prime the mind for awakening. If meditation can become "too major a focus" for laypeople, what's the correct proportion of activities? What else are we supposed to be doing? The eightfold path is not a support system for meditation, I do not think that's accurate. Meditation is part of this path. But my concern is not so much with meditation, but with the concept that meditation is sitting rigid backed in the vajra posture, and nothing else. quote:Don't you eliminate the most suffering by awakening yourself and teaching others to do so? What other activity could be a better long-term service and benefit to other beings? Of course. If you are able to retreat into the high mountains and undergo total retreat for as long as it takes, you should certainly do that! For many of us, it is unfortunately not feasible. Fortunately, Buddha taught 80,000 methods to attain, so we should work on what methods we can until we are able to work on those others. I am not saying by that, "do not meditate, do other things!" For me, "just sit" is good, but it is not a major focus of my practice, but then, I do not compartmentalize my practice to what takes place on the cushion or at the shrine, so large parts of my practice are going to work, taking a shower, so on. Different people need to practice according to their various dispositions and circumstances. I took the question to be quite personal, and took the opportunity to propose that too often we fixate on this idea that all correct practice must look like Milarepa on the mountain. I did not mean to imply that that kind of practice is wrong. I only fear that people get caught up in the idea that correct practice must look like that, and nothing else, something I struggled with for a while. It is my own baggage that led me to say that, really, and I hope too it hasn't caused confusion of the sort that people should not meditate or make meditation central to their practice if that is what is good for them. Again, also, my point wasn't that meditation is too much the focus, rather, the narrow-conception of meditation as solely sitting zazen as the only "real" meditation I think is the bigger problem. Edit: to be clear, I definitely agree that attaining liberation in order to better be able to help others attain liberation is the best service to sentient beings, as numerous great masters have taught. quote:Isn't the gradual accumulation of "accomplishments and attainments" (in the form of relinquishing wrong actions and views) ultimately the only way that you know you're practicing correctly? I included this bit specifically because I believe in the context we had just finished a long conversation about practicing for the purpose of gaining attainments rather than for the purpose of benefiting sentient beings. Accumulating attainments or whatnot happens inevitably if you practice, but it is not the "goal," and seeing the development of insight or miracle powers or whatnot as the goal is not fruitful. Without right motivation, without Bodhicitta, sitting in order to benefit only yourself, or to become a powerful person, or to become widely admired by all, is not a solid foundation for practice. Practice rooted in Bodhicitta may very well attain all those things, but it is not the goal and it is not really that important. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:Emphasis mine above. The eightfold path is a support system for meditation. It exists to prime the mind for awakening. If meditation can become "too major a focus" for laypeople, what's the correct proportion of activities? What else are we supposed to be doing? From the perspective of the pali canon, it is impossible to reach deep states of meditation without the five hindrances* being weakened (at least temporarily) to a great degree. So, through practicing the path you are developing the sort of mind that can experience deep meditation, but 99% of the training is done in daily life. When you're meditating you're basically just sitting there and getting out of the way so whatever conditions you have created through your conduct can materialize as meditation of varying degrees of stillness. It really is another way of thinking, because my western mind wants to think 'if I can only get skillful enough at meditation then somehow I don't have to do all the work' but this is like the opposite of how it works: you have to get skillful enough at generosity and virtue, and then you can sit down and let go and do nothing. There are obviously still great benefits to meditation that isn't jhana, but if it ain't jhana then there's still a lot to be done outside the meditation pillow
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
That was a great response Paramemetic, thank you.Rhymenoceros posted:It really is another way of thinking, because my western mind wants to think 'if I can only get skillful enough at meditation then somehow I don't have to do all the work' but this is like the opposite of how it works: you have to get skillful enough at generosity and virtue, and then you can sit down and let go and do nothing. This is a really good point. I think there's also feedback where if your conduct sucks, the agitation you experience during meditation will force you to confront the pain caused by that behavior such that you hopefully change your ways. A couple of practice questions: Do you try to maintain concentration on the breath or body at all times when not performing a complex task or talking to people, to help keep the mind concentrated between formal practice sessions? In your tradition, is there a minimum number of daily practice hours recommended to give you a shot at deepening concentration to the point that jhana becomes possible? [Edit: I knew you were into Thai Forest, but I saw an earlier post where you said you might ordain at Ajahn Brahm's monastery, so I suppose "Ajahn Brahm's approach to jhana" is what I mean by "your tradition"] On an unrelated note, has anyone here ever stayed at Thanissaro Bhikku's monastery, Wat Metta? I'm considering applying to go on retreat there this summer. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Interesting occurrence today that maybe I could get an opinion on: I've been practicing Tibetan Buddhism for a while at a center near me - non-sectarian, but the Lama is of the Gelugpa school (was actually HHDL's personal assistant for a while). I never formally took refuge, but I scheduled to do so today, and myself and two other took refuge. Afterwards, I asked him if I was getting a dharma/refuge name (as I heard is the norm), and he told me that's mostly an American thing, I don't need it, and my name is already beautiful. Now, I'm not upset I don't have a dharma name (a rose by any other name/idea of self/etc.), but has anyone heard of this before? I was surprised by that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The eightfold path is not a support system for meditation, I do not think that's accurate. Meditation is part of this path. But my concern is not so much with meditation, but with the concept that meditation is sitting rigid backed in the vajra posture, and nothing else. I've talked to people about this one for some years now and the emphasis usually is to appreciate that meditation is a state of mind rather than something one specifically does by sitting in some specific way. The more nuanced argument for that comes down to how there is zero reason I've ever seen or heard that someone missing the physical body parts to sit in a specific manner is meditating any less than anyone else. Thus meditation is not ultimately about what a person does physically (though it is interesting to experiment with putting hands or legs in different places). Ironically, the Zen people I've run into have been particularly big on emphasizing this perspective. I've seen people formally sitting Zazen in chairs, which always brings a smile to my face. Thich Nhat Hanh's stuff about bringing mindfulness to everyday activities is a really good approach to that whole thing. I get weirded out by anything that uses too much Buddhist terminology, but just trying to be a little more aware and mindful on a consistent, regular, daily basis goes a long ways. Seems far more important than sitting in some posture for 15 minutes a day (thankfully they aren't exclusive if you don't want them to be---If anything, mindfulness holds the door open to being at meditative states, i.e. they are mutually supportive). From what I've seen, one of the places where Vajrayana and Zen come into some substantial agreement is the emphasis on not putting arbitrary boundaries on practice. I.e. why wait until specifically in a temple/shrine/zendo/monastery to practice in some way? If it is important to you to live a certain way, live that way wherever you are. Those practice or devotional places aren't meant to be separate from the rest of the world, they're meant to be especially of this world. The whole world and everyone in it are meant to be special, not just a few special people in a few special places. I know that sounds like some hippy poo poo, but it's the most balanced approach I've run into for including contemplative stuff into day to day life. I hope that makes some sense, I haven't talked about that stuff in while, so forgive me if it is oddly put.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
In soto zen, every master says that zazen and "real life" are just the same thing. There really is no distinction between practice and non-practice. But to see this, you have to practice. I think Dogen's massive Shobogenzo was written just to answer this question : "why practice ?". It's a really tough question. There is also - in soto zen - no need to try to be mindful, as if you "try", it is already wrong. Just do what you do. Which is exactly what zazen teaches. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:That was a great response Paramemetic, thank you. I don't maintain focus on my breath/body like that. For example here, it is clear that you cannot enter jhana without abandoning stinginess. There's also the five hinderances (craving for sensual pleasure, ill-will, sloth/torpor, restlessness and doubt) which stop deep meditation. So you can practice generosity to overcome stinginess, and you can do metta meditation to overcome ill-will. My main area of practice is doing small deeds of generosity and kindness where I can. At the same time as this, I use mindfulness to notice how it feels really nice to do something nice for someone, because noticing the pleasure (or displeasure) of something is key (IMO) to inclining the mind that way. But the most important thing is probably working with perception. For example, I never really could do loving kindness meditation towards myself before I perceived myself as deserving happiness. In order to change this perception of myself, I had to notice the good intentions that arise in me when I do something kind, and then reflect on the fact that these good qualities exist within me. I couldn't really do loving kindness meditation towards others before I reflected on the fact that the same good qualities that exist within me, also exist within others. I think it's really important to use reflection to change how we perceive things. I mean, there's really no formal practice, just working with your mind, trying to incline it towards kindness and generosity, learning to forgive yourself and others, letting go of stress, letting go of the past, letting go of the future, generally just setting yourself up for peace and happiness. Basically the way you live your life is the practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
Ugrok posted:In soto zen, every master says that zazen and "real life" are just the same thing. There really is no distinction between practice and non-practice. But to see this, you have to practice. I think Dogen's massive Shobogenzo was written just to answer this question : "why practice ?". It's a really tough question.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:In soto zen, every master says that zazen and "real life" are just the same thing. There really is no distinction between practice and non-practice. But to see this, you have to practice. I think Dogen's massive Shobogenzo was written just to answer this question : "why practice ?". It's a really tough question. Here's a different take from Thanissaro Bhikku on the definition of mindfulness. I think the Zen approach and what Thanissaro spells out are reconcilable, but only at a very high level of practice. Rhymenoceros posted:I mean, there's really no formal practice, just working with your mind, trying to incline it towards kindness and generosity, learning to forgive yourself and others, letting go of stress, letting go of the past, letting go of the future, generally just setting yourself up for peace and happiness. Basically the way you live your life is the practice. I'm working on this approach to developing concentration vs. vipassana-style constant mindfulness of the three perceptions. It's not that vipassana isn't working, but I feel my practice is out of balance, way too tight and intense, and needs more 1) Ajahn Chah-style letting go and 2) concentration with relaxation as the "goal". I apologize in advance for constantly linking to Thanissaro Bhikkhu talk transcripts, but he seems to address a lot of issues that come up in my practice and discussions with others. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:I'm working on this approach to developing concentration vs. vipassana-style constant mindfulness of the three perceptions. It's not that vipassana isn't working, but I feel my practice is out of balance, way too tight and intense, and needs more 1) Ajahn Chah-style letting go and 2) concentration with relaxation as the "goal". You know, it took me a long time before I was humble enough to admit to myself that I'm not at the level where I can do advanced practices. It took me long time to be honest about the fact that if I understood impermanence just a little, I wouldn't be so worried about my exams. I think it's part of the western mindset that we want to get to the advanced stuff right away, we don't want to go through the basics - we'll just go straight to non-self by thinking really hard about it or something. It's not so bad to start at the beginning. It's a lot less pressure and more fun when you don't try to be advanced or fancy (speaking from my own experience here). Maybe do some volunteer work instead of trying to develop constant mindfulness of the three perceptions? I'll bet you that'll do a lot more for your meditation practice. For example in my own life, many times I have suffered because I've felt that since I'm "so far on the path" I shouldn't be unhappy. Since I meditate a lot, I can't be miserable. But that's just ego, and it turns out that part of the path is actually letting go of that sense of self that's trying to achieve or prove something. Anyway, this is just my own experience, and obviously if you find something that works for you then great, and it's nice to experiment and test things out and stuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Good discussion here. Popcornicus, if you are curious about Wat Metta, you can ask at Dhammawheel. There are a lot of folks there who regularly stay at various monasteries and you could probably get some good info.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Interesting occurrence today that maybe I could get an opinion on: I have heard it said that your given full name is your given mantra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I have heard it said that your given full name is your given mantra. Maybe I should stick with Ommunimuni Mahamuni Yesoha, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:Here's a different take from Thanissaro Bhikku on the definition of mindfulness. Thanks a lot for another great article by Thanissaro Bhikku ! I love what he writes as well. This is a really good take on what to call "mindfulness", which is a tricky subject. I think Brad Warner wrote about it as well. Nishijima was very wary of the concept of "mindfulness", as he says in this post : http://gudoblog-e.blogspot.fr/2008_05_01_archive.html I think it is a dangerous concept because it can lead very easily to false views. If you tell someone to be mindful, he will naturally understand that he has to always pay attention to what he is doing, that he always has to watch himself do what he does. Which implies that he somehow has to separate himself from his actions and that he exists separately. Which is the total opposite of practice... I don't know for sure, but i really think it is an unnecessary word, that brings more trouble than it solves. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Maybe I should stick with Ommunimuni Mahamuni Yesoha, then. Maybe you should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 01:01
|
|