Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

Shnooks: Mar 24, 2007; I'M BEING BORN D:

This is kind of an opinion question, I think.

Do you feel that it's more important to build up your personal practice before attending a sangha, or to attend a sangha and then build upon your personal practice after that?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 21:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 17:12

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Having a sangha can really inform and strengthen a personal practice, and help it to flourish. It provides some kind of accountability, access to a lama, and a location for spiritual practice. On the other hand, it can be really intimidating, making one feel as if there's pressure to be "Buddhist enough." Personally, I think it's important and very helpful, but I can understand others where circumstances make it less so.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 00:32

reversefungi: Nov 27, 2003; Master of the high hat!

I started attending a sangha way before I even had a personal practice. It had a HUGE impact on me, and helped me go from once-a-week meditation to twice-a-day. Perhaps your experience might be different, but depending on the type of Buddhist community you're looking at, some are very accessible and beginner friendly! Don't be afraid to at least give it a look and see how it feels.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:18

People Stew: Dec 5, 2003

I studied for years on my own before joining a sangha, but that is just how I approach things. I tend to research obsessively about anything before seeing how other people approach it in actual practice. If there is a particular sangha you are interested in, it might be good to check out the tradition on your own to see if it makes sense to you, and then attend. In my case, it felt like a homecoming of sorts. I had read and studied under the Thai Forest tradition for years, and when I finally attended talks at a center it was wonderful to finally be surrounded by like minded people. It really helped kick my practice into high gear.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:37

Hyperlaser: Aug 12, 2009

Hello all, long time lurker first time poster here. This is a great thread, almost every post has been informative and interesting. As for me, I'm not a Buddhist but I do lean towards Buddhism: I try to meditate daily, I like reading dharma, and I try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path every now and again. As for my post, I have a bunch of questions, but before that:

Paramemetic, the way you have explained 'mindstream' distinctly reminds me of the opening line to the classical Japanese poem Hojoki:

Kamo no Chomei posted:

ゆく河の流れは絶えずして、しかも、もとの水にあらず。
The river always flows but its water is never the same.

I just thought it's an interesting connection. The whole poem is really about impermanence. Here's a link to a translation for anyone interested: http://www.washburn.edu/reference/bridge24/Hojoki.html

Now for questions. A few months ago I found a link to the Shurangama Sutra and read through it. It was just fascinating, a rainbow of dharma radiating from the Treasury of the Thus-Come-One, describing Seeing, the Six Entrances, the Five Turbidities, the Twenty-five Means to Enlightenment, the Buddha's crown emanation, the Stages of Enlightenment including all of the wonderful Bodhisattva Stages, up to even detailed descriptions of the destinies of rebirth from Avici to Animals to Immortals. It really seems quite comprehensive, but because of that I want to get some other perspectives.

Have any of you read the Shurangama Sutra? Do you have something to say about it? Are there any similar sutras?

The commentator is Hsuan Hua, who adamantly emphasizes how important the Sutra and Mantra are, saying for example that it's the first sutra to go away in the Dharma-Ending Age, and that memorizing the mantra has untold countless benefits. I'm taking his words and pretty much most of the sutra on faith at the moment, so I want to ask what do any of you know about Hsuan Hua? Or about T'ian T'ai for that matter? Is this sutra legitimate dharma?

I've been trying out reciting the Shurangama Mantra and have got a few lines memorized (out of hundreds). I'm not too sure how to go about it since I really haven't done mantras before. I just read it clearly and keep a steady pace, my mind on the moment or the sound of the mantra. Is that right? Also, do any of you have any resources on what exactly the Mantra means? So far, all I got is "na mwo" = "namu". It's probably not that important, but I'm curious.

My last question stinks. What is 'fragrance', why is it important? There's Adorned with Fragrance Bodhisattva, but I think I've also seen it used in describing people with attainment, that is, having "pleasing fragrance". I'm guessing it's like an enduring impression of their character/compassion? Or maybe enlightenment just smells fresh?
Specifically, the first Gradual Stage to Enlightenment is to not eat the 5 pungent plants, because they smell bad and make you smell bad (and then ghosts want to kiss you). I'll quote the sutra but if anyone can expand on this matter that'd be helpful.

Buddha in Shurangama 7:1 posted:

Ananda, each of these categories of beings is replete with all twelve kinds of upside-down states, just as pressing on one's eye produces a variety of flower-like images.

With the inversion of wonderful perfection, the truly pure, bright mind becomes glutted with false and random thoughts.

Now, as you cultivate towards certification to the samadhi of the Buddha, you will go through three gradual stages in order to get rid of the basic cause of these random thoughts.

They work in just the way that poisonous honey is removed from a pure vessel that is washed with hot water mixed with the ashes of incense. Afterwards it can be used to store sweet dew.

What are the three gradual stages? The first is to correct one's habits by getting rid of the aiding causes; the second is to truly cultivate to cut out the very essence of karmic offenses; the third is to increase one's vigor to prevent the manifestation of karma.

What are aiding causes? Ananda, the twelve categories of living beings in this world are not complete in themselves, but depend on four kinds of eating; that is, eating by portions, eating by contact, eating by thought, and eating by consciousness. Therefore, the Buddha said that all living beings must eat to live.

Ananda, all living beings can live if they eat what is sweet, and they will die if they take poison. Beings who seek samadhi should refrain from eating five pungent plants of this world.

If these five are eaten cooked, they increase one's sexual desire; if they are eaten raw, they increase one's anger.

Therefore, even if people in this world who eat pungent plants can expound the twelve divisions of the sutra canon, the gods and immortals of the ten directions will stay far away from them because they smell so bad. However, after they eat these things the hungry ghosts will hover around and kiss their lips. Being always in the presence of ghosts, their blessings and virtue dissolve as the days go by, and they experience no lasting benefit.

People who eat pungent plants and also cultivate samadhi will not be protected by the Bodhisattvas, gods, immortals, or good spirits of the ten directions; therefore, the tremendously powerful demon kings, able to do as they please, will appear in the body of a Buddha and speak dharma for them, denouncing the prohibitive precepts and praising lust, rage, and delusion.

When their lives end, these people will join the retinue of demon kings. When they use up their blessings as demons, they will fall into the Relentless Hell.

Ananda, those who cultivate for Bodhi should never eat the five pungent plants. This is the first of the gradual stages of cultivation.

This is nowhere in the Five Precepts or the Noble Eightfold Path as far as I've ever read before. It's really specific too and I can't tell at all if it means anything else.

That's all for now. Apologies for any newbie awkwardness.

# ? May 5, 2014 03:44

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

I think it's related to Indian culture at the time Buddhism came around.

Avoidance of alliums is common in Indian religion for different reasons focusing on health and the ability to meditate.

Example from Hindu Puranas:

From the Puranic Encylopedia by Vettam Mani (under CANDRA VI.), (Kamba Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda and Bhagavata, Astama Skandha. Kamba Ramayana is a Tamil text by poet Kambar): posted:

Solar eclipse according to the Puranas. The Devas and the asuras jointly churned Ksirabdhi where from emerged Dhanvantari with the Amrtakumbha (pot of nectar). But an asura mayavi (magician) called Saimhikeya absconded to
Patala with the Amrtakumbha which nobody noticed as everybody was busy with dividing other divine objects. Only after the mayavi's disappearance was it noticed that the Amrtakumbha was missing. At once Mahavishnu assumed the figure of a beautiful woman, got back the Kumbha and gave it to the devas. The devas began drinking the amrta when, at the instance of some other devas, Saimhikeya, the mayavi, assuming the form of an old Brahmin reached svarga, got a share of the amrta and began to drink it. Surya and Candra (Sun and Moon) who were on guard at the gates divined the secret of the 'old Brahmin' and informed Mahavishnu about it. He cut the throat of the pseudo-Brahmin with his Sudarsana Chakra. But, half of the nectar he had drunk stayed above the throat and the other half below it. Therefore, though the head and the trunk were severed they remained alive. These two parts, in course of time, evolved as Rahu and Ketu.

When the throat was cut some blood dropped on on the ground, and became the red onion and the white onion (garlic) respectively. So both onion and garlic originated from the throat and blood of the demons or asuras, thus
their consumption brings us closer to tamo guna (mode of ignorance) which characterizes the nature of the demons and thus is detrimental to Bhakti.

I am not sure what it means for a practicing modern day Buddhist though! I am curious to see what others say.

# ? May 5, 2014 18:56

Quantumfate: Feb 17, 2009; Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:

"Motherfucker I will -end- you"

The Surangama is a very important mantra to memorize. It's quite hard, I agree! I'm about halfway through the second assembly myself, but I make regular recitation of it a practise. It is very much so legitimate dharma!

Hsuan Hua is one of the most famous of the western buddhists, big in the sixties. He was a zen monk and a great propagator of the chinese canon. He also taught and made available resources on vajrayana and T'ian T'ai buddhism, the latter of which is a purely chinese sect of the Mahayana.

For the mantra, if you memorize any section of it, memorize the heart of the surangama mantra:
Oṃ anale anale viśade viśade vīra vjra-dhare,
bandha bandhani, vajra-pāṇi phaṭ! hūṃ trūṃ phaṭ! svāhā.
Namaḥ stathāgatāya sugatāya arhate samyak-saṃbuddhāya,
siddhyantu mantra-pada svāhā.

Now, on mantra recitation- I would recommend against understanding the literal meaning of the mantra, it may distract from your practise of it. There is a reason that mantras are rarely translated (and indeed you might do best to learn the surangama in sanskrit so as to keep the dharma alive). The point of mantra recitation is as a meditative action, a yoga. You are doing right to read it clearly and keep a good pace. Even better to try and keep your mind clear. If it wanders, bring it back to the mantra. These are very important syllables. As for what the mantra means- it is a propitiation to the dharmapalas, the aspects of the buddha, the mahasattvas, a reaffirmation of dharma. I do have a translation of what it means, and though I have some quibbles with how this particular rendering goes, here it is: http://www.shastaabbey.org/pdf/scriptureShurangama.pdf

Now- as for fragrance, blame that on a poor translation- it's lacking context. Fragrance-adorned bodhisattva has attained the perfuming of samadhi. You can blame the Sautrantikas for this particular line of thought- in ancient eastern societies perfume was widely used. And perfume is a powerful thing. If you put a drop of it on a cloth, that cloth smells strongly of the perfume. If you carry that cloth on your person, you will smell of perfume even after the cloth is removed. The stench of perfume is something which lingers, as anyone who has been in a department store can assure you. Because of this, it's used as a metaphor for enlightenment and karma. If you are a stream-enterer, it's like putting a drop of perfume on a cloth. If you are a buddha, it is like dunking yourself in perfume. If you take a karmic action that leads to liberation, it is like having the smell of perfume near you, all your clothes will start to smell like that fragrance, and your future actions will be influenced by that karma.

The surangama also speaks of obliterating sensate consciousnesses, of which scent is one.

As far as the restriction on onions and garlic? A few things- First It is absolutely in the eightfold path. The Eightfold path is a simplification, not a total or all-encompassing thing. It might be an expression of right view, right intention, right action, right mindfulness, right concentration. The vinaya, as well, is not explicated by the eight-fold path, but it is critical for an understanding of the buddhadharma.

Second, it is literal in the sense of being a yoga. When we practise the yoga of abstention from pungent plants, we encourage a diet that is not overly luxurious, not overly indulgent. We eat not for pleasure, but for nutrition. Likewise, we do not have to abstain from eating entirely, or make eating a suffering task. It is a part of the vinaya, the monastic code for this reason. If you are a monk, you ought follow the monastic code for this reason. Your translation also misses some rather key parts of the sutra: such as those which explicate that example as one of accessory causes to karmas.

Which brings me to thirdly! There is additionally a strong metaphoric sense here. For any habits we must abolish the supportive causes, the accessory causes. This is the import of yogas. By these practises we frame (or perfume!) actions so as to reach good habits. Seemingly innocuous, the aliums are spices that cling strongly to foods, their flavours are dense. Sweetness and bitterness. Not only does the taste of these plants quickly settle on other foods, it tends to linger on our taste buds. It is a very carnal and sensuous thing. So are the pretas. When we indulge in innocuous actions of carnality, it does not condition freedom from desire, it conditions an indulgence in desire.

At least in my translation, this important part is touched on a few lines down from what you posted, living a pure life abolishes the fetters of birth.

# ? May 5, 2014 19:24

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

I get so confused sometimes when I read things like "Buddhists probably should avoid eating pungent plants"... then I think of things like the sake barrels outside a Zen monastery WAFFLEHOUND posted.

Buddhism on paper and Buddhism in practice seem to be wholly different. Which is, in a way, a core tenant of Buddhism: intellectual/conceptual understanding is not as valuable as lived experiential reference.

I'm curious to see how the restriction against pungent plants affects the practicing Buddhists in this thread. There are doctrinal differences on diet already: in Mahayana it's more common to reject meat as an offering, as there was suffering that lead to it, whereas in Theravada a monk would be more likely to accept any offering and not deny the giver their opportunity for good karmic seeds.

# ? May 6, 2014 18:12

People Stew: Dec 5, 2003

I have never heard of anything like this pungent plant restriction in Theravada. To my knowledge it doesn't exist as a restriction for laypeople. There may be something in the Vinaya about this kind of thing. I could also be totally wrong, but I don't remember ever reading anything like this in the Pali Canon.

# ? May 6, 2014 18:25

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

I don't think it's fair to say "a Buddhist should do this yoga." I think it is fair to say "a Buddhist in a tradition that practices this who is told to practice this should practice this." To say "Buddhists should do such and such" is problematic if only because different traditions have radically different takes on that. I've never heard the pungent plants thing, for example. It's not part of my tradition. When I confessed to not be competent at cooking vegetables, my precious lama taught me the method for cooking every vegetable, which starts with "simmer and brown a shitload of onions." It's just not a reality. I mean, granted, Vajrayana gets weird about stuff like that, but as is good to note, Buddha taught 84,000 methods for liberation. Not eating pungent plants is probably one of them.

From tradition to tradition, things change a lot. Some monks don't eat meat at all. When I told my lama I was going to stop eating meat, he told me that was good but don't worry about it too much and just try to eat less meat, rather than stop meat completely. Some monks drink and such, it's whatever. Everyone should practice as best as they can according to their various capacities. If you can avoid pungent foods completely, do that. If not, don't worry too much about that.

Practice the Dharma earnestly and you will inevitably attain liberation. It's guaranteed. A lotus seed inevitably becomes a lotus, it can't become a rose or a tulip. If you plant the seed of Dharma, it will fruit as liberation. Practice earnestly, giving it water and nutrients, and it will grow. How fast and how tall will depend on causes and conditions, whether your karma is ripe for fruition and so on. But it will happen. So practice the path the best you can, and obstacles will be removed as your practice flourishes. This does not mean be lazy or just like, pick and choose practices, you have to be honest and genuine, or it doesn't work. But really practice what you can, and really don't worry about what you can't.

And the other part of that is, it's good to find one tradition and stick to it, because different traditions do things differently, and if you don't have one tradition, it's easy to get confused about whether you should be eating onions or not.

# ? May 6, 2014 18:35

Mr. Mambold: Feb 13, 2011; Aha. Nice post.

Paramemetic posted:

I don't think it's fair to say "a Buddhist should do this yoga." I think it is fair to say "a Buddhist in a tradition that practices this who is told to practice this should practice this." To say "Buddhists should do such and such" is problematic if only because different traditions have radically different takes on that. I've never heard the pungent plants thing, for example. It's not part of my tradition. When I confessed to not be competent at cooking vegetables, my precious lama taught me the method for cooking every vegetable, which starts with "simmer and brown a shitload of onions." It's just not a reality. I mean, granted, Vajrayana gets weird about stuff like that, but as is good to note, Buddha taught 84,000 methods for liberation. Not eating pungent plants is probably one of them.

From tradition to tradition, things change a lot. Some monks don't eat meat at all. When I told my lama I was going to stop eating meat, he told me that was good but don't worry about it too much and just try to eat less meat, rather than stop meat completely. Some monks drink and such, it's whatever. Everyone should practice as best as they can according to their various capacities. If you can avoid pungent foods completely, do that. If not, don't worry too much about that.

Practice the Dharma earnestly and you will inevitably attain liberation. It's guaranteed. A lotus seed inevitably becomes a lotus, it can't become a rose or a tulip. If you plant the seed of Dharma, it will fruit as liberation. Practice earnestly, giving it water and nutrients, and it will grow. How fast and how tall will depend on causes and conditions, whether your karma is ripe for fruition and so on. But it will happen. So practice the path the best you can, and obstacles will be removed as your practice flourishes. This does not mean be lazy or just like, pick and choose practices, you have to be honest and genuine, or it doesn't work. But really practice what you can, and really don't worry about what you can't.

And the other part of that is, it's good to find one tradition and stick to it, because different traditions do things differently, and if you don't have one tradition, it's easy to get confused about whether you should be eating onions or not.

There are people who get holier than thou about the frivolous little poo poo things like that in every religion/discipline, and they will never EVER awaken. They strain at gnats....

# ? May 7, 2014 00:45

Myrmidongs: Oct 26, 2010

How do you guys handle sources that claim they have magic powers? I've come across numerous well-known teachers that during talks / in the middle of a book, make claims that they have telekinesis, telepathy, levitation, and more. I feel like I'm the only person who wants to call bullshit on them.

# ? May 8, 2014 03:56

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Myrmidongs posted:

How do you guys handle sources that claim they have magic powers? I've come across numerous well-known teachers that during talks / in the middle of a book, make claims that they have telekinesis, telepathy, levitation, and more. I feel like I'm the only person who wants to call bullshit on them.

Milarepa supposedly studied sorcery and destroyed his aunt and uncle's house with a hail storm for taking his deceased father's money. Then when the village sought revenge, he destroyed their crops. And he could fly around to get places really fast.

Buddha himself in some suttas/sutras does supernatural things -- summoning, levitating, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha and there is a series of supernatural progression practitioners can supposedly unlock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhij%F1ā

Edit: holy poo poo SA forums keep escaping the text when I try to link that, anyways, google abhijna. It's pretty interesting.

I'm curious which modern well known teachers are claiming supernatural powers. I have the same reaction of aversion as you, but I'd be curious to read what they're saying.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 04:14

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Generally it is poor form for any lama or authority to claim to have "miracle powers." It is not uncommon for other people to say they have miracle powers however. I'd be curious about who is going around claiming to have them, also.

That said, I generally am okay with any of those claims. It doesn't really matter.

# ? May 8, 2014 04:58

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

Myrmidongs posted:

How do you guys handle sources that claim they have magic powers? I've come across numerous well-known teachers that during talks / in the middle of a book, make claims that they have telekinesis, telepathy, levitation, and more. I feel like I'm the only person who wants to call bullshit on them.

Well you can't levitate out of samsara, so why even talk about it? It seems to just motivate more attainment - the opposite of the path. It would depend on the context but I would question the wisdom of claiming such things.

# ? May 8, 2014 12:18

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Rhymenoceros posted:

Well you can't levitate out of samsara, so why even talk about it? It seems to just motivate more attainment - the opposite of the path. It would depend on the context but I would question the wisdom of claiming such things.

Why talk about it? Because it is Buddhavacana expounded in the dharma so obviously people will talk about it.

I agree that focusing on it as an attainment and desiring it is counter productive.

I personally have great difficulty believing in some of these as literal attainments a practitioner can reach, but it doesn't really matter if you do or not.

Sama��aphala Sutta posted:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

Supranormal Powers
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any kind of gold article he likes; in the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Clairaudience
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears � by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human � both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far. Just as if a man traveling along a highway were to hear the sounds of kettledrums, small drums, conchs, cymbals, and tom-toms. He would know, 'That is the sound of kettledrums, that is the sound of small drums, that is the sound of conchs, that is the sound of cymbals, and that is the sound of tom-toms.' In the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. He hears � by means of the divine ear-element, purified and surpassing the human � both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Mind Reading
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion. He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind. He discerns an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind. He discerns an excelled mind [one that is not at the most excellent level] as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind. He discerns a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind. He discerns a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind. Just as if a young woman � or man � fond of ornaments, examining the reflection of her own face in a bright mirror or a bowl of clear water would know 'blemished' if it were blemished, or 'unblemished' if it were not. In the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion... a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

The Passing Away & Re-appearance of Beings
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees � by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human � beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings � who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views � with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings � who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views � with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus � by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human � he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town], and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting in the central square.' In the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees � by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human � beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma...

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

The Ending of Mental Fermentations
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Just as if there were a pool of water in a mountain glen � clear, limpid, and unsullied � where a man with good eyesight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting, and it would occur to him, 'This pool of water is clear, limpid, and unsullied. Here are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' In the same way � with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability � the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime. And as for another visible fruit of the contemplative life, higher and more sublime than this, there is none."

When this was said, King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One � through many lines of reasoning � made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life.

# ? May 8, 2014 12:53

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

ashgromnies posted:

Why talk about it? Because it is Buddhavacana expounded in the dharma so obviously people will talk about it.

I agree that focusing on it as an attainment and desiring it is counter productive.

I personally have great difficulty believing in some of these as literal attainments a practitioner can reach, but it doesn't really matter if you do or not.

I mean "why even talk about it" in the sense when someone says "I have these powers". I think there are very few situations when saying "I have these powers" will not just end up inspiring the wrong intentions in people.

# ? May 8, 2014 13:56

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Rhymenoceros posted:

I mean "why even talk about it" in the sense when someone says "I have these powers". I think there are very few situations when saying "I have these powers" will not just end up inspiring the wrong intentions in people.

Yeah, I totally agree. Especially in this day and age... what kind of teacher is going to make such claims? It would make me highly suspicious of their intentions.

At the same time I feel like the arrow sutta is used to end conversations about things like this. Obviously the Buddha thought these things were of enough importance to describe. The way the arrow sutta is referenced by some is to be reductionist or dismissive of things like this... but the Buddha talked about it, and expounded upon it to his sangha, so there must be some importance to the teachings.

# ? May 8, 2014 16:56

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

ashgromnies posted:

Yeah, I totally agree. Especially in this day and age... what kind of teacher is going to make such claims? It would make me highly suspicious of their intentions.

At the same time I feel like the arrow sutta is used to end conversations about things like this. Obviously the Buddha thought these things were of enough importance to describe. The way the arrow sutta is referenced by some is to be reductionist or dismissive of things like this... but the Buddha talked about it, and expounded upon it to his sangha, so there must be some importance to the teachings.

Here is an interesting relevant sutta.

In this sutta a lay follower (Kevatta the housholder) is asking the Buddha to instruct a monk to display a 'miracle of psychic power from his superior human state'.

Excerpt:

quote:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Nalanda in Pavarika's mango grove. Then Kevatta the householder approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, this Nalanda is powerful, both prosperous and populous, filled with people who have faith in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One were to direct a monk to display a miracle of psychic power from his superior human state so that Nalanda would to an even greater extent have faith in the Blessed One.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Kevatta the householder, "Kevatta, I don't teach the monks in this way: 'Come, monks, display a miracle of psychic power to the lay people clad in white.'"

...

"And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

"Then someone who has faith and conviction in him sees him wielding manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. He reports this to someone who has no faith and no conviction, telling him, 'Isn't it awesome. Isn't it astounding, how great the power, how great the prowess of this contemplative. Just now I saw him wielding manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.'

"Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Gandhari charm by which the monk wielded manifold psychic powers... exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.' What do you think, Kevatta � isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?"

"Yes, lord, that's just what he would say."

"Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power.

So I think this suggests that the Buddha would not approve of any display of powers. Maybe because people without conviction would just say aliens or 'the government' were behind it?

Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 18:41

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

I would suggest treating a Buddhist claiming supernatural powers the same way you'd treat anyone else claiming supernatural powers...

# ? May 8, 2014 18:41

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Claiming you have supernatural powers is one of the four offenses (the Parajika rules) you commonly encounter in vinayas which are punishable by expulsion from the sangha. It is grouped with chastity, stealing and murder. Going back over my notes and comparing it with what I'm finding after some cursory searching, I see the fourth parajika rule as sometimes described as merely referring to jhanas and attainment or arahantship, but at the time I was learning about this my professor was explicit about it having to do with other supernatural claims as well (as this was a pretty common claim among the variety of religious practitioners on the Indian scene).

Basically when someone is telling you about powers, abilities or sidhis they have obtained, it should set off an alarm bell for you.

Edit: Found the source we studied on it.

From Oskar Von Hinuber, "Buddhist Law According to the Theravada-Vinaya: A Survey of Theory and Practice

quote:

The Patimokkhasutta contains 227 rules in the Theravada tradition and slightly different numbers in other extant vinaya traditions. These rules are arranged according to the gravity of the respective offense.

A transgression of any of the first four rules leads to the irrevocable expulsion from the order. This is why these rules are called parajika "relating to expulsion." The first three rules deal with a breach of chastity, with stealing, and murder, respectively. These are immediately obvious offenses, which one might find in any law code. The fourth and last one of this group, on the other hands, needs some explication. It deals with monks, who make the false claim to possess supernatural powers. At first glance it might seem rather surprising that this claim could result in the expulsion from the order. This draws attention to the high importance given to meditative practices, which, according to the belief of the time of early Buddhism, would ultimately lead to the acquisition of supernatural, magical powers. Obviously some safeguard was needed against false ascetics in the order, who might do considerable damage to the Buddhist order by shaking the faith of the lay community, on which the Buddhists depended.

So basically, its not that early buddhists didn't believe these things were possible, but it sort of looks like a "Fight Club"-esque injunction.

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 19:54 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 19:42

Myrmidongs: Oct 26, 2010

Sorry, posted that then worked a third shift, then slept all day. Anyway, heres just a few of the gems I've come across...

Lets start with one of the books I've seen recommended tons to people beginning meditation practice

Mindfulness In Plain English posted:

Misconceptions

...

The purpose of meditation is to become a psychic superman

No, the purpose of meditation is to develop awareness. Learning to read minds is not the point. Levitation is not the goal. The goal is liberation. There is a link between psychic phenomena and meditation, but the relationship is somewhat complex. During early stages of the meditator's career, such phenomena may or may not arise. Some people may experience some intuitive understanding or memories from past lives; others do not. In any case, these are not regarded as well-developed and reliable psychic abilities. Nor should they be given undue importance. Such phenomena are in fact fairly dangerous to new meditators in that they are too seductive. They can be an ego trap which can lure you right off the track. Your best advice is not to place any emphasis on these phenomena. If they come up, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. It's unlikely that they will. There is a point in the meditator's career where he may practice special exercises to develop psychic powers. But this occurs way down the line. After he has gained a very deep stage of Jhana, the meditator will be far enough advanced to work with such powers without the danger of their running out of control or taking over his life. He will then develop them strictly for the purpose of service to others. This state of affairs only occurs after decades of practice. Don't worry about it. Just concentrate on developing more and more awareness. If voices and visions pop up, just notice them and let them go. Don't get involved.

While I appreciate that it points out that those things are not the goal, the book absolutely never denies those things, and in fact does the opposite and says they are in fact quite real and something you can develop. I quit reading the book as soon as I hit that specific part.

Charlotte Joko Beck makes much more mild claims in Everyday Zen, and again points out this isn't the point of practice, but also implies there are magic powers you can achieve

quote:

Practice is not about having or cultivating special powers. There are many of these and we all have some of them naturally; some people have them in extra measure. At the Zen Center of Los Angeles (ZCLA) I sometimes had the useful ability to see what was being served for dinner two doors away. If they were having something I didn�t like, I didn�t go. Such abilities are little oddities, and again they are not what practice is about.

Daniel Ingram spent an entire episode of Buddhist Geeks talking about literal loving Buddhist magic powers. And I'm not talking like David Blaine stuff, he's talking wizard stuff.

I honestly feel dirty reading and listening after somebody makes those claims, and attempt to just passively ignore it. It's like going out somewhere with your racist grandma. You're can't be a dick to your grandma, but you know that what shes saying is not true. Only in this case, you can just close the book.

Myrmidongs fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 20:12

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Daniel Ingram gets weird. But honestly, if people believe there are psychic powers to be had, what is the problem? A lot of that is included to mitigate the fact that many people, especially coming to Vajrayana, do so because they want magic wizard powers. But I mean, there's a pretty long tradition of belief in psychic powers among a lot of Buddhist faiths and nations, and what is the harm there?

I am not saying "hey, you should believe in psychic powers," but perhaps consider why the fact that other people do makes you feel dirty? If you have a firmly held conviction or belief that is causing you suffering because other people believe other things, that to me is a bigger problem than the fact that some people think other people might be psychic.

Historically, in Buddhism, belief in psychic abilities and powers has been sufficient that those things have been directly addressed by a large number of teachers. I mean, a lot of people believe literally in the existence of, for example, Avalokitesvara, so much so that they say his mantra so that he might intercede on their behalf compassionately. Avalokitesvara was a human being at one point, so I guess it would be said he has miracle powers? I don't see any problems here. Certainly none that warrant feeling dirty like you were out with your racist grandpa.

Edit: as was mentioned before, Milarepa, one of the most venerated yogis in the Tibetan tradition, was literally a black magic sorcerer who blew up a town and killed townspeople and destroyed crops using his wizard powers, because his mom asked him to. He later renounced those evil deeds and became a most powerful yogi, having truly embraced Dharma under the tutelage of his precious teacher. This is part of the historical understanding of Buddhism in Tibet. That Milarepa was a wizard before he became a yogi is considered just a thing, like saying "well George Washington was a white landowner." So, I mean, given that they consider magic and psychic powers a very important aspect of a very important historical figure, it makes sense that they would address those things and that people today would not necessarily go "oh, well those things aren't real, it's just a metaphor," and so on. I mean, there are Sherpas who literally believe that Mt. Everest is mad at them for letting people poo poo up the mountain, and that's okay. There's no reason to feel dirty because people believe in things you don't, I guess is what I'm saying.

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 20:35 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 20:30

People Stew: Dec 5, 2003

I guess you can treat those things the way you would treat difficult concepts like rebirth or kamma. It is a shame to be so hung up on them that you stop practice, or never start. That's kind of the point of the arrow simile. It isn't necessarily an excuse to kill the conversation but I think it can put things in context that allows you to take some good from the practice.

Yes, the Buddha did make mention of the powers listed above. It is mentioned a few times in canonical suttas

But that is a small slice of the pie in comparison to the bulk of the teachings, which focus on the nature and the end of suffering.

So I guess you can disregard the Dhamma as a whole because of these things, or you can just ignore them and practice for your own benefit, which is the point. It is really not that big of a deal to me. I guess some people get really hung up on it. I know some Christians who think Jesus may have not actually walked on water, and they seem like stable people despite that and still Christian.

# ? May 8, 2014 23:13

Popcornicus: Nov 22, 2007

Myrmidongs posted:

Daniel Ingram spent an entire episode of Buddhist Geeks talking about literal loving Buddhist magic powers. And I'm not talking like David Blaine stuff, he's talking wizard stuff.

I honestly feel dirty reading and listening after somebody makes those claims, and attempt to just passively ignore it. It's like going out somewhere with your racist grandma. You're can't be a dick to your grandma, but you know that what shes saying is not true. Only in this case, you can just close the book.

This is just like coming into a Christianity thread and saying "Whoa my GOSH guys, somebody in my Unitarian Universalist congregation recommended a book by this Tim Keller guy, and guess what? He actually believes in a supreme being who created the universe and judges human beings after death. Really? In this day and age? I flushed the book down the toilet."

The Buddha taught the existence of these powers and how to access them. One of them, the ability to know nirvana firsthand, is the goal of Buddhism. In our era, I suspect it's hard to become a qualified meditation teacher without having some experience of the supramundane. It's okay not to believe in these things, but how do you reconcile their presence in the earliest Buddhist teachings with your unbelief? If you don't believe in rebirth or nirvana, what do you find compelling about Buddhism?

Paramemetic, it's interesting to see you denigrate Daniel Ingram for speaking openly about the existence of psychic powers in Buddhism before affirming your belief in black magic sorcerers and formerly human sky gods...in the same post. What convinced you to buy the backward junk metaphysic of Tibetan Buddhism? Why shouldn't we default to an enlightened western materialist worldview as proven by science?

Random things because I'm posting on my phone:
Rhymenoceros, Ajahn Brahm implied he can levitate in an interview. I'll post it when I find it. There's a fine line between not claiming these powers for humility's sake and reminding people of them so we don't forget they exist.

Yiggy, as you cited the rule, the parajika offense is triggered by falsely claiming an attainment, not truthfully claiming to have one. Is that right? Elsewhere, I think in the suttas, the Buddha forbade even arahants from displaying their psychic powers to laypeople, but there's a difference between claiming to have a power and displaying it.

Anagarika Munindra and Dipa Ma talked openly about developing concentration with these powers.

Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 23:29 on May 8, 2014

# ? May 8, 2014 23:25

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Popcornicus posted:

Paramemetic, it's interesting to see you denigrate Daniel Ingram for speaking openly about the existence of psychic powers in Buddhism before affirming your belief in black magic sorcerers and formerly human sky gods...in the same post. What convinced you to buy this backward junk metaphysic? Why shouldn't we default to an enlightened western materialist worldview as proven by science?

My intention was not to denigrate Daniel Ingram for that particular thing, I commented that he "gets weird" which I suppose is poor choice of word, maybe peculiar or non-mainstream would be better? Ingram's open speech about psychic powers is not what makes him "weird," it's things like Dharma Overground and a kind of peculiar approach to modern syncretism which strips cultural context and attempts to turn the Dharma into something that reads like a D&D manual that makes him weird. I surely can't and wouldn't knock anyone for belief in psychic powers, but all that aside, Ingram is a strange character in Buddhism and is fairly controversial, as demonstrated by the debate about him and his teachings earlier in the thread.

"Enlightened western materialist worldview" is more or less exactly the problem, though, innit? You can have a western materialist worldview and that's perfectly fine, but it ain't exactly enlightened if having it leads you to "feel dirty" when you read about things other people believe.

# ? May 8, 2014 23:35

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

Popcornicus posted:

Random things because I'm posting on my phone:
Rhymenoceros, Ajahn Brahm implied he can levitate in an interview. I'll post it when I find it. There's a fine line between not claiming these powers for humility's sake and reminding people of them so we don't forget they exist.

I've also heard Ajahn Brahm saying plainly that you can remember previous lives in (the right type of) meditation.

I've also read in physics books that there are black holes in space, and just now looking at the wikipedia article for 'microwave oven', I've read that it heats food by "bombarding it with electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum causing polarized molecules in the food to rotate and build up thermal energy in a process known as dielectric heating."

None of these things I can know for sure, all of these things I could (with enough time) verify/disprove respectively by direct experience or empirical experiments (might also need money for this last one).

In the end I am open to these explanations because I don't think the people behind them have any reason to lie, but I don't know for sure until I verified it for myself.

Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 09:10 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 09:06

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Why would Ajahn Brahm claim these attainments, especially as a western white convert to Buddhism that knows people will be suspicious without something to back it up? It's suspicious and if not true, violates the vinaya. I personally would disregard as a charlatan trying to attract converts through the promise of magic powers anyone who claimed such attainments, especially if they refuse to demonstrate.

I think a lot of people here can have an initial suspicion of white Buddhist converts for a variety of reasons that aren't unfounded...

And the curious thing about magical powers is that they are never demonstrated... Interesting, that.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 11:58 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 11:53

ThePriceJustWentUp: Dec 20, 2013

ashgromnies posted:

And the curious thing about magical powers is that they are never demonstrated... Interesting, that.

I don't know of powers of the more magical variety, but Ram Dass says in his book Be Here Now that the thing that more or less caused him to leave his Harvard career and move to India is a moment where his teacher there, during a conversation, told him what his mother was dying from (cancer) and where it was (the spleen). He said he was positive he had never mentioned this to anybody in India.

# ? May 9, 2014 13:19

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

ashgromnies posted:

Why would Ajahn Brahm claim these attainments, especially as a western white convert to Buddhism that knows people will be suspicious without something to back it up? It's suspicious and if not true, violates the vinaya. I personally would disregard as a charlatan trying to attract converts through the promise of magic powers anyone who claimed such attainments, especially if they refuse to demonstrate.

I think a lot of people here can have an initial suspicion of white Buddhist converts for a variety of reasons that aren't unfounded...

And the curious thing about magical powers is that they are never demonstrated... Interesting, that.

I have never heard Ajahn Brahm claiming to have any attainments, he repeatedly stresses that trying to attain things will get you nowhere in meditation.

The setting where he discussed remembering previous lives in meditation was at a meditation retreat, answering a question from a lay person about rebirth (IIRC), basically saying something a la "you don't have to believe in rebirth, see for your self [through meditating at this retreat]"

I agree that anyone going "I can levitate and read minds" is someone to be highly suspicious of.

Edit: I just want to state for the record that I have listened to many, many hours of Ajahn Brahm talking and I have never heard him say anything inappropriate that hints at self interest, pride, greed, trying to impress or anything like that. I must admit I am very impressed with Ajahn Brahm, having listened to so many talks over such a long period of time.

Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 13:30 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 13:21

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

ThePriceJustWentUp posted:

I don't know of powers of the more magical variety, but Ram Dass says in his book Be Here Now that the thing that more or less caused him to leave his Harvard career and move to India is a moment where his teacher there, during a conversation, told him what his mother was dying from (cancer) and where it was (the spleen). He said he was positive he had never mentioned this to anybody in India.

Could be coincidence. What if the person guessed wrong? Anyways, Ram Dass is a white guy who did a shitload of LSD with Tim Leary and converted to Hinduism, he isn't even a Buddhist.

# ? May 9, 2014 13:38

ThePriceJustWentUp: Dec 20, 2013

A lot of these Buddhist teachers want to impress you with how humble they are, which is the same thing in the end. Buddhism really has no avenue for opulence anyhow.

ashgromnies posted:

Could be coincidence. What if the person guessed wrong? Anyways, Ram Dass is a white guy who did a shitload of LSD with Tim Leary and converted to Hinduism, he isn't even a Buddhist.

If I was guessing, I wouldn't try for the spleen as my first guess. Anyway the point is it give him immense trust in his teacher whatever the actual situation was, and I don't think it matters what drugs he did and what religion he was. He was studying psychedelics professionally by the way. And no religion has ownership on any mental phenomena. I don't care for the guy's teachings much so I'll leave it there.

ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 13:43 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 13:39

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

I don't think there was anything responsible or professional about what Tim Leary was doing. He might as well have been Terence McKenna. But anyways, we are quite derailed now.

# ? May 9, 2014 14:24

Crack: Apr 10, 2009

If suffering is the essence of life (noble truth number 1), and a Buddhist should strive to end suffering (number 2 on the eightfold path), then surely a buddhist should be antinatalist? From what I can see the odds of someone reaching nirvana is very slim, so surely procreating is creating more suffering than most could ever eliminate during their own life. How could you reconcile this?

Also what are Buddhist views on monism? ie man and nature, man is nature, nature and the supernatural? this question is typed in a hurry as I got to go now, I'm not sure what the views are on the supernatural without trawling through the OP again, but if the philosophy of Buddhism is basically "believe what you see", how could you believe in rebirth? especially as current knowledge implies in the very end there is only black holes which then decay themselves. What happens to life force then?

I'm going through a bit of existential angst at the moment, and *some of* Buddhism, Taoism & some form of pantheism make the most sense to me but honestly I'm still very skeptical.

# ? May 9, 2014 14:56

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

Crack posted:

If suffering is the essence of life (noble truth number 1), and a Buddhist should strive to end suffering (number 2 on the eightfold path), then surely a buddhist should be antinatalist? From what I can see the odds of someone reaching nirvana is very slim, so surely procreating is creating more suffering than most could ever eliminate during their own life. How could you reconcile this?

I'm not sure what you mean by antinatalist, but Buddhist monks have to be celibate and yeah you'll have to give up kids and sex eventually if you're serious about nirvana.

Crack posted:

Also what are Buddhist views on monism? ie man and nature, man is nature, nature and the supernatural? this question is typed in a hurry as I got to go now, I'm not sure what the views are on the supernatural without trawling through the OP again, but if the philosophy of Buddhism is basically "believe what you see", how could you believe in rebirth? especially as current knowledge implies in the very end there is only black holes which then decay themselves. What happens to life force then?

There are many (serious scientific) theories about what will happen to the universe with time, but it's not like we're close to being certain.

Consciousness and the mind is not scientifically understood well at all. As far as I know there's no hard scientific evidence against rebirth or karma, in fact there's even medium hard scientific evidence for rebirth. I think it's reasonable to keep an open mind.

Crack posted:

I'm going through a bit of existential angst at the moment, and *some of* Buddhism, Taoism & some form of pantheism make the most sense to me but honestly I'm still very skeptical.

Cool. It's good to think about life

# ? May 9, 2014 15:48

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

Good questions, Crack. I'll try to answer in a way that does justice to it, it's hard to tell though.

Crack posted:

If suffering is the essence of life (noble truth number 1), and a Buddhist should strive to end suffering (number 2 on the eightfold path), then surely a buddhist should be antinatalist? From what I can see the odds of someone reaching nirvana is very slim, so surely procreating is creating more suffering than most could ever eliminate during their own life. How could you reconcile this?

After a fashion, Buddhism is anti-natalist, in that the goal is to break the cycle of death and rebirth into samsara. We seek to not be reborn. However, antinatalism in the sense you mean, that of voluntarily refraining from procreation, is not helpful to this end. Knowing that sentient beings will be reborn after they die according to their karma, there are two reasons why antinatalism isn't a thing. Firstly, it doesn't really matter: beings will be reborn, and whether or not I personally have children does not affect this. For example, I may very well adopt rather than have children of my own, because there are already so many suffering children who need homes, but I do not think that by not having children of my own, I'm sparing anyone anything. If I do not have a child, it simply means no being's karma is to be born by my wife. They will be born elsewhere. So it doesn't matter. Secondly, if I did have children, that would be what I would hope is an auspicious rebirth. A child born to a Buddhist family is fortunate, because they are born with access to Dharma, and to parents who (one would hope) are loving, compassionate, and so on. Of course there are Buddhist parents who are not those things, and that is sad, but one might hope that for the most part.

Now, I do not think Buddha ever addressed this topic directly, so a third reason that there is no systemic anti-natalist movement within Buddhism is that it would make no sense historically. Historically, having a child is not a personal indulgence, but rather a necessary part of perpetuating life and trade. One needs a child to support them in old age, and to help with work on the farm or in the mill, and so on. It certainly would not have been practical for laypersons to practice anti-natalism in the Buddha's time, and Buddha's teachings are nothing if not practical. Monastics, of course, are antinatalist by virtue of being chaste.

Incidentally, I believe HHDL has encouraged people who are able to do so to adopt rather than have children, as a means towards reducing global hunger and overpopulation, but I don't think this is doctrinal.

quote:

Also what are Buddhist views on monism? ie man and nature, man is nature, nature and the supernatural? this question is typed in a hurry as I got to go now, I'm not sure what the views are on the supernatural without trawling through the OP again, but if the philosophy of Buddhism is basically "believe what you see", how could you believe in rebirth? especially as current knowledge implies in the very end there is only black holes which then decay themselves. What happens to life force then?

With regards to Monism, Buddhism rejects it. I can only really speak to my tradition's perspective, but the reason for rejecting monism is that monism asserts that there is at least one thing which really exists in an absolute sense (the universe, God, whatever). Within my tradition, in the Madhyamaka school, this seems relatively true, but it is not absolutely true. And that's the important distinction that answers the second aspect of this question, about believing what you see. Madhyamaka holds to what is called the "two truths doctrine." This doctrine acknowledges the plain and evident truth of existence as exactly what it appears to be, but this is a relative truth. I am typing on a computer, it seems quite evident that there is I, there is computer, there is an annoying dog bothering me, I'm sitting in a bed, all these things are plain to see. Indeed, it would be pretty stupid for me to say "there is no computer, there is no I" on a relative level. However, on an absolute level, none of those things are real. How could they be? This computer is just plastics and metals and molded carbon. "I" am just a collection of meat and bone and experience, brought together by causes and conditions, and when those causes and conditions are no longer met? I will be no more. So how can we say "I exist" when such existence is dependent entirely on ephemeral and fleeting causes and conditions arising together? And how can I say I exist when even in "my" lifetime I am not the same from moment to moment? My given name was not given to me, it was given to a little baby. I am not that baby, it is absurd to say I am that baby - I'm 6'3' and 190lbs, I'm bigger than the mother who bore me, how could I be a baby? But, ah, things change, and by so doing prove that they lack any absolute nature. We are just a collection of causes and conditions, devoid of intrinsic substance or nature, and so ultimately there is just emptiness.

As for this question of rebirth, I believe it because I see it, but I do acknowledge that it is not plainly evident. However, there is no issue with this and the ultimate destruction of the universe. Hell, Buddhist cosmology essentially sees this universe as arisen in fire and it will be destroyed by fire. Buddhist cosmology proposes that any "mahakalpa" or "great kalpa" has four stages: evolution, where the universe comes into existence, evolution-duration, where the universe exists relatively, dissolution, where the universe is dissolved into void, and dissolution-duration, where the universe remains in void. This process lasts many billions of years, by human reckoning, but it is never exactly defined.

quote:

I'm going through a bit of existential angst at the moment, and *some of* Buddhism, Taoism & some form of pantheism make the most sense to me but honestly I'm still very skeptical.

I hope you can find some peace soon. I will inevitably catch flak for this, but I would encourage you to take up whatever aspects of the Buddhist path work for you. Of course, you need not take on the Buddhist identity, but Buddhism is a very practical path with very practical methods for reducing our suffering not only in the next life but in this very life. Practicing those methods will reduce your current suffering, and this is good. Acknowledging the causes of suffering to be attachment, aversion, and craving, perhaps you can find some calm in the storm of existence. You exist, at least relatively, what about that causes angst? Is it the knowledge that you will not exist? Come to peace with this, you already are no longer the same as you were yesterday. Change is constant, and we will all be destroyed some day. I remember one day I was burning disused prayer flags in the outdoor fireplace with my lama, and, looking at the fire, he said to me "you know, one day you'll be just like that." So I will! And that's good, is it not? After all, as Sartre says, "no finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point."

But I ramble. I hope some of this is helpful, you're welcome to contact me on AIM (same handle) if you want to discuss things in realtime, or continue things here.

# ? May 9, 2014 16:18

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Rhymenoceros posted:

I'm not sure what you mean by antinatalist, but Buddhist monks have to be celibate and yeah you'll have to give up kids and sex eventually if you're serious about nirvana.

Some! Seon and Japanese Zen monks, for example, may marry.

# ? May 9, 2014 18:05

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Crack posted:

I'm going through a bit of existential angst at the moment, and *some of* Buddhism, Taoism & some form of pantheism make the most sense to me but honestly I'm still very skeptical.

If you haven't yet, read the Tao Te Ching! Very readable in translation and short. Interesting and largely compatible with Buddhism, though some may argue it presents a dualistic viewpoint, it also presents the singularity and non-essence of dual aspects.

It also says you may defend yourself if someone attacks you, but you must do so with a heavy and regretful heart. Buddha on the other hand famously says you should let your attacker tear you limb from limb and harbor no ill will... Such is the way of the Buddha, it's difficult to live that in practice, and we do have other examples in Buddhism that support defense. Mahakala defends the dharma and strikes down ignorance with compassion, Yamantaka is the wrathful aspect of Manjusri that annihilates ignorance and death, Bodhidharma supposedly taught the Shaolin Monks martial arts so they could defend theirselves...

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 18:16 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 18:10

Rhymenoceros: Nov 16, 2008; Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

ashgromnies posted:

Some! Seon and Japanese Zen monks, for example, may marry.

I didn't know that. Do they use the pali canon?

This just reminded me of this Sutta I read recently:

Dhammika Sutta posted:

A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.

I remember thinking "drat" when I read this. This was spoken to lay followers even.

# ? May 9, 2014 18:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 17:12

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Rhymenoceros posted:

I didn't know that. Do they use the pali canon?

The Zen vinaya asks for celibacy from monks, but it seems they have reasoned their way out of it.

Jodo Shinshu(Pure Land) in the twelfth century became the first and only tradition to allow monks to marry. It remained that way until the Meiji restoration of Japan(1860s) when legal restrictions against monks marrying were repealed.

Some of this is probably due to Confucian influence on Chan Buddhism; Confucianism says it is everyone's filial duty to reproduce.

Many Zen monks do practice celibacy, but most do not. Dogen famously argues in favor of monastic celebacy and against the ability of the laity/householders to achieve enlightenment while engaging in such worldly and impermanent affairs.

Edit: many Zen monks take only Bodhisattva vows in favor of upasampada(full traditional ordination and following of vinaya), so maybe that is a justification. If they're going to stick around to help others reach enlightenment, and their sexual and romantic activity is undertaken with the most care and caution then possibly they can justify it as not generating considerable negative karma, and something that can be dropped later?

I dunno! It's a super interesting question.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 9, 2014

# ? May 9, 2014 19:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

«‹›119 »