|
Quantumfate posted:I would be more concerned that those yogins demonstrating the Rddhi would be doing so duplicitiously, or in violation of vows. It is very possibly an emanation of mara, or one of the asuras. Still, please do share your experiences. Sadly I never got to witness anything too spectacular I was only able to witness lower level siddhis like ESP, Past-Karma reading / Mind-reading, I also didn't think the monk(s) were breaking any vows as they were very discrete. I can only safetly share one experience which was staying at a Burmese Monastery in Mandalay that was like back in 2008. At the time I heard from the locals there that there were many spirits around at that location and it is a favorite haunt of the Nats is what they call it. When I was staying there one day I thought to myself that it was all just a loving load of bullshit and that spirits and demons and that kind of crap don't exist. Then a funny thing happened the next day, me and mom were just hanging out in our rooms and then I hear like 4-5 large knocks at the door, I was thinking to myself that it must be a monk or somebody knocking loudly whose come to get us, and when I open the door there were 2 puppies and a mama dog in between them. For a moment I was kind of confused, how did a monastery dog with paws and claws able to knock on the door so easily like a human and make it loud? Then I asked my mom whether she heard the knocks, and she said that she didn't, and the funny thing was that she was right next to the loving door! I thought that somebody could have played a prank on me, but it just didn't add up because my mother didn't hear the knocks, and it would be extremeely difficult imo to get those dogs lined up right up to the door without alot of preparation and training but mischiveous novices and monks. I can't say for certain whether it was a paranormal experience, but it was defintely mystifying.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
So what aspect of karmic awaking manifests as dogs that knock on doors, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
ickbar posted:Dogs Those are not the siddhis. "Low-level" or otherwise, those sound strongly of the low arts practised by wrongly guided brahmins and recluses warned against in the Brahamajala Sutta's Mahasila discourse. The casting out or dealing with spirits in earth houses, the telling of fortunes or reading of predictions are the debased arts that the Buddha avoided. Also- it is not common for the pretas to manifest in such a way? Insofar as I'm aware. Are you sure it wasn't just the dogs or monks having fun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Sorry ickbar, i did not mean to offend you. I tried to make my answer humourous, and apparently i failed, ahah. If people want to believe that guys can teleport on plane engines, well, fine (even if i still find this a bit sad to be honest), but what i was saying was just that it has nothing to do with buddhism. I really don't see how this kind of "information" is helpful to anyone interested in buddhism. For me, stories are more an obstacle than something that can help. Practice is also about stopping to live in the stories we tell ourselves, so adding more stories cannot help. It's still funny, though, i'll give you that ! PS : I don't have to go to asia to hear crazy stories about stuff. Bad newspapers are full of them. Buddhism, for me at least and in everything i read about it, is about reality here and now. Not about stories. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
How big were said dogs? I know I have a Saint Bernard that occasionally will plant himself right outside my front door, and if that tail gets going for some reason, it sounds like someone is urgently knocking on the door. Ugrok posted:If people want to believe that guys can teleport on plane engines, well, fine (even if i still find this a bit sad to be honest), but what i was saying was just that it has nothing to do with buddhism. I really don't see how this kind of "information" is helpful to anyone interested in buddhism. For me, stories are more an obstacle than something that can help. Practice is also about stopping to live in the stories we tell ourselves, so adding more stories cannot help. It's still funny, though, i'll give you that ! I don't think these tales of mystical experiences detract, or necessarily add, to anything in Buddhism. But I don't think it's any different that Catholic stories of Saints levitating, and if one were to join the Catholic church just in hopes of learning to levitate, they would quickly change their goals, or else just quit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I don't think these tales of mystical experiences detract, or necessarily add, to anything in Buddhism. But I don't think it's any different that Catholic stories of Saints levitating, and if one were to join the Catholic church just in hopes of learning to levitate, they would quickly change their goals, or else just quit. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:12
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:How big were said dogs? I know I have a Saint Bernard that occasionally will plant himself right outside my front door, and if that tail gets going for some reason, it sounds like someone is urgently knocking on the door. Clearly your dog is close to awakening, then. No other possibility. Dr.Caligari posted:I don't think these tales of mystical experiences detract, or necessarily add, to anything in Buddhism. But I don't think it's any different that Catholic stories of Saints levitating, and if one were to join the Catholic church just in hopes of learning to levitate, they would quickly change their goals, or else just quit. I do think it detracts to a degree from the sense that a lot of people don't know much about Buddhism, whereas with Catholicism you'll probably learn right quick that if you think a dogs butt knocking on a door is the interdiction of saints that you're probably going to be considered kind of kooky.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
"Dear monks, always believe whatever some retarded person on the internet says about magick powers and real life limit break attacks. If you don't you won't go to Buddhist heaven and gain infernal powers" - the Buddha
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Sorry ickbar, i did not mean to offend you. I tried to make my answer humourous, and apparently i failed, ahah. Buddhism is about releasing yourself from the Maya of "reality".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
So I was a Theology and Religious Studies major in college and one of the most useful books I used was a theological dictionary which explained the theological meanings behind latin or greek phrases and other frequently used terminology (though if you needed to look up a word like "grace" you were probably in over your head already.) I'm trying to make my way through the Mahavairocana Sutra (the Vairocanabhisambodhi Sutra) and was wondering if there is anything like a theological dictionary for Buddhist terminology. So far wikipedia is helpful, but just curious if such a print resource exists. My apologies for so many beginner questions, I'll try to be more active when I do some further study.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Maya is much more a hindu term, and is itself relatively rarely used in the Mahayana canon. Where it is more frequently used is in sanskrit word compounds. It is also a little dangerous to see buddhism as hinging on reality itself being illusory. It's more apt to say that there is an objective reality, an objective truthness (The tathagatagarbha) that is masked by illusion. It still matters not whether reality is perceived as illusory- as the end goal is the cessation of suffering. It with this obliteration of suffering that the Yogin would be attained by an ultimate reality- without illusory thoughts. For those of us not so developed, that realm is hard enough to even conceptualize. Here:Akasagarbhasutra posted:We see that this great being
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Incarnate Dao posted:So I was a Theology and Religious Studies major in college and one of the most useful books I used was a theological dictionary which explained the theological meanings behind latin or greek phrases and other frequently used terminology (though if you needed to look up a word like "grace" you were probably in over your head already.) I'm trying to make my way through the Mahavairocana Sutra (the Vairocanabhisambodhi Sutra) and was wondering if there is anything like a theological dictionary for Buddhist terminology. So far wikipedia is helpful, but just curious if such a print resource exists. My apologies for so many beginner questions, I'll try to be more active when I do some further study. If I'm understand what you're looking for, it's a bit pricey, but The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is really good, defining the terms, presenting them in different languages, and expounding on their various connotations and uses as well as where they are found in canon. Sithsaber posted:Buddhism is about releasing yourself from the Maya of "reality". In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a concept known as the Two Truths Doctrine, and it is very important. The Two Truths doctrine states plainly that there are two truths, both equally important, which complement each other. The first truth is that of physical, objective, "consensus reality." This is the reality of science, the reality of the physical world, and it is absolutely real. To reject that reality is essentially nihilism, and it's intellectually shallow to do so. The second truth is the absolute reality, which is that of emptiness - all physical reality is just mental projection, everything is empty by virtue of its interdependent nature, and so while it is functionally true that, for example, a chair exists that a being can sit upon, it is not absolutely true that such is the case - that chair was once wood and will someday be ash and all of those states are impermanent, only arisen temporally due to their causes and conditions, without inherent identity or absolute truth. To reject the absolute reality is simple, even intuitive, because we fixate and grasp for objects to be real, for "reality" to be how it is presented to these sense organs, we yearn for science to be true, and for the universe to be defined by rules we can comprehend, so that we can feel powerful and "in control." However, to reject the relative reality, to reject that tables and chairs exist, that this being exists, that gravity exists. whatever, this is silly as all hell. So, there we see there are two truths. One is absolute, one is relative, but both are true, and rejecting either is delusion. When we say "there is no self," that does not mean to say there is no being that is saying those words. When we say "the universe is just emptiness" this is true, and profound, and absolutely important to understand, but it doesn't negate our relative need to practice Dharma. When a being is liberated, they may have the ability to demonstrate miracle powers, but that isn't meant to make us reject the relative reality. All phenomena are arisen from emptiness, abide in emptiness, and return to emptiness. But that doesn't mean that there are no phenomena. If you want to see what emptiness looks like, just look around you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:If I'm understand what you're looking for, it's a bit pricey, but The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is really good, defining the terms, presenting them in different languages, and expounding on their various connotations and uses as well as where they are found in canon. Slow clap, building clap, overwhelming applause. I'm still a Christian though, so my paradigm forced me slightly resist the beauty in your words and not immediately journey to the nearest temple. (Which I would immediately do if my mother's church wasn't right across the street) What you just posted actually touched me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
It seems to me that the 'consensus reality' described is simply the framework, the physics and the mechanics of the universe in the way that F=m*a is a fundamental part of how the universe works. Whereas the absolute reality is the universe as it is currently. Am I correct on that? It seems to me almost as though the terms would be better reversed. We may(or may not) agree that a chair isn't just a highly organized pile of wood; the damage it does when it's thrown at something is a simple function of physics though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:If I'm understand what you're looking for, it's a bit pricey, but The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is really good, defining the terms, presenting them in different languages, and expounding on their various connotations and uses as well as where they are found in canon. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Rorac posted:It seems to me that the 'consensus reality' described is simply the framework, the physics and the mechanics of the universe in the way that F=m*a is a fundamental part of how the universe works. Whereas the absolute reality is the universe as it is currently. Am I correct on that? Both of the things you described are part of the "relative reality." The ultimate reality is emptiness. Relative reality is this world of appearances, ultimately devoid of substance, merely an expression of emptiness - fleeting, momentary, and illusory. Unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Did the Buddha have large talons
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Did the Buddha have large talons No that's a Garuda you must be mistaking them because they rhyme
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 06:04
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Both of the things you described are part of the "relative reality." The ultimate reality is emptiness.* *in some denominations
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Do any denominations dispute that outside the Hinayana? While some denominations might dispute the form of that emptiness, I think everyone but the Hinayana would accept that ultimate reality is emptiness. Even the mind-only school acknowledges that the mind is emptiness in its true understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 08:38
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Even the mind-only school acknowledges that the mind is emptiness in its true understanding. To my knowledge the supremacy of Śūnyatā was actually one of the huge points of divergence between Madhyamaka and Yogācāra?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:To my knowledge the supremacy of Śūnyatā was actually one of the huge points of divergence between Madhyamaka and Yogācāra? Probably this was a huge point of divergence, but it is my understanding that now this divergence is largely historical, and the various lineages that practice one or the other acknowledge that both are accurate descriptions of the same thing. My teacher, who has many times stated specifically that he prefers the Yogacara approach, says that at the highest level of understanding both are the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
I have a couple of questions about the concept of "dhamma" in Buddhism, and specifically how it applies to ethical or moral behaviour. In most religious traditions, moral behaviour can generally be assumed to come from one of two sources: explicit divine commandment or divine "inspiration" (e.g. "grace" in Christianity). I'm having trouble placing Buddhism in either of these two categories, or even somewhere between. I understand that moral behaviour within Buddhism is meant to come from adherence to the dhamma, but I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how dhamma is conceived in Buddhist thought or what exactly its source is assumed to be. So far as I understand it, in some Buddhist traditions the answer is simply that the dhamma is the sum total of what the Buddha taught: is that correct? In these traditions, is it assumed that the Buddha was the originator of the dhamma or merely that he was the first to properly understand and express it? Did Buddha's enlightenment grant him the unique wisdom to create a (the?) dhamma, or did it just give him the ability to discern what was already a fact of the universe? In other Buddhist traditions, I'm sensing a more individualistic path towards dhamma. I'll quote these two passages from wikipedia: quote:The status of Dharma is regarded variably by different Buddhist traditions. Some regard it as an ultimate truth, or as the fount of all things which lies beyond the "three realms" (Sanskrit: tridhatu) and the "wheel of becoming" (Sanskrit: bhavacakra), somewhat like the pagan Greek and Christian logos: this is known as Dharmakaya (Sanskrit)... For others still, they see the Dharma as referring to the "truth," or the ultimate reality of "the way that things really are" (Tib. Cho). quote:Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be meant to perceive directly"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Budha) who have matured in supreme wisdom. No one can "enlighten" another person. Each intelligent person has to attain and experience for themselves. As an analogy, no one can simply make another know how to swim. Each person individually has to learn how to swim. In the same way, dhamma cannot be transferred or bestowed upon someone. Each one has to know for themselves. These passages seem to indicate that dhamma is a facet of reality, that can only be approached individually, through religious praxis. If so, where does this leave the status of Buddha's teachings? Are they mere guides on this view, or do they still carry a great deal of authoritative weight? Is the assumption similarly that the closer one gets to an understanding of dhamma, the more "ethical" they are likely to be? Or does dhamma in such traditions carry a less ethical, more phenomenological meaning? I would be especially interested if someone can comment on the link between dhamma and logos just mentioned there? Sorry, that's a lot of questions. tl;dr: Can someone tell me what Buddhists view the ultimate origins of morality or ethical behaviour to be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Blurred posted:I have a couple of questions about the concept of "dhamma" in Buddhism, and specifically how it applies to ethical or moral behaviour. You're correct, it's neither and none of those things. Divine command theory is weak, and divine inspiration is just a dress up game for that weak ethic. Not only does Buddhism reject divine command theory, it rejects any semblance of a divine which could command, in that sense. quote:So far as I understand it, in some Buddhist traditions the answer is simply that the dhamma is the sum total of what the Buddha taught: is that correct? In these traditions, is it assumed that the Buddha was the originator of the dhamma or merely that he was the first to properly understand and express it? Did Buddha's enlightenment grant him the unique wisdom to create a (the?) dhamma, or did it just give him the ability to discern what was already a fact of the universe? "Dhamma" has a lot of meanings in various contexts, it's not a very precise word for this. The Buddhadharma is the Buddha's path, but Dharma in general refers to a path and can refer to the whole universe path. It also means "truth," and can refer to the whole universe's truth and to the Buddha's truth respectively. Quantumf8 is much better at this kind of scholarship than I am, I hope he can weigh in here. quote:Can someone tell me what Buddhists view the ultimate origins of morality or ethical behaviour to be? That which leads to the cessation of suffering of sentient beings. Buddha did not invent or originate his teachings or his path. He did not command them, he did not create them. Buddha was an observer, a scientist. He watched the universe, and through meditative contemplation observed that actions lead to results. Virtuous actions are those actions which lead to positive results. Nonvirtuous actions are those actions which lead to negative results. Some actions, some behaviors, always lead invariably to suffering. Nobody likes to suffer, so we should avoid these actions. Buddhism is a very practical path. Basically, what is ethical in Buddhism is that which leads to a successful outcome on a path, what is immoral in Buddhism is anything that does not lead to that outcome. But there is no sense of "commandments," there is no judgment or punishment, there is simply cause and effect. So do the things that bring about the result you want. If you want liberation, if you want freedom from suffering, then do what the Buddha taught to achieve that, since it worked for him and many others before and since. If you want, I don't know, lots of money, then do whatever brings about lots of money, but realize that there are more consequences than may be readily apparent. A good rule of thumb is to cultivate loving-kindness and compassion, and act with genuine compassion towards sentient beings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Probably this was a huge point of divergence, but it is my understanding that now this divergence is largely historical, and the various lineages that practice one or the other acknowledge that both are accurate descriptions of the same thing. My teacher, who has many times stated specifically that he prefers the Yogacara approach, says that at the highest level of understanding both are the same. I think that, ultimately, this is true. Theravada doesn't seem to place the same emphasis on actual emptiness, but when you dig into it, particularly the relationship between impermanence and non-self, the concept is there to some degree. I think there are also hints toward the idea of emptiness in the later meditative absorbtions, where you realize states like "The base of neither perception nor non-perception", and basically exist in states that are empty of form, feeling and perception, etc. This is discussed in the Cula-suññata Sutta. There aren't that many suttas specifically discussing sunyata/suññata in the Pali Canon that I'm aware of. The lesser/greater discourses on emptiness, and this little gem: Suñña Sutta: Empty quote:Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" I don't know much about the Mahayana idea of sunyata but I find it pretty fascinating. If anyone has some good resources on it I'd love to dig in. It is one of those ideas that I hear being brought up as a dividing line between the schools, but I really don't see it ultimately being at odds with Theravada. That might just be due to my own limited understanding but I like to read so fire away. There is a book called "Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teachings on Voidness" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu that covers this topic. It is a collection of talks he gave in Thailand that were later compiled. I haven't read it thoroughly but I flipped through it at Powells last time I was there and it looks really promising if anyone is interested in the Theravada take on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Those are not the siddhis. "Low-level" or otherwise, those sound strongly of the low arts practised by wrongly guided brahmins and recluses warned against in the Brahamajala Sutta's Mahasila discourse. The casting out or dealing with spirits in earth houses, the telling of fortunes or reading of predictions are the debased arts that the Buddha avoided. It was a true story but you're right it has absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a safe probe to see what kind of reaction I'd get from the thread. Some of the hostility doesn't really suprise me, what does suprise me though is the reaction of somebody whom I'd respected and helped in the past, who suddenly turned against me. Disappointing but nothing new I haven't experienced, I would recommend everyone here to be-careful with whom you make friends with. It's easy to fall for flattery, but when the chips are down that's when you find out who is worth trusting. On the other-hand it has shown me that there are some people whom are tolerant of different views and mistakes. It's not all negative which is good. Ugrok- I apologize myself for my post being a bit of an overreaction. Again no hard feelings. ickbar fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:How big were said dogs? I know I have a Saint Bernard that occasionally will plant himself right outside my front door, and if that tail gets going for some reason, it sounds like someone is urgently knocking on the door. It's defintitly possible that maybe the dog wagged it's tail and knocked the door that way, it was just a mystery to me at the time, there may not have been anything strange at all about what happened, in fact its probably more than likely that it was either an elaborate hoax or the dog was able to pull it off. But you know i'm not really hung up on whether it was a genuinely strange or not. Like I said previously it's mainly a test to see how people would react on this forum, because I said earlier that someone would come out of the woodwork, I knew it was going to happen, but it's nice to see some confirmation for myself to know whether I had the right line of thinking. quote:I don't think these tales of mystical experiences detract, or necessarily add, to anything in Buddhism. But I don't think it's any different that Catholic stories of Saints levitating, and if one were to join the Catholic church just in hopes of learning to levitate, they would quickly change their goals, or else just quit. Exactly. ickbar fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Blurred posted:So far as I understand it, in some Buddhist traditions the answer is simply that the dhamma is the sum total of what the Buddha taught: is that correct? In these traditions, is it assumed that the Buddha was the originator of the dhamma or merely that he was the first to properly understand and express it? Did Buddha's enlightenment grant him the unique wisdom to create a (the?) dhamma, or did it just give him the ability to discern what was already a fact of the universe? The first thing to do, which I think would clear up a lot of your questions is to address the different meanings of "Dharma". Simply, it means law, but practically that changes on context. It can be used to refer to phenomenal occurances- objects, abstract conceptualizations, words, anything which has cognition imposed upon it can be called a dharma. Things which might be lawlike as well, such as old age or death. This usage is also found pluralized into Dharmas. Dharma also refers to the fundamental truth of the universe, the absolute truth at the core of buddhism. Building off of this, dharma is also a shorthand for Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma is the formalization and expounding of that fundamental truth- the Dharma of the Dharma. The line blurs here in usage, because the only expression of the dharma or the only formalization is that buddhadharma, so it is often used interchangeably. Addressing the questions with that- The Dharma is an absolute fact of the universe, the Buddha attained to this. When this attainment occured, the Buddha expounded a way, a path to know this absolute fact. Since it can't really be expressed otherwise, this path is called the Dharma out of practicality, as it is just as true. Technically the Buddha was not the first to express it, he is the twenty eighth buddha by traditional reckoning, but the only buddha of our current age, the only one to give us our dharmas. Buddha's enlightenment both granted him the wisdom to discern the fact of the universe, and create the dharma to express that. Blurred posted:In most religious traditions, moral behaviour can generally be assumed to come from one of two sources: explicit divine commandment or divine "inspiration" (e.g. "grace" in Christianity). I'm having trouble placing Buddhism in either of these two categories, or even somewhere between. I understand that moral behaviour within Buddhism is meant to come from adherence to the dhamma, but I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how dhamma is conceived in Buddhist thought or what exactly its source is assumed to be. Buddhism takes a strongly teleological approach to ethics. The merit of actions is judged by whether or not such actions are conducive to the attainment of liberation. A good deed is only good if the cultivation of an enlightened mind is a result. The source of this moral impetus is the mind itself, or more appropriately the capacity for beings to attain enlightenment. Within the two sources you suggest Divine Command theory is inapplicable to buddhism because froma buddhist standpoint, to be morally good is to strive towards nirvana. Certainly you could say that because of the organized traditions of the Buddhadharma that the vinaya and religious duties to discipline imposed on followers constitutes a command from the incarnation of transcendent wisdom. However, the recognition of Dharma as absolute law of the universe overrides the authority of the teachings or words of the buddha. Indeed buddhist religious tradition holds the concept of Pratyekabuddhas. Beings that attain to nirvana without having heard the dharma and in isolation. Samyaksambuddhas, those that are like the buddha, attain without prior "commandments" either! You could suggest inspirational sources for the ethical compulsion in a buddhist sense. Or rather, a mahayanist sense- The tathagatagarbha, or buddha-seed within people might drive them to ethical actions. But this is not a proper understanding- tathagatagarbha lacks agency, and even semantically it can't be said to be the reason these ethical constructs are true. It describes a potentiality, a tendancy, for enlightenment within beings. It operates in the way the capacity for a wheel to roll does. The wheel's capacity to roll is not the source of the rolling, it is not the law of motion which keeps it rolling. This is where it becomes tempting to apply a deontological ethic to buddhism. We cannot perfectly know the results of actions. Some actions might be easy to deduce the outcomes of, but even then a perfect knowledge of that action is going to be nigh-impossible because of the mental and cognitive conditions imposed upon the discrimination of that action. Those who have attained to the dharma however have that capacity to discriminate without mental conditioning and may then know actions perfectly. The words then of these beings, their disciplines and the duty they implore us to can be said to be examples of morality. The ultimate source of this being "human" capacity, perfectly human. Done through reasoned observation and study- honed by discipline, known by freedom. Blurred posted:These passages seem to indicate that dhamma is a facet of reality, that can only be approached individually, through religious praxis. If so, where does this leave the status of Buddha's teachings? Are they mere guides on this view, or do they still carry a great deal of authoritative weight? Is the assumption similarly that the closer one gets to an understanding of dhamma, the more "ethical" they are likely to be? Or does dhamma in such traditions carry a less ethical, more phenomenological meaning? I would be especially interested if someone can comment on the link between dhamma and logos just mentioned there? You are correct in that only individual approach to Dharma is valid. However, calling the words or teachings of the buddha "mere" guides is a little wrong. They are a guide, but a strongly authoritative one. If enlightenment is being able to swim, the buddha is an olympic swimmer. His teachings are lessons on how to swim and be a good swimmer. Incredibly valueable! But if you've read and read and studied and reasoned and logiced the actions of swimming it will not mean anything when you are thrown into the water. Hopefully they give you an understanding of what to do, but it's practise that teaches swimming and by extension enlightenment. A being that has a more developed understanding of Dharma is more likely to be ethical, yes. To touch on the link between dharmakaya and logos- Dharmakaya is understood as one of the modes of expression of enlightened beings (and to an extent all beings). It is the expression of beings as co-union with dharma. In the Theravada tradition, the Dharmakaya of the buddhas is the corpus of dharma and practise left behind. In mahayana traditions it is more related to the logos- The Dharmakaya is a transcendental and perfect wisdom that is the being of buddhas from which their bodies, and our experiences of them emerges. It is them as utter perfections of the Dharma. In vajrayana buddhism the Dharmakaya is the closest to the logos. More than just the utter perfection of the dharma it is the total absolute of all reality, the total dharma and truth uncreated. It is without conceptual elaboration and without duality. It is the body of reality itself without delimited form, without inherent existence and without inherent nonexistence. ickbar posted:It was a true story but you're right it has absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a safe probe to see what kind of reaction I'd get from the thread. Some of the hostility doesn't really suprise me, what does suprise me though is the reaction of somebody whom I'd respected and helped in the past, who suddenly turned against me. Disappointing but nothing new I haven't experienced, I would recommend everyone here to be-careful with whom you make friends with. It's easy to fall for flattery, but when the chips are down that's when you find out who is worth trusting. I think perhaps you are reading into things too much? It does not seem as though you are greeted as much hostility as you think. Although it is understandable that you would be offput by some of the snide humor and skepticism. These are important experiences, personal and intimate. Much can be attached to that and it can be wounding when it's not well recieved. I would encourage you not to be so dissuaded! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Sometimes people come in here asking for book recommendations. For a recommendation about Vajrayana, I have not read much but the few chapters I've read of Walking an Uncommon Path: A Guide to Your Spiritual Quest by His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa is really excellent. It distills the profound advice of Gampopa, Naropa, Nagarjuna, and so on in very plain English, without pretension or obfuscation. Despite the hokey title, I think this is an excellent resource. Though not exactly "scholarly," it's certainly practical, and that's more important for this kind of book. EDIT: I replaced the link to the actual publisher since Amazon wanted a hilariously huge amount of money for it. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I have a kind of silly question but it's one that's really vexing me currently. I don't want to turn this into an E/N thread, but it's a life situation that I'm trying to place within the context of my path, and I'm having trouble seeing what the most compassionate action is here. I recently split up with my girlfriend of 6 months two weeks ago. The more I think about the relationship, the more bitter and resentful I get, because I more or less threw my heart completely at her and she treated me very poorly and more or less took me completely for granted. I'm trying to apply tonglen on the situation whenever I can, and I include her in my bodhicitta practices such as loving-kindness meditation and what not. But it has been very difficult to just accept those emotions, to sit with them and make friends with them. I find that things like staying friends with her on Facebook only amplify those feelings on bitterness. I feel like blocking her would be, on one level, the most compassionate action for myself since it would allow me to heal more fully and one day be able to reconnect as friends with her. However, she more or less begged me not do to this, and I don't want to cause her suffering on this level. I know this is a kind of ridiculous question to be asking on this thread, but I try to take my practice as seriously as possible. I don't know whether putting as much space as possible between myself and this person is the compassionate decision, or trying to work through the haze of bad emotions would be great fodder for bodhisattva practice. I tried the former option on my last ex, and while it worked out very well and helped me heal properly (and has allowed me to recently attempt to make contact with her again), it also felt rather harsh. Apologies if this question is a little too trivial for this thread, but I have a hard time thinking of where else to ask this question outside of asking my Meditation Instructor, who is generally somewhat hard to get in contact with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I would suggest asking your spiritual teacher or meditation instructor, since they are the most aware of your situation and your practice. I don't know much, but I don't see how continuing to hurt yourself and distract yourself from the path is more compassionate. Yes, it is true she might be hurt as a result of what happened. You're also hurt. This is a result of attachment and so on. You split up and are hurting, she split up and is hurting, that is both of your karmas. But lingering on that indefinitely is not helpful. How is it actually helpful to her, if you're friends on Facebook or whatnot? It does not actually benefit her, instead it lets her maintain a false belief that everything is "okay," that the break-up was friendly, that she hasn't really ended anything. I have one friend who was so afraid of abandonment that she would do this same thing, even if she ended a relationship she'd go to great lengths not to actually let go of the other person, because she did not want to "lose them." But I think what's done is done. So, from my perspective, I don't see how maintaining a relationship that has ended, and hurting yourself (and your practice) by so doing, is really helpful here. It doesn't alleviate her suffering, it just prolongs it and allows her to maintain delusions. It's a really lovely situation, but of course this is more or less why Shantideva and so on taught to avoid all attachments to human beings. V  V I hope you find some peace from it all, though. Breakups generally suck.Good for you for practicing tonglen in this situation though, that's really good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Thank you Paramemetic! I always find your words super helpful. I never even considered it from that viewpoint, but I think there is definitely validity to considering the option of keeping the connection alive as a sort of idiot compassion. I just have a lot of trouble trying to reconcile the relative truth of a situation, which is doing what's healthiest for me, with the absolute truth of developing unconditional love and compassion for all sentient beings. I think that, given some time and distance away from the emotions I could easily come to a much healthier and mature outlook of the way that this situation ripened. But I also wonder if I'm depriving myself of powerful practice opportunities by simply taking the "easy way" out. I remember reading one commentary of the Bodhicharyavatara that said something along the lines of "the bodhisattva charges into samsara rather than running away from it" and I wonder whether keeping her out of my life is running away from samsara. But at the same time, it could also be the compassionate action of helping her to exhaust her delusions and see reality clearly. I guess these situations don't generally come in black or white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Not being black or white is about the sum of it. Regarding the absolute truth versus relative truth, it is important to do our best and not take the "easy way out," that's true, but it's also important to not take on more than we can chew. Some of the wisest council I've ever received from my teacher was when I asked him if I should take a lovely hours exhausting job as a unit manager in a psych hospital, where I could really benefit patients but would be constantly under stress, or a simpler job as an EMT. He told me to do the job I wanted, saying "you don't have to be a great bodhisattva in this lifetime, it's alright to be an okay bodhisattva until you have the ability to be great." My understanding is this: The bodhisattva path is a training path. Just like you can't get accepted to undergraduate in college and immediately perform surgery, and it would be goofy to try, so it is similarly goofy to ignore our current circumstances and try to be as compassionate as the great bodhisattvas. There is one story of a novice bodhisattva who is asked for his right hand. He thinks this is a good chance to be generous, so he chops it off, but when he goes to hand it to the person who asked for it, that person is really upset because he is handing it to him with just the left hand, which is defiled in the culture of the time. So the bodhisattva, lacking wisdom, ends up losing his hand and insulting the dude. Because we lack wisdom, it is important to not break ourselves trying to practice at too high a level. That's why it is important to seek the guidance of qualified teachers who can help us. Even if we don't have a close relationship with them, reading their words and so on really helps. Edit: And then in the end, you have to choose for yourself and rely on your understanding and right motivation. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Paramemetic/Quantumfate - Do you participate in Chenrezig Sadhana? What are your thoughts on it? The place I mentioned before, Columbus' Karma Thegsum Choling has this Tuesday and Thursday nights, which I am able to attend. However I don't think I will make that my first visit, I have a free Sunday coming up in which I can attend the meditation class as well as the 'intro to buddhism'. Is Vajrayana part of Mahayana or Theravada, or does it stand separate from them? Paramemetic, I also wanted to mention I looked up the Palyul Ling school in Ohio, but it is actually quite a bit north of Columbus, making it something like a 2+ hour trip for me. It is certainly something I would check out if closer though Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:Paramemetic/Quantumfate - Do you participate in Chenrezig Sadhana? What are your thoughts on it? The place I mentioned before, Columbus' Karma Thegsum Choling has this Tuesday and Thursday nights, which I am able to attend. However I don't think I will make that my first visit, I have a free Sunday coming up in which I can attend the meditation class as well as the 'intro to buddhism'. Chenrezig deity yoga (sadhana) is a simple and powerful practice that (usually) does not require any kind of special empowerment or so on. I practice it when my Sangha practices it, but I don't use it as a daily practice right now. Still, it is a good introduction to deity yoga and a really fulfilling practice, good for developing bodhicitta and nurturing compassion. Even my wife, who is not keen on all the trappings of Tibetan Buddhism and all of the deity yoga things, finds this practice really good. I would encourage you to check it out, yeah. quote:Is Vajrayana part of Mahayana or Theravada, or does it stand separate from them? By the Tibetan reckoning, Vajrayana represents the "third turning of the wheel" of Dharma, with the first being the Hinayana and the practice of renunciation, the second being the Mahayana and teachings on emptiness, and the third being Vajrayana and teachings on Buddha-nature. By this reckoning, none of them are separate, but rather they are all built one atop another, with the Hinayana as the foundation, and the Mahayana built upon that. Then Vajrayana is on top of the Mahayana. Without the Mahayana or Hinayana, there can be no Vajrayana. That said, it is similar to the Mahayana in that it consists of the Bodhisattva ideal as the "higher standard." In Vajrayana, the Bodhisattva vows are greater or more profound than the Vinaya. So basically, it's part of the Mahayana, but distinct enough to be recognizable as separate. For example, the reliance on the Guru as a "fourth object of Refuge" is unique to Vajrayana. quote:Paramemetic, I also wanted to mention I looked up the Palyul Ling school in Ohio, but it is actually quite a bit north of Columbus, making it something like a 2+ hour trip for me. It is certainly something I would check out if closer though Cool, sorry it is not very close. I don't know what else there is in Columbus but the center with the Chenrezig practice should be very good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:Thank you Paramemetic! I always find your words super helpful. I never even considered it from that viewpoint, but I think there is definitely validity to considering the option of keeping the connection alive as a sort of idiot compassion. I just have a lot of trouble trying to reconcile the relative truth of a situation, which is doing what's healthiest for me, with the absolute truth of developing unconditional love and compassion for all sentient beings. I think that, given some time and distance away from the emotions I could easily come to a much healthier and mature outlook of the way that this situation ripened. But I also wonder if I'm depriving myself of powerful practice opportunities by simply taking the "easy way" out. I remember reading one commentary of the Bodhicharyavatara that said something along the lines of "the bodhisattva charges into samsara rather than running away from it" and I wonder whether keeping her out of my life is running away from samsara. But at the same time, it could also be the compassionate action of helping her to exhaust her delusions and see reality clearly. I guess these situations don't generally come in black or white. When I broke up with my girlfriend of 3.5 years, she practically begged me not block her on facebook and cut contact. I had the exact same thoughts that you had; I wondered what the compassionate thing to do was. So for a while, I thought I would try to be there for her, comfort her, be compassionate. Except I wasn't being compassionate, I was really just afraid of doing what I knew was the only thing that would give us both a real chance of moving on. I was afraid of the guilt from hurting someone I loved, I was afraid because it would really be over, i.e. I had to actually let go. There's a difference between giving someone* what they need and what they want. I think it's the job of wisdom to direct compassion towards the needs and away from the wants. *including yourself
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Just a thought I had: South Park is often criticized for it's 'truth is in the middle' approach to politics and yet the Buddha taught the middle way as the path to enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Just a thought I had: South Park is often criticized for it's 'truth is in the middle' approach to politics and yet the Buddha taught the middle way as the path to enlightenment. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Would you mind expanding on this blurb from the OP?quote:You should though, think long and hard, and consider why rebirth is so antithetical to an atheist viewpoint- why do most atheists hold an abrahamic conception of life as ceasing upon the cessation of physical activities? There is no soul, so why the insistence that oblivion is the result of that ego-state passing, and what about when that ego-state passes but the physical form persists? What happens to the matter of that body, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
I have a question: My girlfriend suffered from intracranial hemorrhage two days ago. Without her dad being at home (by chance), she would have died and even now she is in a serious, if stable condition. At least the doctors say that she has really good chances of a full recovery. I have visited her a few times now and she is responsive - so I'm optimstic as well - but I'm struggling with making sense of this experience. The confrontation with my helplessness in the face of these events makes it hard to integrate this in my life, especially with the contradictory thoughts and emotions involved: I am so glad that she is still with us, but I was also being confronted with the chance of this happening again and eventually her death -this way or another (this is the best relationship I've ever had, we are planning to move together in September after two-and-a-half years and hope to have children in a few years). I have tried to meditate on this topic long before this event, but I never felt such a vivid connection to the fundamental ephemerality of things as now. Would you have advice on how to manage this from the perspective of Buddhist thought? I am not very practiced, am neither part of a school nor have any teachers, so I kind of lack the vocabulary and knowledge to make use of the - I believe - massive potential of this experience for the wellbeing of myself and others (especially my girlfried). Regarding my health: I have strong social support of family members (her and mine) and friends and, after bawling my eyes out for the first night, now feel more confident in engaging with this in a rational matter. SavageGentleman fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 12:30
|
|
