|
The-Mole posted:I know it is not a new idea, but it is a peculiar chunk of Buddhism to adopt. From the Pali canon, the parts about meditating on corpses seem to be meant literally - not sitting on top of on perhaps - but at least next to one. It makes sense though, historically we have had a much more intimate relationship with death; not to have a bunch of people in your family die would have been a rare exception. Basically it seems strange to us because we're so estranged from death, but this is only a very recent thing. The-Mole posted:I'm wary personally of efforts to meditate away troubles (especially when treated as do X meditation Y problem goes away). That said, the more common approach to lust that I've heard is to just treat (and view others) as you would a brother/sister or parent/grandparent. I've heard that suggested most notably in Mahayana and Vajrayana (in which the practice of treating others with the same respect/care/concern that you would your own family is basically the essence of the boddhisattva ideal), though I've also heard it mentioned many times in Theravadan talks. What he described is more the realm of giving power to aversions.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I think the idea is just to analyze the object of your desire. When you lust after someone, you basically want their body, but what actually is a body? It's skin, muscles, sinew, fluids, snot, goo, puss, bacteria, etc. That's not so sexy, is it? Part of the point is to to see things as they are rather than as you perceive them. It's about digging deeper in your understanding. As in, what is a human? Well, it's a walking collection of organs and parts with a mind, right? As for lust and what have you, you're supposed to be understanding what you are lusting after and why. Why is it that straight men find breasts so fascinating and just what is a breast in the first place? As for the want or urge side of things you're not supposed to be suppressing desire but rather letting go of it. Suppressing desires is unhealthy yes but one of the goals is to not be ruled by want or have your actions dictated by feelings and desires. In the case of sex and lust the thought tends to be "I want to have *kind of* sex with *type* of person so I must do *thing* to get it." Instead it's "my body is telling me I should fulfill sexual desires." Later on, after higher levels of mastery have been achieved, you can turn off those drives completely so that suppressing them isn't even an issue. In any event it's more useful, from the standpoint of meditation, to get to the point where these things can be viewed as information and nothing more. "My body wants to have sex with another body" is information. How do you respond to it and why is your body telling you that? That's my understanding of such things, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:It isn't for everyone, for sure. And as far as I can tell, it isn't a very common meditation technique. I believe it would also require a certain amount of experience and insight with meditation to "ensure," if you will, that you are understanding the causes of desires and not just sublimating them, such as the way Christians (I have a lot of experience from the Catholic side) believe that even having lustful thoughts is akin to committing them physically. This of course doesn't address the "why" of the thoughts coming into existence but instead causes people to suppress them without addressing them and instilling a healthy dose of guilt (to some) at the same time. Meditating on a decomposing corpse is all well and good if you are understanding that what you feel attachment to is not really what you think it is rather than thinking "Oh man, she has great tits and that rear end and I want to bang her so ba--wait, rotting corpse, rotting corpse, rotting corpse."
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
This is more of a general religion question but I'd like to hear a Buddhist perspective on it. Consciousness arises probably because of chemical reactions in my brain and I assume this is true of other humans and animals but why is it that I'm experiencing consciousness of this particular body instead of the consciousness of other people? Why am I experiencing what I'm experiencing instead of what other people are experiencing??
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Frykte posted:This is more of a general religion question but I'd like to hear a Buddhist perspective on it. Consciousness arises probably because of chemical reactions in my brain and I assume this is true of other humans and animals but why is it that I'm experiencing consciousness of this particular body instead of the consciousness of other people? Why am I experiencing what I'm experiencing instead of what other people are experiencing?? Your karma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Your karma. This. To note though, Buddhism doesn't discount things like brain chemistry having an effect on who you are and how you behave in this life. Buddhism is awesome because it accepts science and its progression. HHDL is fascinated with all science and states over and over that he wishes that some of the places who have the Buddha's relics would let scientists carbon date them to see how old they are and whether they could really be authentic. You'll almost never see the Church (referring to Catholic) letting relics get tested (they have but it's few and far in between). So, say you are born with a severe chemical imbalance eventually diagnosed as schizophrenia. Buddhism doesn't deny that it is your brain chemistry that is causing it, nor would they say that it can or should be fixed without medical/pharmacological treatment. But why were you born that way? Karma. Past actions from previous lives. And it's a gift to be born as a human rather than in the three (talking Tibetan here) lower realms; as an animal, a hungry ghost, or a hell being - each of those realms increasing in the intensity in length of suffering. An example: in one of the hells (there's a bunch), your length of time there would be equivalent to if you had a barrel full of rice and you would have to be there for the amount of time that it would take you to empty the barrel of rice one grain at a time. But you can only remove one grain every hundred years. Tibetan is pretty trippy, I know. So, past actions from previous lives brought you here and actions in this life will direct where you end up next time. Hopefully, we get to the point after lots and lots of positive rebirths, directed by our actions in each life, where we can hit the eject button and get out of the cycle (samsara) altogether and attain nirvana, or choose to stay out of compassion and help others break the cycle (being a Bodhisattva). Count Freebasie fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
How did the Buddhists in this thread decide on the tradition they're currently following? I'm just taking my first steps into Buddhism, but I want to make sure these steps are as right as I can make them. I am going to list what I seem to have surmised so far on a few traditions - if someone could point out misconceptions, or just provide general guidance on my thought processes, it would be greatly appreciated. Theravada - seems to put more importance on the actions of the individual? (i.e. no reliance on or asking supplication from bodhisattvas). The "original" Buddhism - using only canons that are agreed upon by all Buddhists as being the original words of the Buddha (or as close to such a thing as is possible)? The only downside seems to me to be a major one - great emphasis placed on monastic life, leaving little duties or expectations for enlightenment for lay people. Being a monk is, to say the least, impractical for me - and nonetheless, I don't think I believe only monastics are privileged to attain enlightenment. Mahayana - allows that everyone contains the potential for attaining Buddhahood, but also seems to require faith in a number of supernatural entities? (Bodhisattvas that can assist you in your life, and were said to possess metahuman powers while in their earthly lives.) Also holds that Buddha is an eternal entity, I believe? I realize Mahayana is a massive umbrella, even more than other vehicles - but I understand these to be common to most schools. I really enjoy the Mahayana approach to laity; that is, that everyone can achieve enlightenment. But the nature and role of the bodhisattvas troubles me. Rebirth is something I'm wrestling with already but have no problem with as such - the existence of explicitly supernatural deities is more difficult. Sometimes they seem to be equated with Christian saints, but saints are supposedly just able to intercede on your behalf through their deeper connection to God. I'm not sure how bodhisattvas are explained to be able to assist you in Buddhism. Did Buddha himself speak on these issues? I also am leery of tradition that depends on additional canons, especially ones not recognized by other adherents (I realize I may be inserting my foot very far into my mouth here - but I only seek clarification). And finally a question about Zen Buddhism - my local Zen group seems to emphasize that it does not conflict with any belief system, and can be fully practiced by people who are also Christians, Muslims, atheists, what have you. Does Zen Buddhism do away with belief in rebirth? What about karma? Zen seems appealing but I also don't think I'm looking for a tradition that removes crucial elements of the Buddha's teaching. I believe Zen also incorporates many elements of Taoism, correct? This also gives me pause. This is to say nothing of other vehicles, but I am already somewhat convinced that Tibetan Buddhism and other Vajrayana traditions are not for me. I could, of course, be entirely wrong about this. Ultimately, I am sure advice will be offered that I'd be better off worrying less about picking the right tradition from the get-go and rather should just get started, learning as I go and changing schools if need be. But I think my questions here are merely a baseline, and I am hoping to find some initial guidance before I dig deeper into Buddhism. Thank you to everyone who reads this and especially those who can offer me help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
I just kept visiting various traditions until I didn't feel weirded out and felt like I fit in with the community.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
My initial exposure to Buddhism, in a serious sense, was Dhamma talks from various Thai forest monks and Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words". I was also interested in early Buddhism, and I feel Theravada is probably the closest existing tradition which accurately reflects the teachings of the historical Buddha. I should note, however, that there are canonical portions of the tradition which are clearly later additions (like Abidhamma). There are some Theravada monks who are currently doing research in order to get to the core of the historical Buddha's teaching by textual comparison and other scholarly means, so that is where my interest is slowly moving instead of actual Theravada orthodoxy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Mad Wack posted:I just kept visiting various traditions until I didn't feel weirded out and felt like I fit in with the community. Yeah basically this. Just kept looking up sanghas and poo poo like that until I fit in. If whatever they were talking about was too whacky I left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I started studying Buddhism and meditation before I actually became a Buddhist. I call myself a Zen Buddhist because it seems to fit most, from what I've read. Buddhists are extremely rare where I live so I'm a pretty solitary one. I've taught a few people the basics who wanted to learn over the years but yeah...not much Buddhism here. I say Zen because, after studying the other ones, I felt like Zen was what I was basically practicing anyway, in that it emphasizes experience and koans, on top of personal experience over doctrine and dogma. I guess I'm more nondenominational than anything but Zen fits the most. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Practice what is available and what works for you well. I currently practice the tradition I'm practicing because it was convenient to me when I moved. I have recently been introduced to another school that I have a strong connection with. Especially in the Tibetan traditions it is not common to stick to only one thing perfectly, because we have karma that ties us to many things. I have one friend who was studying under a Gelug monk, with whom she was very close. When she first met someone from the Kagyu school, her Gelug monk said straight up "you have strong karmic ties to Kagyu, go do that too." It is pretty common. So for example, I practice Drikung Kagyu, but also am really drawn to Drukpa. However, there do not seem to be any Drukpa schools in North America. So you know, that is meaningful. Not sure how. Anyways, you should practice what speaks to you. You'll have some things that you really relate to and some things you don't. One thing I would discourage is going "well, I shouldn't practice anything until I know that I'm really practicing the right school." I knew when I started at my current center that Drikung Kagyu was not exactly the correct school, but I was wisely advised by my teacher to practice that until another connection was made. If we wait forever and never start studying, never start practicing, because we're waiting for exactly the right school or teacher or circumstances or so on, then we waste a lot of time. Also, practicing will lead to the accumulation of merit, and that merit can lead to other opportunities arising. So basically, you should go practice and get involved in whatever is close to you, Theravada, Mahayana, whatever works for you, and then just develop as it goes. There is no need for rigid labels and self-identification with lineages, this will only limit you. While it is true that in the beginning, it is really useful to stick to one tradition or school, that is mainly to prevent confusion. Like, in Tibetan Buddhism, one tradition might identify Vajradhara as the primordial Buddha, another might identify Samantabhadra, another might call Vairocana that primordial Buddha. They will all have slightly different rituals and methods and so on. So, that can be really confusing. But I don't know if that's a problem outside Vajrayana, and it's more important to be doing something than ruminating over the right one to do. Do one, and without attachment, you can find the one that works best for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Pancakes by Mail posted:Ultimately, I am sure advice will be offered that I'd be better off worrying less about picking the right tradition from the get-go and rather should just get started, learning as I go and changing schools if need be. But I think my questions here are merely a baseline, and I am hoping to find some initial guidance before I dig deeper into Buddhism.  I think it's much more important to notice when a teacher or text inspires you, when you get that feeling of 'wow, there is something really profound here'. Ultimately this is what will drive you along the path anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Also be a healthy skeptic - I had a group I really liked and found incredibly informative and good, but then the longer I spent with them the more it changed and suddenly everyone in the sangha had to go to 400+ dollar private sessions with some yogi I had never heard of, I was quick to leave but they tried a lot of different pressure tactics to get me back. I had been there for years and had lots of friends in that group.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Mad Wack posted:Also be a healthy skeptic - I had a group I really liked and found incredibly informative and good, but then the longer I spent with them the more it changed and suddenly everyone in the sangha had to go to 400+ dollar private sessions with some yogi I had never heard of, I was quick to leave but they tried a lot of different pressure tactics to get me back. I had been there for years and had lots of friends in that group. Basically my experience with Thich Nhat Hanh's sangha locally. I left because it wasn't doing anything for me, and the paying $500-600 or something to go on retreats to gain cred wasn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Pancakes by Mail posted:
Well written set of questions. Thanks for posting. Zen doesn't do away with rebirth or karma but it places less emphasis on them. Zen doesn't deny that those things exist but Zen practitioners (from what I've found) focus more on the present moment and acting appropriately. Your karma is your karma, how you react to things as they arise in each moment is what generates your future karma i.e. if you act with compassion and kindness in every moment, your future karma is taking care of, so to speak. So zen focuses on the present moment and being fully aware. Rebirth, since it is part of the Mahayana, is also part of the Zen tradition but again, it is downplayed because if you life a good life as a good person, you'll have a good rebirth. In all of these things, the real focus is to be present and follow the teachings here and now. The other things take care of themselves. At least that's how I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:Well written set of questions. Thanks for posting. My understanding of Zen is that it emphasizes personal experience greatly. The fundamental truth is there but there are a poo poo load of different ways to get there. The important thing is that you be kind and compassionate. The reason you are kind and compassionate is secondary. If you treat people well because Jesus told you and you believe in a god that will punish you for being an rear end in a top hat then fine, you have the important part of "don't be a dick" down. Zen also doesn't hold that there are some scriptures or dogmas that are more or less important than others or paths of study that are important. You find wisdom absolutely anywhere you can. It's better to come to conclusions yourself and embrace them then be told what the conclusion was and accept it just because somebody else told you to. There's a certain amount of that in all Buddhism but that's much bigger in Zen. It's why Zen archery and Zen calligraphy and whatnot exist. You can actually learn a great deal about patience, discipline, and even yourself by picking some sort of skill, mastering it, and analyzing every little detail of what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
We should take inspiration from everything. Phakchok Rinpoche, supreme head of the Taklung Kagyu Lineage, recently had this posted on his Facebook page: Phakchok Rinpoche posted:Phakchok Rinpoche purchased this drawing in Laguna Beach on the night of June 4th after teaching on the Five Qualities of Great Compassion at the Neighborhood Community Church. After the talk, one of the organizers brought Rinpoche to see some live music at a local restaurant. During the performance, a woman was walking around and selling her drawings. Rinpoche bought four, and shared a message associated with this one of Garfield: Edit: lol at the giant image
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
If somehow, a baby born into the world immediately started meditating like a meditation prodigy, and then didn't stop meditating until death what would the babies karma be after life?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Sounds like a boring life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Frykte posted:If somehow, a baby born into the world immediately started meditating like a meditation prodigy, and then didn't stop meditating until death what would the babies karma be after life? Does their preoccupation with meditation cause those around them to suffer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Are they any good at meditation or just sitting there uncomfortably cross-legged for a lifetime thinking about boning people?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Pancakes by Mail posted:And finally a question about Zen Buddhism - my local Zen group seems to emphasize that it does not conflict with any belief system, and can be fully practiced by people who are also Christians, Muslims, atheists, what have you. Does Zen Buddhism do away with belief in rebirth? What about karma? Zen seems appealing but I also don't think I'm looking for a tradition that removes crucial elements of the Buddha's teaching. I believe Zen also incorporates many elements of Taoism, correct? This also gives me pause. Excellent answer by Helix. Here is more food for thought about this question : http://hardcorezen.info/what-should-we-think-about-death/2920 Basically, in Dogen's Shobogenzo (one of the most important soto zen book), rebirth is not literally possible. What is dead, stays dead. Ashes won't be wood again. But at the same time, rebirth is sometimes talked about. It's complicated, it seems, but anyway, helix was on point : what matters in zen is not what happens next or whatever. What matters is what happens now. And now, there is, in fact, no death or life. And yes, zen and taoism are very close. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out, just to clarify, that the above is true for all Buddhism. Ashes won't become wood again, and the being you are now will never exist again. Beings arise based on causes and conditions, and the exact causes and conditions that supported the arising of this being will never, can never exist again. Rebirth does not mean that this mind, this consciousness will be reborn. After all, this mind changes moment to moment and can never return to a previous state, how could it possibly arise again? So yeah, no Buddhism believes that you will be reborn again. Just that rebirth occurs, and upon your death, another being will be born.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It's worth pointing out, just to clarify, that the above is true for all Buddhism. Ashes won't become wood again, and the being you are now will never exist again. Beings arise based on causes and conditions, and the exact causes and conditions that supported the arising of this being will never, can never exist again. Rebirth does not mean that this mind, this consciousness will be reborn. After all, this mind changes moment to moment and can never return to a previous state, how could it possibly arise again? I think that dying and being reborn as a human being again, is basically a more extreme version of the personality changes we go through during our lives. If it wasn't in this way, it wouldn't make sense that we can feel the consequences of our actions in this life in the next life (according to karma). It'd be akin to me doing something unskillful and then some other dude feeling the result of it. This might not be what you intended to say*, I just felt like commenting. In the pali canon it's pretty clear that as individuals we have a really strong incentive to act morally, for our 'own' sake, whoever we might think we are. Edit: *As in, I know you are maybe not saying that there is no connection between this and the next life, but I wanted to comment anyway
Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Right, it's not that it's a separate person, but the being is not the same being. Similarly, I'm not the same being I was when I was born. This is an easy way to see how people change drastically over time. In what way am I the same as the little baby that was born then? I'm different in every possible way, probably not one atom is the same. So that's an easy way to tell that we're not the same even moment to moment. So in that way, the rebirth we have is not us. There is of course a connection, just like things that little baby did or what happened to that baby affect me. That baby maybe bonked its head and now I'm no so well, or maybe fell into a blender and I have no arm, or something. Similarly, if we commit misdeeds in this lifetime, then we will definitely have results in future lifetimes. But it's not us that actually will feel that way. Right now, you feel exactly what you feel, you experience exactly what you experience, you do exactly what you do. Tomorrow, "you" do that, but that connection between the you today and the you tomorrow is very tenuous at best. Maybe today I am given a billion dollars inheritance, then tomorrow we'll see if I'm the same person! The whole way we see the world is changing moment to moment. Maybe tonight I have a stroke, then it's impossible to tell what tomorrow "I" will be like. So really, it's important to realize that "I" am always changing, always a different being, even though we have this illusion that we're the same. There is a continuity, but it's not the same being from moment to moment. This is why when we talk about a mindstream it isn't about the flow perpetuating, but more about how the water changes in a stream every day. We say "oh that is the Potomac River, it's the same today as it was yesterday, as it will be tomorrow." But it's not, is it? Every single atom of water is different, not even one atom of that water is the same today as it was yesterday, or it will be tomorrow. So how is it the same? Similarly, everything in our life changes, but it still is the same continuity. So this is why it's really important to mainly focus on right now, today, and not worry so much about tomorrow or next year or next lifetime. Right now is where we are as a result of our karma, no matter what our karma is. So let's work with what we have right now. If we focus on next year or next lifetime, we're not able to be mindful of the present, and our decisions aren't going to make us happy now or benefit sentient beings right now. Also, if we think too much about things we've done in the past, wrong deeds, if we really dwell on these things, it's going to distract us a lot and we're not going to make good decisions based on the present. Basically, there's a really, really good comic about this here: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If it wasn't in this way, it wouldn't make sense that we can feel the consequences of our actions in this life in the next life (according to karma). It'd be akin to me doing something unskillful and then some other dude feeling the result of it. But maybe "your" actions are not really "your" actions ? Maybe the "other dude" is not really separate from you at all ? Maybe every action has effect on everything, regardless of how we divide the world in categories ? Every moment contains every past moment. Everything i do right now comes from "past" karma. I don't think those ideas about rebirth are about individual lives, but rather about how everything appears and disappears continuously, moment after moment after moment. It's like an endless flux of activity, which sometimes manifest itself as a human being ; but this human being does not own the flux or limit the flux, on the contrary he is "contained" in it, or better maybe, he is it. In this point of view, everything produced is conditioned by previous activity, so it literally has an effect on everyone, everywhere. So maybe saying "i feel the consequences of past life" does not mean that a former version of "you" influences the present "you", it just means that every past life defines your life right now. It's nothing crazy really, it's just that every action conditions the next. It's a basic rule. In the end, maybe there is no distinction between your life and other lives ; it's always the same stream of continuous activity, as paramemetic said already... (This would also be a taoist point of view, i guess). Ugrok fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:But maybe "your" actions are not really "your" actions ? Maybe the "other dude" is not really separate from you at all ? Maybe every action has effect on everything, regardless of how we divide the world in categories ? Ugrok posted:Every moment contains every past moment. Everything i do right now comes from "past" karma. I don't think those ideas about rebirth are about individual lives, but rather about how everything appears and disappears continuously, moment after moment after moment. It's like an endless flux of activity, which sometimes manifest itself as a human being ; but this human being does not own the flux or limit the flux, on the contrary he is "contained" in it, or better maybe, he is it. In this point of view, everything produced is conditioned by previous activity, so it literally has an effect on everyone, everywhere. So maybe saying "i feel the consequences of past life" does not mean that a former version of "you" influences the present "you", it just means that every past life defines your life right now. It's nothing crazy really, it's just that every action conditions the next. It's a basic rule. Excerp from Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta posted:"But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.8 Link to suttas on rebirth. Ugrok posted:In the end, maybe there is no distinction between your life and other lives ; it's always the same stream of continuous activity, as paramemetic said already... (This would also be a taoist point of view, i guess).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I'm talking about separate as in if the other dude gets punched, I don't feel the pain, but if I get punched, I do feel the pain. So who - at the end of the day - gets punched becomes pretty important. I think we're talking about slightly different things though. I believe the point Ugrok is making is that whether I feel the pain, or he feels the pain, is utterly arbitrary. Pain is felt, and the dualistic dichotomy of "self" and "other" is merely a matter of arbitrary referent point, there is nothing intrinsically about you or them that can make for a meaningful distinction except the limitation of sensory input. Now, splitting hairs, of course, there is a reason (karma) that "he" is the one receiving the punch and the pain, and of course in the Tibetan "two truths" model it is considered pretty asinine to say something like "well there is no being to be punched, only emptiness" or something like this - it is plainly evident that someone is getting punched, and feeling it. But the distinction of self versus other feeling the punching is in fact rather irrelevant. Self is illusory, other is illusory, a punching is felt, and it is unfortunate. In terms of moral value, it is irrelevant, a being is suffering, and whether it's him or me is only important to me due to my own self-grasping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Yup those are pretty important points... It's always difficult to intricate relative and absolute. I was about to say, to follow paramemetic, that for pain to be felt, there has to be a you separate from the pain ; and if i'm not mistaken (and i might be), buddhism is also about "no self". So the pain happens, but who feels it ? It's an event as any other event, taken in a chain of other events... But i totally agree that those are just words, and that when i feel pain i'd rather not feel it... Maybe we have to acknowledge the absolute while not throwing away the relative. It's a difficult path, a middle path... Thanks for the discussion ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I believe the point Ugrok is making is that whether I feel the pain, or he feels the pain, is utterly arbitrary. Pain is felt, and the dualistic dichotomy of "self" and "other" is merely a matter of arbitrary referent point, there is nothing intrinsically about you or them that can make for a meaningful distinction except the limitation of sensory input. Unless you're going to the dentist saying 'I don't need anesthetics because self is illusory' it's 'just words', so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Yup those are pretty important points... It's always difficult to intricate relative and absolute. On the absolute level, of course, there is no self to feel pain, and what we conceptualize as pain is merely a transient state of emptiness. "No self" is definitely a thing of Buddhism, but "no self" is a statement of lacking intrinsic identity. Nagarjuna is quick to ask "show me, where is the self?" as a quick and handy proof that it cannot be found anywhere. Still, emptiness is a thing of Buddhism, and at the ultimate level, "pain" is merely an attribution, a conceptual thought arising from sensation and perception, and not intrinsic or inherent at all. I'm not sure I understand the phrasing on your second line there. Pain is felt, pain is a sensation that is arising, and for it to arise there must be a sensor, and the sensor must perceive the pain, and conceptualize it, and so on. But this becomes really dangerously dismissive of pain, of sensation, and so on. It is not wise to conflate emptiness and no-self with nihilism, which we come dangerously close to when we start declaring that things that are felt are not felt, things that occur do not occur, and so on. So I mean it's really important not to go "well, no pain is felt because there is neither source of pain nor perceiver of pain," as this leads to both callousness and a lack of compassion, and heedlessness and a lack of caring. It is better to realize that the distinction between self and other is irrelevant, that whenever pain is felt, we should prioritize that pain as if it were our own, considering that if pain is felt at all, it is no different than if we feel it, or our own mother. We should therefore react to the pain being felt as we would if we were the ones feeling it, always endeavoring to protect others from pain as we do ourselves. Likewise, we should support others in their happiness, because their happiness is as if we ourselves were so happy, so we should always support others in their genuine happiness, because it is not really different from our own, only because of our conceptual thoughts do we feel like it is "someone else's." Rhymenoceros posted:I think intellectually that makes sense, but we're forced to relate to the world through our conventional selves because we're not enlightened, and to our conventional selves it is not arbitrary who feels the pain. Not with that attitude, mister.  When something intellectually makes sense, we should endeavor to actually realize the state. If we simply go, "well, that is all well and good in theory, but in practice it is not true" then we are not going to improve. Saying it this way reinforces it as a conceptual thought, it builds up our attachment to understanding that this is the way it is. Within Nagarjuna's two truths doctrine, the understanding is that there are ultimate truths and relative truths. The relative truths are the conventional truths, they are true only relative to our experience of them. Naturally, it is true that if you're punched it will hurt. But if we cling to that very strongly and say "it is definitely true that this hurts" we are only reinforcing this wrong view, that this conceptual perception of pain is our own, that it belongs to us, and so, implicitly, we reinforce other problematic concepts, such as an intrinsic self. This view encourages self-grasping. If we say "that pain is his, this not-pain is mine" then this is twice as bad, because now we have reinforced both self and other! I think it's better to look at it the other way, to go "well, this hurts, but really it is emptiness. I should take efforts not to feel this pain, because it is unpleasant, but I know that it is only unpleasant because of my self-grasping." If we are accomplished enough, we can achieve the state of "one taste," the realization that all sensation is the same, unpleasant things and pleasant things are only dualistically defined by our own conceptual thought - we make a sensation unpleasant by our mental attribution, it is not inherently so. Of course, unenlightened beings like us are not so good that we can do that easily, we're not really developed enough to actually realize that so that we can go "oh, this getting punched is like angel's kisses." But if we simply say, "well, the practical reality is that my face hurts now and this is really true," then we're just reinforcing the problem. quote:Unless you're going to the dentist saying 'I don't need anesthetics because self is illusory' it's 'just words', so to speak. Even enlightened beings probably would not do this, because not conventionally useful. Even enlightened beings feel pain, but to them, they don't suffer from it, because they accept it as merely arising phenomena and do not elaborate on it mentally. Mental elaboration is the cause of suffering from pain, bad tastes, and so on. But these mental elaborations are really strong! We're so used to them after thousands of lifetimes of experiencing them and saying to ourselves "oh, this is really real, it is really unpleasant!" So intellectually understanding this is not useful. This is why we need to practice and meditate and so on. I think even for an enlightened being they would accept anaesthetics because anaesthetics or non-anaesthetics does not matter to them, it's the same, so they probably wouldn't "rock the boat" unless they were trying to teach us. But regardless, I don't think it's "just words" simply because we haven't realized it. It's what we're trying to accomplish, after all, and we don't do that by going "but that doesn't matter unless you're enlightened." You're already enlightened, you're just delusional. Remove the delusion, and you'll see. So yeah, I think even if our knowledge of something is just intellectual, it's important to think on that and meditate on it and consider it when we're in pain. Meditation on emptiness is a really good way to handle pain, I really think that is true from my experience. I am not accomplished or realized at all, but one time on retreat, I was very sick, and my teacher was talking about meditation on emptiness. I had a very high fever, and I was shaking with chills and just in a lot of pain, but when he talked about emptiness, suddenly I was no longer suffering from the pain, because I was able to recognize that it is just a sensation arising, transient and unreal, just emptiness. So I think even intellectually thinking about this is really good, but I don't know. I don't think it's good if because of that you don't protect yourself or use medications or something. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Thanks paramemetic ! Nothing to add, or remove, from what you said. I was not trying to say that pain is meaningless or should be left alone or ignored. I was just trying to put it in perspective with the question of rebirth, which started the discussion. By considering pain as a simple event, and not putting the emphasis on WHO feels it, then we can understand how it influences the whole chain of events, thus creating "problems" for future "lives".
Ugrok fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Paramemetic, thank you for your rundown of the schools I asked about earlier. It's very helpful and I will likely visit one this weekend. I have a question about depression or the feeling of helplessness. I have read before that there is a level of understanding that reveals to you how sad things are in general, but that is only a half-truth - in actuality, samsara is rife with the potential for enlightenment. (I am probably paraphrasing very poorly) I am at a point where I frequently find myself aching for suffering in the world and my heart will frequently feel heavy. I am better about not treating my own problems like they mean a lot because I am good at maintaining equanimity in the face of day-to-day trouble, but I sometimes feel despondent about the violence in the world. (I also sometimes feel despondent about my own inability to change at the pace I want. I naturally interrupt people IRL and, even though I can in general get away with it amongst my friends, I do not want to treat other people's ideas and feelings so callously.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Can we find some middle ground between telling people that ask about Buddhism that it's a thoughtcrime not to personally believe in rebirth and that "school X totally doesn't teach rebirth because I have a poor grasp of their actual teachings but not enough to not feel I should present what knowledge I have"? That'd be really cool. Impermanent posted:I am at a point where I frequently find myself aching for suffering in the world and my heart will frequently feel heavy. There's kind of a different way of looking at this that isn't strictly canonical, but is there any reason you're doing what you're doing instead of actively working on improving things in some tiny way yourself? There are big injustices in the world that upset me and I feel from a Buddhist perspective if I am aware of the suffering of my other sentient beings I am obligated at some level to attempt to do what I can, at least to a small extent. I don't mean like move to Gaza and join the protests, but there are plenty of human rights orgs who are desperate for help at a local level. I mean, if the real suffering of others is causing you suffering isn't doing anything at all the most skillful way to alleviate the suffering of both yourself and potentially those others?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Sithsaber posted:Do you guys have any info on this guy? The Chinese don't want to allow him a funeral. I didn't see anyone respond to this, but this may extend to the political situation regarding the two Karmapas. Ogyen Trinley has pretty much been recognized by the the DL, and has his seat in Nepal. Shamar discovered and recognized Trinley Thaye, and this has caused a bit of a rift in the community that belongs to the Karmapa's lineage. I don't really bother with the politics, but there is some belief that Ogyen Trinley is a Chinese plant, and a knife fight has occurred in the past over this matter in Nepal, so they may be trying to mitigate what could happen. I'm getting all this from my dad, who was pretty into the scene back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Not with that attitude, mister. Especially for someone who's just starting out, I remember having all sorts of weird ideas when I was just starting out. Paramemetic posted:Even enlightened beings probably would not do this, because not conventionally useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Paramemetic, thank you for your rundown of the schools I asked about earlier. It's very helpful and I will likely visit one this weekend. I'm glad, I think that would be excellent for you. quote:I have a question about depression or the feeling of helplessness. I have read before that there is a level of understanding that reveals to you how sad things are in general, but that is only a half-truth - in actuality, samsara is rife with the potential for enlightenment. (I am probably paraphrasing very poorly) Samsara is unsatisfactory by definition. Nowhere in this entire samsara in all the six realms can even one moment of absolute happiness be found. But because we have a precious human life, full of opportunity, we're able to attain liberation. So, we have an excellent opportunity to help ourselves as well as sentient beings. Your paraphrase is pretty accurate - while this life is full of suffering, it is also a wonderful opportunity. quote:I am at a point where I frequently find myself aching for suffering in the world and my heart will frequently feel heavy. I am better about not treating my own problems like they mean a lot because I am good at maintaining equanimity in the face of day-to-day trouble, but I sometimes feel despondent about the violence in the world. (I also sometimes feel despondent about my own inability to change at the pace I want. I naturally interrupt people IRL and, even though I can in general get away with it amongst my friends, I do not want to treat other people's ideas and feelings so callously.) I don't really know anything, but I have had precious teachers who have told me some things about this so I hope it helps. So, the world is really violent, and it really is sad. Even right now I'm listening to the news while they're talking about airplanes being shot down. Even without violence, airplanes just crash. People are sad everywhere, and it's really upsetting. But if we just focus on that and dwell on that we're not going to help anything. So it's important to acknowledge the suffering of others and use it to motivate us in our practice ("I really need to attain Buddhahood for all those other sentient beings who cannot practice right now or who are victims of violence and so on"). AS for the other part, self improving and so on, you should not worry about not changing instantly. You can only do certain things. If you try to be a perfect Bodhisattva tomorrow, you probably will not do well and this can be really disruptive and disturbing to your practice. In the book I mentioned a few pages ago, by His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa, he talks about not trying to do too much. Just do what you're able. Kyabgon Phakchok Rinpoche, on the three meanings of patience, recently had posted on his Facebook: Phakchok Rinpoche posted:The first meaning of patience is: don't react so fast, not so speedy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
^^^^ Nice; thanks for posting that. Will be following him on FB now, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
He posts really inspirational things, very good and acute and specific guidance. He also recently posted on there a GoogleDocs survey that asked for people to give him feedback specifically on what they would like him to teach about and where they need help in their lives. I find this generation of younger Rinpoches to be really encouraging as they demonstrate adaptation to the Western world, technology, and so on. Phakchok Rinpoche is especially encouraging because he is very direct about his messages and clear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:07
|
|