|
The Dark Wind posted:It's with Lama Norlha Rinpoche, which I believe is Karma Kagyu? Not 100% sure actually. But thank you for all this information, that was actually super informative and useful. Does one get the text, or anything to help you follow along with the practice when you do it on your own? These are typically available for sale for cost at the centers that host them but not always. He is a Karma Kagyupa it looks like. quote:Also, I did the Chenrezi sadhana for the first time yesterday and it was super confusing, as I wasn't sure which part to visualize what doing what. Is there a guide or anything to help me get a better grasp on it before I try it again online somewhere? Thanks! There are hundreds of Chenrezig sadhanas, and there are different visualizations for each. Whoever you did the sadhana with may be willing to provide some instruction on it if you ask them, or ask a senior person at that center and they will likely be able to elucidate it a bit. The sadhana text itself usually includes a description of the practice, but not always in a lot of explicit detail.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted:These are typically available for sale for cost at the centers that host them but not always. He is a Karma Kagyupa it looks like. Thanks for all the info! I'll make sure to ask next time, they usually have a Lama come by for each class but the one scheduled for the week couldn't make it, so I believe the whole practice was led by another practitioner. Also... how exactly do you pronounce Kagyu? I've heard Kahk-yoo for the last year and a half, but here they pronounce it more along the lines of Kaj-oo. Is there any more appropriate way of pronunciation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
It's something close to "ka jyoo". Kagyu is an approximate English spelling, the wylie for the Tibetan is bka'brgyud, so a lot of Americans will pronounce a hard G, but it's actually a soft G with a Y after, a lot like "George."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It's something close to "ka jyoo". Kagyu is an approximate English spelling, the wylie for the Tibetan is bka'brgyud, so a lot of Americans will pronounce a hard G, but it's actually a soft G with a Y after, a lot like "George." I didn't know this. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Part of being a Buddha is perfectly knowing cause and effect, so there is something to that omniscience. As to knowing that one is a Buddha, the trick is that a Buddha is beyond conceptions of self. How can they know their self is enlightened? The buddhas who do not leave the world immediately upon attaining retain a self, a mind, a body, etc. But it's like you say, the self for them is a lifeless glove on the hand which is awakened. Otoh, to a buddha, all other humans are buddhas, only sleeping. I think there are probably what you could call enlightened beings whose actions, thoughts, and words are those of an enlightened being, yet they are not consciously aware of 'being awakened'. It's so silly to try to come up with rules and definitions of what constitutes awakening because Paramemetic posted:The truth is, nothing about Buddhahood can really be described through our tainted conceptual language. We can only sort of point vaguely towards it. because this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Is it possible to be enlightened and not know you're enlightened or is this contradictory? I've heard of 'accidental' spiritual awakenings, are these really possible? To further comment, there's no such thing as an "accidental" awakening even if it appears as such for all in tents and porpoises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:The buddhas who do not leave the world immediately upon attaining retain a self, a mind, a body, etc. But it's like you say, the self for them is a lifeless glove on the hand which is awakened. Otoh, to a buddha, all other humans are buddhas, only sleeping. HH the Gyalwang Drukpa posted:It's essential to grasp a vital point - I must agree with you and your superior understanding of my confused meaning and gossip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
It's all in the Heart Sutra. They could have stopped writing sutras after that and saved everyone a lot of confusion. All this talk about enlightenment only serves to confuse. There is nothing to enlighten and no state of enlightenment to achieve. There is no enlightenment already present. There is a trajectory towards this..shock, and it's rather painful, or at least disconcerting. Even those preaching love and compassion I think are missing the shock this is to your sense of things. Some say fake it till you make it, and I think all they ever do is fake it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here:The Heart Sutra posted:Thus have I heard There's more trimmed down versions, but we might as well see it in all its culturally specific glory, since Buddhism is a cultural phenomenon as well as can be seen as some disembodied philosophy/religion to glean truths from. I think lots of people in the US like the cultural aspect anyway. All this quoting of big long foreign sounding words from longgg ago sounds more significant and worthwhile than some transliteration of those same ideas in more basic prose. I personally think it adds to the confusion surrounding the adoption of Buddhist concepts and principles, beginning with the overuse of the word enlightenment, as if all roads must lead to Rome. Putting the cart far before the horse. I am sure many would agree with me there actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
But people either seem to want to attain enlightenment and feel good about themselves, or think they're not worthy of it or doesn't have to do with them (yet still hold it above themselves, as something other people have maybe). I say drop the idea altogether. Investigate your own dissatisfaction, stop trying to jump through the hoops that others have tried to place before you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:But people either seem to want to attain enlightenment and feel good about themselves, or think they're not worthy of it or doesn't have to do with them (yet still hold it above themselves, as something other people have maybe). I say drop the idea altogether. Investigate your own dissatisfaction, stop trying to jump through the hoops that others have tried to place before you. The way we're taught to investigate a problem is to think out an answer and then submit it to a teacher for approval; if we're clever enough about it, we get a good grade, it's 'correct'. If you look at the noble eightfold path, part of it is right speech, right action and right livelihood. The things you say, the things you do and your job - that's actually the kind of person you are, the type of life you live. So a major part of the path to enlightenment is basically about how you live your life and how you interact with the people around you. I guess my point is that, as westerners, we're taught to think a lot, and sometimes all that thinking makes it hard to see what we should instead be doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:The more I practice, the more it seems to me that thinking is highly overrated. Maybe it's because we spend so much time in school, that we tend to see everything as a problem that is solved by thinking about it. I think you're right about this, also. We get very caught up in the intellectual things and not so much in the living the Dharma aspects. Your assessment of the why is really interesting and rings true, I think also we really value knowledge as a society and not so much on action. In the past I've attributed this to an obsession with wisdom over lovingkindness, this kind of mental image of a wise yogi on a mountain being more important to us than just a dude, but I honestly think that your assessment is much more accurate. Holiness Drukpa talks about not being very academic himself in this youchoob somewhere around the 37 minute mark, I'm not exactly sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_eV0mPmzuQ I tried to set a timestamp to 34m25s to give the context (two truths doctrine) but I'm not sure how to do timestamps now that the youtube tags automatically show up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Thoughts about thinking (ahahah) : Nowadays i think the problem with "thinking" is not the "thinking" itself, but the fact that we don't really go to the end of thinking, we don't really look at what it is and how it works. We just think and choose, more or less unconsciously, to believe it. But when we really look at thinking, as did for example a famous buddhist philosopher like Nagarjuna, we can understand that, as all things, it is "empty" ; and that if we push the logic behind thinking to its ends, it just falls apart as an existing, self sufficient thing. Just as when we look at what is a cup for "real", we can find nothing that makes it a cup and not a shovel. But of course, a cup is not a shovel ! Thinking is no probem as long as we understand deeply that it is a convention. It is not to be rejected, nor approved. So, i think that what is overrated is not "thinking" itself. What is overrated is the belief that thinking can resolve all our existential problems and that everything in life can be met with logical thinking and pure reason. In fact, thinking can be and is, as much as anything, part of the path to awakening. I think a lot of buddhist schools offer a path that is almost entirely based on thinking and that leads the practicioner to understand gradually that relying on thought only is not reasonable (ahahah). Zen koans are an example, of course. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
In terms of significant news regarding Buddhism, I'm awaiting further information but my Lama posted this on Facebook today: His Holiness the Dalai Lama says his office has served its purpose, and he does not plan to take a rebirth as a Dalai Lama. This will end the institution of Dalai Lama with Holiness Tenzin Gyatso the 14th Dalai Lama. This is really, really huge news for the Tibetan people as a whole, not necessarily for Buddhism in general. But it indicates Holiness believes that Tibet no longer needs a spiritual emperor. He does not state, however, that he'll be taking parinirvana, he's just going to end the office with himself. He mentions hoping to continue to be reborn to benefit sentient beings to fulfill his Samaya, but the office of Dalai Lama will be no more. It will be interesting to see how this affects the Gelug sect, and the Tibetan people in general. This is also a politically brilliant move because Holiness has been repeatedly cited as China's main and only enemy in Tibet. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Starting countdown until the Chinese "discover" that the Dalai Lama actually had been "reborn" in a Party official's family.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Since they disappeared and usurped the Panchen Lama this has always been a certainty that they would do that. It likely plays into Holiness' decision to announce this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
There will still be a head of his lineage though right? It just wouldn't have to be a recognized rebirth?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:There will still be a head of his lineage though right? It just wouldn't have to be a recognized rebirth? There would still likely be a head of the Gelug lineage, yes. Wafflehound and I were discussing this (I think he's loosely a Sakyapa but they have some relation to Gelugpa I believe??) I imagine it would either pass to Zopa Rinpoche, or another Rinpoche would arise to become the new head. This is not unheard of historically, I mean, after all, impermanence is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:07
|
|
Paramemetic posted:There would still likely be a head of the Gelug lineage, yes. Wafflehound and I were discussing this (I think he's loosely a Sakyapa but they have some relation to Gelugpa I believe??) I imagine it would either pass to Zopa Rinpoche, or another Rinpoche would arise to become the new head. This is not unheard of historically, I mean, after all, impermanence is a thing. Zopa Rinpoche will almost certainly take over as the head of the Gelug sect for a time. Theoretically with enough time (maybe sometime around 2090-2100) they could operate on the assumption the previous Pachen lama died and a new birth could fill that office, since technically that's a higher office than Zopa holds. I think in addition to the China angle there's possibly Westerner's figuring into the mental calculus as well; Tenzin Gyatso is likely the most widely recognized international figure Buddhism has had in its 2600-year history, and he's hugely responsible for much of the spread of Dharma in the West. By ending the institution here he's not forcing millions of skeptical rationalist Westerners inclined to Dharma to confront the fact that beyond just being a really cool wise guy he's actually a mystical Dharmapope, his legacy in terms of his teachings will be untarnished by later iterations and he will likely remain the greatest influence to most Western Buddhists without people kind of having to think "Well, that got weird." It also recognizes the fact that the next birth isn't inherently going to be as charismatic, it frees up the next ultra-charismatic wise monk to be from any other school or tradition without all the scrutiny that the Tulku process would inevitably bring. It's an unbelievably brilliant move but frankly the Dalai Lama is an incredible statesman with the bonus of being far less personally invested in his political legacy than most politicians. In all honesty, I'm kind of curious to see how Tenzin Phuntsok Rinpoche grows up, he's only ten now but apparently fluent in English and his story has been one of the most visible in terms of the Tulku process, his proximity to Zopa could easily see him turned into an international figure if he has the right kind of mind for it as he gets older, and Zopa seems like the kind of person to realize the media potential there. I'm not loosely Sakyapa, I'm actually-but-shittily Sakyapa.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Though H.H. 14th Dalai lama had already stepped down as any sort of head of the Tibetan people, it's still a little galling to see the dissolution of any sort of traditional central asian history like this. It's as though Jigme Wangchuk were to renounce the Raven crown entirely from his nation. It is worth noting though that the Gelugspa have never been lead by the Dalai Lama- that honor has, and will still rest with the Ganden Tripa, an elected and temporary office of Throne-Holding. It's super probable that Zopa Rinpoche will occupy that office at some point in his life, the current Ganden Tripa is not only fuckoff old, but his office is due to expire in 2016 for a new holder. That's the year to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
There's also the risk of a Tibetan uprising after HHDL's death that this decision helps mitigate.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Zopa Rinpoche will almost certainly take over as the head of the Gelug sect for a time. Theoretically with enough time (maybe sometime around 2090-2100) they could operate on the assumption the previous Pachen lama died and a new birth could fill that office, since technically that's a higher office than Zopa holds. I had always assumed the Karmapa was going to become one of the larger international figures following the Dalai Lama, though the controversy surrounding that office may stymie that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
In "all is not always well" news, Holiness Drukpa has just had to make a public statement requesting Holiness Karmapa to please instruct his followers in China to stop forcibly occupying and converting Drukpa monasteries to Karma Kagyu monasteries in Tibet. Probably this is a Chinese government method of dividing the second and third most powerful schools one from another, but it is disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Hello guys ! I got a philosophical question about the heart sutra, especially about emptiness, that i would like to submit to the craziest and most analatycal buddhists out there : Often it is said that what we see is "not real", meaning that, basically, what we see is only effects ; the "real" cause cannot be seen. For example if i watch a cup, the only thing i really see is the representation of a cup. It is made of interactions between my eyes and nervous system (among many other conditions) and "something that is a cup" (but we can't call it a cup, since a cup is what we perceive and is already conventional - we will call it "the real cup", even if we can't know it). But in the philosophy about emptiness (Nagarjuna for example), it is also said that cause and effect are not the same, not different, and not "not same and not different" nor "both same and different". The link between cause and effect is empty. So, if what we see is only "effect", it is empty as well : the representation of the cup is not the same as "the real cup", but not different, and not "not same and not different". So, if i get it right, what we see is emptiness itself ? Since it is also said that the only way to realize (meaning to live in reality) anything is emptiness, and since what we see is emptiness, then what we see is totally "real" ! So, is it really right to say that what we see is not real ? Would'nt it be more accurate, in the context of the heart sutra, to say that it is not real, not unreal, and not "not real and not unreal" nor "both real and unreal" ? Thank you for your time !
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Yep. An idea of real or unreal is suffering itself. To anyone who says "this world is illusion", I would say "it's as real as it's gonna get". (I did say that in class once to someone actually).
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
And it's not even "what you see"'is emptiness, if we have to use that word. Seeing itself is emptiness. There is no seeing, there is no feeling of seeing, there is no object of sight, there is no subject of sight. There is no "I am the one who sees", nor "now I am seeing". The Heart Sutra takes everything away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
There is also no emptiness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Nothing about the Heart Sutra is tongue in cheek. You can imagine many Buddhist teachers reciting it with kind of a knowing self-satisfaction, because they think they know what it means. They have no idea. No one has any idea. "Having an idea" in this context is suffering itself. The Heart Sutra is completely literal. Many Buddhists would stop teaching and become gardeners or something if they really found out what the Heart Sutra means. I don't mean to overstate this point. But Buddhism could start and end there and it would be the most radical religion the world ever saw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
And a radical religion is almost a contradiction in terms. Institutionalized radicalness is not very radical. Only an individual can be a living individual, free from the dead. Religion has its place though. Sorry for the multiple posts, there is a lot to say here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:08
|
|
Tautologicus posted:
But you've got it figured out. 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:But you've got it figured out. More like I recognize what it's saying if it's saying anything at all. It's not a puzzle to be solved exactly. It says everything completely upfront.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
There's also nothing to teach. And nothing to learn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer the pancreas sutra.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Since his recent announcement, I think this question is relevant, From the Dalai Lama's Freedom in Exile it is stated: quote:He also said (when speculating about the possibility that his people might have no use for a Dalai Lama after he dies) that he "might take rebirth as an insect, or an animal". This surprises me, as I thought the animal world as a whole was an undesirable rebirth? I've often thought that some animals might have it better than humans. "Ignorance is bliss" might hold true, and a bird flying around all day, while still experiencing suffering in it's life, won't have the 'advanced' worries our intelligent brains cause us to have. But at the same time if you are having no cares and flying about all day, you really aren't doing much to relieve others suffering , and more importantly can't even understand the Dharma. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
Tautologicus posted:There's also nothing to teach. And nothing to learn. I'm not sure where you're getting your understanding of Buddhism from. The Smokedalottabowls Sutta generally isn't considered canon.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'm not sure where you're getting your understanding of Buddhism from. The Smokedalottabowls Sutta generally isn't considered canon. Wait, aren't you the one who smokes tons of weed and posts mostly in FYAD or BYOB or wherever? I don't even like marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Sure, there's lots to teach and lots to learn. Why not. It was just a thing I said in the context of talking about the Heart Sutra. It doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Sure, there's lots to teach and lots to learn. Why not. It was just a thing I said in the context of talking about the Heart Sutra. It doesn't matter. stop posting
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:But you've got it figured out. There's not really reason for sarcasm here, he's pretty much right. Literally he's right. You want to know what emptiness is? Look around you. Emptiness. There's really nothing to accomplish, no practice to practice, no accomplishment to be gained. At the same time, there are practices to practice, Enlightenment to accomplish, and so on. Linguistically, emptiness is a very difficult concept, because by making it a concept, we are no longer approaching it. Linguistically, saying "there is no path," "there is nothing to learn" etc. is nihilism. But "there is no" is the problem, there is, there is not, there is not neither, there is not both. There is lots to teach and lots to learn. But how? There is no student, ultimately, there is only a relative student. There is no teaching, ultimately, there's only a relative teaching. There's nothing to learn, ultimately, there's only relatively things, and because we know this to be empty, there is nothing to teach and nothing to learn. Tautologicus is having difficulty being clear because discussing non-conceptual truth in conceptual words is impossible. He's right though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Tautologicus posted:There is also no emptiness. Ya there is
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:35
|
|