|
Mac Con posted:Sad to see Sakya Dagchen Rinpoche go. Not sure how that's going to affect the Sakya monastery here, he was a huge deal. Last I saw him was when I took refuge last month and he looked incredibly weak. I believe it was his grandson who actually performed the ceremony, but I'm glad he was able to at least be there. Wish I would have gotten the chance to know him better, but since it's a blood lineage at least his family will be carrying on his work. I am a member of a Nyingma Sangha and while I 'know' a bit about Dzogchen, it would be more book learning. My understanding of Dzogchen is limited. I have some experience with Zen also, and I can't really compare the two. I think they may look similar but the subtleties are different. In both you are sitting and being mindful, but the focus of your attention and what you are doing is different. I am finding it hard to explain. Again, this is just my experience and not speaking from any authority. But yeah, Dzogchen is cool and being able to study under Tulku Yeshi Rinpoche would be a great blessing.
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Dzogchen definitely has a long (and proud) history of iconoclasts, a quality it shares with Zen, but in practice the two are very different. Zen practice is considerably more mundane. Dzoghen talks a mundane game, but someone who has gone through enough years of Tibetan Buddhism to end up immersed in Dzogchen has gone through some considerably less than mundane experiences. Arguably they both strive toward a comparable end goal (albeit both would argue to no end about the actual attainability of the end itself, as well as how to articulate the goal). At least in the West (I can't speak to non-American tendencies to it as much), there's considerable overlap between Zen and Dzogchen practitioners. It is very common that someone who spends several years with one will end up gravitating towards the other somewhere down the line. As such I think a lot of Dzogchen gets articulated through a Zen lexicon/lense, whether intentional or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Sakya Monastery Livestreamed the Ceremony for H.H.Jigdal Dagchen Sakya last week. I haven't been to Sakya in months, as my school schedule interfered. They also put a video up of the ceremony on YouTube. Condolences to all of his followers. H.H. Jigdal Dagchen Sakya's Ku-dong (Holy Body) arrives at Sakya Monastery. His Holiness Sakya Trizin leads the ceremony (Vajrayogini puja). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0kbySBV6XE
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Mac Con posted:Sad to see Sakya Dagchen Rinpoche go. Not sure how that's going to affect the Sakya monastery here, he was a huge deal. Last I saw him was when I took refuge last month and he looked incredibly weak. I believe it was his grandson who actually performed the ceremony, but I'm glad he was able to at least be there. Wish I would have gotten the chance to know him better, but since it's a blood lineage at least his family will be carrying on his work. I really wouldn't bother comparing Dzogchen and Zen, they're apples and oranges. For some reason they often seem to be conflated or taken to be similar, possibly because Dzogchen has some practices that involve quietly sitting, and on the surface some of the available texts of each tradition might seem similar. However, Dzogchen is an extremely wide term that can refer to a very specific view, an incredible variety of techniques and practices, or the end result of those practices. Dzogchen practices can be as varied as practices involving mantra recitation, yoga, dancing, among many other skillful means. I would highly recommend to anyone in this thread who is interested in Dzogchen to connect with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. He teaches online regularly (although this is a slow year for him) and has done a lot to spread Dzogchen teachings throughout the world. He explains Dzogchen as a separate vehicle, one not reached after decades of "climbing through the yanas" and as the pinnacle at the top of a mountain, but rather as the base of all of the teachings, that can be approached on its own terms. It's not a common view, and if you already have a Dzogchen teacher who you have complete confidence in, then you should absolutely listen to them first. However, if you are interested in Dzogchen and have no prior experience, Namkhai Norbu comes from an impeccable lineage that stretches back through Jigme Lingpa and his Longchen Nyingthik tradition. Rinpoche has been endorsed by H.H. the Dalai Lama, H.H. Chatral Rinpoche, and H.H. the Sakya Trizin, among many others. If you are interested in learning more, I would recommend either the following video, or his book "The Crystal and the Way of Light." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Vr_iPEviQ reversefungi fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
edit
Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment. From what I know it's mostly due to the fact that Buddhism teaches detachment from the physical, and with idol worship you still have the attachment that is right in front of you. Inherently Buddhism is set up to not allow worship of an idol through the idea of detachment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Do Buddhist feel that complete detachment from you body in this world is possible, as in your personality not dwelling in your flesh any longer, being in a purely spiritual plain of existence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Do Buddhist feel that complete detachment from you body in this world is possible, as in your personality not dwelling in your flesh any longer, being in a purely spiritual plain of existence? That's a tricky one, I am probably not the best one to answer this since I am still new; but this is what I gathered. The detachment from your body is to let go of what makes you who you are. That includes the ego and personality, by detaching yourself from these sentiments can you find enlightenment; is this possible in this life? Yes, but it it is a also in some groups a spiritual detachment as well. However there is a reason why Buddhism is called the Religion of the Mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment. Well to understand that you need to know a bit about the history of Buddhist iconography (note; this is mostly me trying to remember stuff from my class on Buddhism from 7 years ago so this is more a vague, general outline). See in India, after the Shakyamuni Buddha had died, his body was divided up into several different stupas for non-monastics to use for their meditative practice. On the stupas were recorded images from the Buddha's life and his previous lives, except they depicted an eight spoke wheel in place of Shakyamuni to represent the 8 fold path the Buddha followed. This was done because an early understanding of Nirvana was that not only were you completely extinguished from existence, but that you were so thoroughly gone you shouldn't be represented in art. During early Buddhist lay practices people began to venerate the image of Buddha that they focused on during their practice, and it's thought that from this practice the more common iconography came into existence. I"m not entirely sure if that's true or not, but I do know that in Mahayanna practice (especially the more esoteric forms like Shingon) the image of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can be a form of meditation. In Chinese and Japanese esotericism, it's thought that a path towards Buddhahood was to have a specific patron, a Buddha or Bodhisattva that you completely identify with. During meditation you're meant to imagine yourself as being that Buddha or Bodhisattva, with the intent that by identifying yourself with them you would transform your own karma into theirs, or something like that. Yehoshua Eben posted:Do Buddhist feel that complete detachment from you body in this world is possible, as in your personality not dwelling in your flesh any longer, being in a purely spiritual plain of existence? I'm going to say not really, cause that's not really what Nirvana is meant to be and for a lot of Buddhist sects (like my own, Jodo Shinshu) that sort of detachment really isn't the end goal
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Do Buddhist feel that complete detachment from you body in this world is possible, as in your personality not dwelling in your flesh any longer, being in a purely spiritual plain of existence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:What do you mean by 'your personality not dwelling in your flesh' though? Do you mean like 'is it possible to take the physical body as "not me, not mine, not myself"' or something else? :-) I was more referring to disembodiment, like being able to become a "shadow" and experiencing a plane of existence beyond the materialistic realm. In the sense of something like "I think, therefore I am" I figure that if you choose to believe in such a world view then surely any of us could be like that. I mean more of a revolutionary metaphysical idea of literal existence in another dimenson. Or, if not that, does Buddhism allow for entities to contact people from other realms (like the dead)? Do Buddhist view virginity as a virtue? Not just in a sense of abstaining from sexual immorality, but if there is a difference between a virgin and non virgin in more than just an idealistic sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Hello Buddhism thread There was a guy at the Quaker meeting I went to a couple weeks ago saying that George Fox (the founder of Quakerism) was a Buddha (not just a Bodhisattva, but an actual legit Buddha). This is officially Bad Buddhism, correct? 'cause Maitreya Buddha isn't supposed to appear until everyone's forgotten about the dharma, at least according to the traditions I know about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Hello Buddhism thread You're not wrong, but I would say that they don't know enough about Buddhism to really call it bad Buddhism, more appropriation it sounds like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Welcome Baptist thread crossovers, I'm really happy we can get some cross-tradition dialogue going.  Yehoshua Eben posted:Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment. Idolatry is definitely something to avoid, because idols are not a thing that can grant any kind of suffering. Nobody worships a statue. That would be really useless! However, statues and icons are often used skillfully to generate merit and serve as tools for helping us on our path. For example, I have a shrine with a statue of Vajradhara on it. I don't worship that statue, that statue is a piece of metal. However, I recognize that statue as being worked into the image of Vajradhara, and because that statue is empty of inherent nature, I can mentally project that it is actually Vajradhara. Then, I can make offerings and perform rituals and the effect is the same as if Vajradhara was actually there. This is generally done to generate merit or good karma. Nobody thinks the statue can grant them liberation (with a few exceptions for particularly neat statues that it is meritorious to even look at, for Reasons). Generally, nobody is worshiping a statue or has any interest in that. Beyond that, the concept of "worshiping" is rather foreign in Buddhism - we don't supplicate or worship Buddha or Buddhas as some kinds of deities or something like this. We don't propitiate Buddha or ask Buddha to forgive our sins or something like this. But we recognize that the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are the only actually efficacious objects of Refuge, we can take some shelter in the teachings, the spiritual community, and the Buddha himself. Mostly, this is about training and taming our own minds, however. Yehoshua Eben posted:Do Buddhist feel that complete detachment from you body in this world is possible, as in your personality not dwelling in your flesh any longer, being in a purely spiritual plain of existence? No, not really. There is this body comprised of temporary aggregates that we call "ourselves," and these experiences of phenomena that arise from this body continue to arise until the body dies or so on. Causes and conditions. This is why in the Hinayana Buddha's death is referred to as "parinirvana" - final nirvana. While we have this body, it's possible to achieve the cessation of suffering and liberation from suffering, but the body still exists supported by the aggregates, and until the karma of those aggregates is exhausted and we die, we still have these experiences. That said, the cessation of suffering can come while in this very body, because negative experiences like pain, sorrow, and so on are only suffering due to our attachments and aversion. In fact, they are just phenomena that arise, and we ascribe negativity to them that makes them unwanted experiences. It's entirely possible to be very sad and yet completely contented and without suffering. Mo Tzu posted:I'm going to say not really, cause that's not really what Nirvana is meant to be and for a lot of Buddhist sects (like my own, Jodo Shinshu) that sort of detachment really isn't the end goal No comment to add here, just wanted to say hello because I think you might be the first Pure Land Mahayana practitioner to pop in here. I might have questions for you later haha Yehoshua Eben posted:I was more referring to disembodiment, like being able to become a "shadow" and experiencing a plane of existence beyond the materialistic realm. In the sense of something like "I think, therefore I am" I figure that if you choose to believe in such a world view then surely any of us could be like that. I mean more of a revolutionary metaphysical idea of literal existence in another dimenson. Or, if not that, does Buddhism allow for entities to contact people from other realms (like the dead)? It's possible to achieve various samadhis where one might experience other realms through meditative experience, but that kind of projection of consciousness would have to be supported by the physical body when it still exists, you can't kind of leave the body. This kind of metaphysical question is going to vary depending on the kind of Buddhist you're talking to and specifically the main reason would be "why do that thing?" Very highly realized bodhisattvas and Buddhas can emanate many times and places at once, the same mindstream but in different forms. For example, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is said to be an emanation of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. So is His Holiness the Gyalwang Drikungpa Chetsang. Both are Chenrezig, both are distinct individuals. Those are both called "nirmanakaya" emanations, meaning they possess a physical form. There is also a "sambhogakaya" form of all Buddhas, which is kind of the clear light energetic emanation. Highly accomplished yogis can perceive the sambhogakaya forms easily and directly. And of course there are many stories of Buddha himself entering deep meditative stability and projecting himself to the god realms, demigod realms, and so on to talk to various gods, demons, and so on. As for contacting people from "other realms," it's certainly possible, but "the dead" would not be a realm. In Buddhism there are mainly six realms - the hell realms, hungry ghost realm, animal realm, human realm, demigod realm, and god realm. All of those are just realms into which one can be born depending on causes and conditions. In fact, while we all generally exist in the human realms, we can be temporarily "born into" the other realms through our mind - if I develop a meth addiction I'm basically in a hungry ghost realm. If I become very angry and hate-filled I will exist in a hell realm right then, no need for being actually reborn. I don't know of any distinction between virgins and non-virgins in anything other than a purely idealistic sense, but I could be wrong? Generally Buddhists maintain a precept to avoid "sexual misconduct" which is open to interpretation but generally today is taken to mean "don't have sex that causes suffering." So no non-consensual sex, no cheating on your spouse or committed partner, no compulsive sexual behavior, and so on. For ordained and certain vowholders, this is instead complete celibacy - but it has nothing to do with sexual contact being somehow negative or nonvirtuous, and everything to do with the fact that most sexual activity is a pursuit of mindless sense-pleasures, and renunciation of those sense-pleasures is a kind of discipline that can really bring a lot of happiness in this life, let alone future lives. The Phlegmatist posted:Hello Buddhism thread The word "Buddha" is a really tricky one. For example, we can say that any fully enlightened being that is on track for becoming a Buddha is a Buddha, but then a Buddha is also a title for a particular type of individual who propagates the Dharma for the first time in a place where there is no Dharma. Fox could be a Buddha but not this Buddha, because obviously this Buddha for this time is Buddha Shakyamuni, and next on deck is Buddha Maitreya, as you mentioned. So it's probably Bad Buddhism in that it's misinformed Buddhism but I mean he could well have been a fully enlightened dude, I don't know, I never met him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I was more referring to disembodiment, like being able to become a "shadow" and experiencing a plane of existence beyond the materialistic realm. In the sense of something like "I think, therefore I am" I figure that if you choose to believe in such a world view then surely any of us could be like that. I mean more of a revolutionary metaphysical idea of literal existence in another dimenson. Or, if not that, does Buddhism allow for entities to contact people from other realms (like the dead)? Yehoshua Eben posted:Do Buddhist view virginity as a virtue? Not just in a sense of abstaining from sexual immorality, but if there is a difference between a virgin and non virgin in more than just an idealistic sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
It's the Liturgical Christianity thread, lol, so Baptists aren't even the original scope of the thread!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Hello Buddhism thread Everyone is a buddha, who gives a gently caress? If it wasn't for bad buddhism- if it wasn't for real bad buddhism you wouldn't have no buddhism at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Everyone is a buddha, who gives a gently caress? You should kill the buddha if you see him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:It's the Liturgical Christianity thread, lol, so Baptists aren't even the original scope of the thread! I think there's crossover posters but a few guys followed over from Yehoshua Eben's thread on Southern baptist seminary. I popped into the Liturgical thread today and was greeted with a great Gregorian Chant and it made me remember fondly my Papist roots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
so I am still trying to figure out which sangha to go to, and I need to know a bit more about a few groups, I already heard about the NKT, but what about Dhammayuttika Nikaya Dhammakaya Movement And maybe what Vietnamese, Croatian and Laos Buddhism means and how are they different (And kinda why they go by the name of the country and not like a non-country name for it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I think there's crossover posters but a few guys followed over from Yehoshua Eben's thread on Southern baptist seminary. Oh gotcha!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The word "Buddha" is a really tricky one. For example, we can say that any fully enlightened being that is on track for becoming a Buddha is a Buddha, but then a Buddha is also a title for a particular type of individual who propagates the Dharma for the first time in a place where there is no Dharma. Fox could be a Buddha but not this Buddha, because obviously this Buddha for this time is Buddha Shakyamuni, and next on deck is Buddha Maitreya, as you mentioned. I think it'd be more correct for that guy to say George Fox had a Buddha-nature rather than that he's a Buddha. George Fox was theistic and Christian as all hell, essentially saying that all religions originate from Christ and are therefore beyond reproach ("Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?") which is cool for him but I'm not really sure if that even can be twisted into having a parallel with Buddhism. Mr. Mambold posted:Everyone is a buddha, who gives a gently caress? In the same vein, if it wasn't for awful Christians who ignored Christ's call to pacifism, Christianity probably wouldn't be around today. IIRC from my Buddhist days, everyone has the potentiality of Buddhahood, but actually calling someone a realized Buddha is some pretty serious stuff that really shouldn't happen outside of Shakyamuni or Maitreya.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Hi thread what's new
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
RE the Quakers and BuddhismParamemetic posted:The word "Buddha" is a really tricky one. For example, we can say that any fully enlightened being that is on track for becoming a Buddha is a Buddha, but then a Buddha is also a title for a particular type of individual who propagates the Dharma for the first time in a place where there is no Dharma. Fox could be a Buddha but not this Buddha, because obviously this Buddha for this time is Buddha Shakyamuni, and next on deck is Buddha Maitreya, as you mentioned. When two (friendly and/or compatible) traditions meet it is common that the founders of the other tradition will be identified and described in terms of the other as well as often judged very favorably. Partly this is a political thing done to ensure good-will between the two, but when I've seen it, it's been deeply earnest as well. I was impressed at the level of respect between Zen groups and various ancient Christian monastic orders. Often the stories of how the two ended up enmeshed were funny (someone would spend a few years immersing in another tradition before letting slip they were a brother of a Benedictine order... in one case two people greeted each other with such enthusiasm that everyone asked where they knew each other from and only then learned that they were both brothers of the same order). The point is, the pronouncements that Shakyamuni Buddha or Dogen were saints of the highest-degree aren't lightly made. Conversely, acknowledging Fox as a Buddha is simply meant to recognize that he spent his life encouraging compassion, honesty, education, faith through virtuous action, peacefulness, love of all beings, and fairness (as well as compassionate treatment of prisoners, the mentally ill) and encouraged quietistic communion with whatever god was revealed to them, and tried to stand up against the injustices of the time. It's more a way of saying "he was mostly on the right track and most of what he advocated could rightly be called Dharma." I wasn't there for that specific pronouncement, so who knows, but those kinds of claims between traditions are common, especially in two groups with as much in common as Buddhists and Quakers. I've been around both and they really do have an unusual amount in common. Zen and Quakerism in particular. I'm also biased though because I've got Quaker family and I was raised with enough Quaker (and Buddhist) ideology to be credibly a conscientious objector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why in Buddhism is idolatry not considered something to abstain from? The idea of worshiping a statue created by human hands, while not physically causing suffering to anyone else, seems to not be productive in spiritual enlightenment. Technically speaking (mind that this varies by tradition and also by whatever other religions a person follows) Buddhists can't practice idolatry because a Buddhist doesn't worship anything. Buddhists revere the Buddha but as a teacher rather than a messiah. He isn't a Jesus figure and never claimed to have created what he taught; he found it shared it. He even specifically said that he wasn't divine or even all that special; just a dude that managed to find the truth. This is one of the things that makes Buddhism different from abrahamic religions and is why it confuses some people. If memory serves a lot of Buddhist art like statues or buildings is less an act of worship and more an act of respect. Imagery of bodhisattvas is preserved so we know who they were and what they taught. A statue of the Buddha may very well be no more than that; a statue of the Buddha. It can also help somebody along the path if there are places where you go that are basically labelled "this is a place you meditate." Buddhism also doesn't have a ton of hard and fast rules you must follow or you go to hell forever. The important thing is to be walking the path. You'll get it right eventually. Yes you don't worship statues because worshipping a statue is silly but a statue is just a thing; it can't do anything on its own so it's basically harmless. What matters to you and your mind is how you react to it. Like if you make a statue of the Buddha and say "this will last forever" you've screwed up because you are attached to permanence by doing that. Nothing is permanent. Ever. Nothing can be. But creating a statue can be a meditative experience or a sign of respect. In a way it can also be a good thing because it can be a way to introduce somebody who has never heard of Buddhism to the practice. "What is this statue of?" Somebody asks. "The Buddha," you say. "A great teacher." Zen Buddhism in particular places great emphasis on experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
You won't get it right eventually....but you'll put on a good show
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Hi thread what's new nothing.....ness hello
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:nothing.....ness But this is a thread about Buddhism not Earthbound.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:But this is a thread about Buddhism not Earthbound. Explain? Senior Scarybagels posted:You should kill the buddha if you see him. This is a terrible meme from before there were memes and if you meet that guy you should punch him. (he's dead I think)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Explain? Ness was a character from earthbound..nothing special
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Explain? I regret nothing here, and neither should you. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkICMrNG78M
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:I regret nothing here, and neither should you. Quit telling me what to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Quit telling me what to do Edit: This derail is stupid, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
For general record, Tsem Tulku is highly controversial and is an open practitioner of that demon. I didn't watch the video and won't, but I figured I should mention this for the benefit of others who may not be familiar with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:For general record, Tsem Tulku is highly controversial and is an open practitioner of that demon. I did not know this, and was actually going to ask about in relation to the Major Depressive Disorder that I deal with if Buddhism took that into account, cause I do try to clear my mind but when I am not sometimes it goes to dark places, especially these days with a lot of my life crumbling around me. If there was anything I could do or practice during the day when I am not meditating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:so I am still trying to figure out which sangha to go to, and I need to know a bit more about a few groups, I already heard about the NKT, but what about Those two are both Theravadan movements, Dhammakaya Movement is some kind of newer Thai thing I don't know much about. Theravadan Buddhism will be distinct from Mahayana Buddhism primarily in focus on goals. "Vietnamese" Buddhism could refer to a lot of things, so I'm not sure what that would mean. I don't know anything about Croatian Buddhism, Laos Buddhism is likely Theravadan. Mainly a lot of Buddhist communities in the US particularly that use their nationality in the name are centers that focus on the cultural practices and the sanghas are generally comprised of that nationality. So for example "Laos Buddhist" temples will usually be Laotian Theravadans, with the liturgies and practices in Lao, and so on. This is a cause of some confusion generally with Tibetan Buddhism which is also a sort of "brand name" for Tibetan flavored Vajrayana, but which may or may not be comprised of ethnic Tibetans. Senior Scarybagels posted:I did not know this, and was actually going to ask about in relation to the Major Depressive Disorder that I deal with if Buddhism took that into account, cause I do try to clear my mind but when I am not sometimes it goes to dark places, especially these days with a lot of my life crumbling around me. If there was anything I could do or practice during the day when I am not meditating. I am not any kind of qualified teacher but I know you're also looking for a spiritual community and don't likely have much by way of access to a real teacher here. I might actually suggest asking this kind of question to various teachers you might meet, as their answers can give you some insight into their own style. I'm not sure if your question "took that into account" is referring to something in the video, or Major Depression itself. Buddhism doesn't need to "take MDD into account" generally because Buddhism is already focused on alleviating suffering and misery. Depression is obviously suffering, but usually this depression will manifest in various ways about lots of topics and so on. Mainly Buddhism is a means for achieving some kind of happiness. I think generally a lot of people turn to religion when they have things like depression because they are looking for answers because the causes of suffering aren't known to them. Fortunately I think the causes of suffering are the same for everyone regardless of whether a person is depressed. One thing I might suggest for between practices is still just reciting mantras. Green Tara mantra or of course the Six Syllable Mantra are both good mantras. Before I had any real access to the Dharma by way of a real teacher or anything, I would just recite these all the time. Just constantly singing these mantras in my head or aloud. When we recite mantras the point is to habituate ourselves to that kind of thinking. Generally, meditation and recitations and so on are all about habituating our minds - the Tibetan word for meditation is "gom-pa", "gom" is a root that means "habituation" or "familiarization," for example the word for a habit is "gom-shi" which is something like "familiar nature." So reciting mantra habituates us towards the thoughts of whatever it is - when we habituate our minds towards for example Tara or Chenrezig/Avalokitesvara, that can really bring about compassion for others and for ourselves. Depression is a condition of anger or sadness that is directed inward. If you look at the most popular psychological treatments for depression, you'll see that Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy is and has been in vogue for a while. CBT is basically retraining your "cognitive behaviors." It's trying to break the habit of thinking certain patterns of negative thoughts. Reciting mantra or so on can also really help this. By not focusing so much on ourselves but focusing on recognizing the suffering of others, and that we're all the same in this samsara, I think that can help. So basically I don't have any real great advice for practice and I am constantly shocked at how much I can type when I don't have much to say, but the tl;dr would be that you can recite mantras anywhere, you don't have to be on the meditation cushion to think about these things. And when you think about these things constantly and habituate your mind to it, you'll benefit. Also do the normal things like seeing a physician and therapist because those may also help! Also finding an authentic teacher will be best for developing your practice further, but for whatever reasons many of us do not have the causes or conditions to find a great guru immediately. For a lot of us, it takes a long time to connect with a guru. So I think the general advice for that is to still practice what we can to generate merit, and if you can recite "Calling the Lama from Afar" that can also be really good. Also meditating is good, reading is good, thinking about Dharma, reciting mantras, keeping a shrine and making offerings to it regularly, and so on are all really good for generating merit. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:I did not know this, and was actually going to ask about in relation to the Major Depressive Disorder that I deal with if Buddhism took that into account, cause I do try to clear my mind but when I am not sometimes it goes to dark places, especially these days with a lot of my life crumbling around me. If there was anything I could do or practice during the day when I am not meditating. For starters- All the great teachers say "don't do poo poo that's bad for you"...including lovely mental habits & thoughtforms. Including violent games? Yes. If your meditation takes you to a place where you're not depressed, that's good start. It is not just a temporary panacea, your meditation will start to permeate your mind. When your mind starts going to dark places, startle yourself out of it- yell or something, or slap your own face as your self-appointed teacher (if you're not in a place where that would raise more poo poo) until you maybe find a teacher. Rosaries, japa, positive visualization, upbeat music, like Paramemetic says- all that stuff is supposed to guide the mind to a 'happy place'. Experiment with it. Merit? Don't worry about that, imo. You're needing some balance and peace of mind. There's a Chris Hinze cd where the 1st track leads with some dialog by the Dalai Lama. And as it segues into music, the last phrase he says (in his very recognizable accent) is "Peace of Mind". That's a great mantra.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Oh yea, now i remember why i stopped posting in here. Life on Rails or something. Only thing I have to say to the above is, the way in which you define your problems necessitates the way in which you address or attempt to solve those problems. Your definitions of your problems are your largest bogeyman, not the problems themselves, whatever that would mean to you. As long as you think you have Major Depressive Disorder, the avenues available to you are very limited and self-reinforcing. Be creative even in your darkest moments. Well, cya
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 04:30
|
|