|
i've heard of him. it'd be hypocritical to say i'm not sure i trust his approach to interreligious dialogue, what with the period of time i spent trying to be both catholic and pure land, but while i understand the spirit with which he approaches zen and catholicism i find myself asking the same question i always ask christians who have multiple religious belongings; is this appropriate, or appropriation? the fact that he's still able to be a jesuit despite being a roshi is a bit suspicious, though the jesuits have had a long history of being cool with different religion's practices that doesn't necessarily mean they acknowledge the other religion's cosmology. i don't know i think the rites controversy doesn't necessarily show that the jesuits had a more accurate reading of chinese religiosity so much as a more shrewd approach to missiology, and something like this smacks of new type of missiology aimed at christianizing buddhism to sell back to asian people. not that he's necessarily doing that, but this sort of approach to interreligious dialogue and multiple religious belonging is in danger of becoming that, especially in his capacity as a catholic priest.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
i take it you're exclusively committed to pure land at this point? if you feel comfortable discussing it, what led you to move from catholicism to pursuing both, and then from that to just pure land? as to the latter, was it more a feeling of discomfort with the differences in doctrine/cosmology (and/or being less happy with orthopraxy, syncretism, etc.) or more feeling at home with pure land, or a combination of these, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:i take it you're exclusively committed to pure land at this point? if you feel comfortable discussing it, what led you to move from catholicism to pursuing both, and then from that to just pure land? as to the latter, was it more a feeling of discomfort with the differences in doctrine/cosmology (and/or being less happy with orthopraxy, syncretism, etc.) or more feeling at home with pure land, or a combination of these, or something else? I'm trans and the Catholic Church is not a fan of that whole way of being, but Jodo Shinshu doesn't care. I also found Jodo Shinshu's faith alone approach interesting, since I've never been a fan of American Buddhism's focus on meditation. After giving up on a career as a theologian I just gave up on being a Christian entirely. I used to be sort of Buddhist before I became a Christian so the anthropology, soteriology, and cosmology were things I was familiar with and could/did believe in, so it was a bit of an outgrowth from that
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:i've heard of him. it'd be hypocritical to say i'm not sure i trust his approach to interreligious dialogue, what with the period of time i spent trying to be both catholic and pure land, but while i understand the spirit with which he approaches zen and catholicism i find myself asking the same question i always ask christians who have multiple religious belongings; is this appropriate, or appropriation? the fact that he's still able to be a jesuit despite being a roshi is a bit suspicious, though the jesuits have had a long history of being cool with different religion's practices that doesn't necessarily mean they acknowledge the other religion's cosmology. Pure Land sounds a lot harder to reconcile with Catholicism than Zen. I know a significant number of monks from various Catholic orders were practicing at Zen Centers for a while. Formal Zen (i.e. what you find if you turn up at a practice center, as opposed to reading some Zen forum online) is very reverent of other monks and contemplative traditions and beliefs. Besides, there's not that much in Zen that's really incompatible with being a practicing Christian and no Zen Center worth its salt is going to be telling anyone what to believe or not to believe. Even the more informal 'family style' of Zen isn't really going to care what your background was. One of the groups I used to sit with had people of all kinds of other backgrounds turning up: lots of Tibetan Buddhists, a couple people from Christian orders, nominal Christians, atheists, Sufis etc. I know that in some cases Catholic orders were explicitly sending monks to other traditions to learn more about their practices, but it wasn't done particularly in secret, though the guys certainly weren't introducing themselves as "I'm brother Mario of the Benedictine Order" or whatever. Some turned up in a personal capacity just because they wanted a quiet place to sit. From the various traditions I've been around, it would be considered poor form to walk into a center and introduce yourself as a monk of such and such order. At least in a manner that drew attention to you and away from whatever practice was taking place. It probably would come up before too long and someone senior would probably ask why you seem either familiar with ritual or unusually not weirded out by the chanting or whatever. As an aside, serious Jesuits are impressive and I'd love to hear a traditionally educated Jesuit's take on a lot of aspects of Zen tradition. The ratio studiorum was no joke and definitely led to some spectacularly erudite people. Disclaimer though: I had a mentor for a while who was a former Jesuit and he was one of the main reasons I got my poo poo together, so I'm somewhat biased here. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I'm trans and the Catholic Church is not a fan of that whole way of being, but Jodo Shinshu doesn't care. I also found Jodo Shinshu's faith alone approach interesting, since I've never been a fan of American Buddhism's focus on meditation. After giving up on a career as a theologian I just gave up on being a Christian entirely. I used to be sort of Buddhist before I became a Christian so the anthropology, soteriology, and cosmology were things I was familiar with and could/did believe in, so it was a bit of an outgrowth from that Thank you so much for your reply, Mo Tzu. It sounds like a very difficult road you've been on. In fact, I can hardly imagine the kind of courage it must have required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:Thank you so much for your reply, Mo Tzu. It sounds like a very difficult road you've been on. In fact, I can hardly imagine the kind of courage it must have required. I mean, thanks but it wasn't that rough it was just life happening you know. I mean that's just karma right there
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Pure Land sounds a lot harder to reconcile with Catholicism than Zen. I know a significant number of monks from various Catholic orders were practicing at Zen Centers for a while. Formal Zen (i.e. what you find if you turn up at a practice center, as opposed to reading some Zen forum online) is very reverent of other monks and contemplative traditions and beliefs. Besides, there's not that much in Zen that's really incompatible with being a practicing Christian and no Zen Center worth its salt is going to be telling anyone what to believe or not to believe. Even the more informal 'family style' of Zen isn't really going to care what your background was. One of the groups I used to sit with had people of all kinds of other backgrounds turning up: lots of Tibetan Buddhists, a couple people from Christian orders, nominal Christians, atheists, Sufis etc. i mean i was about this side of becoming a jesuit (talked to the order, was doing discernment, etc) but before i could do the spiritual exercises or whatever i came out as gay and all of a sudden celibacy was a lot less appealing, so i kinda know a bit about jesuits. heck i even took about half the classes i took at seminary at a jesuit school, and my thoughts on interreligious dialogue were formed by jesuit theologians and some of my jesuit professors, so when i say i'm suspicious of a jesuit priest able to comfortably teach zen it comes from the understanding of what it means to be a priest and a member of the jesuit order. people have been censored for even having the appearance of dual religious belonging, so the idea that this guy can teach zen and not be censored would make me think that his zen is devoid of a lot of buddhist cosmology and like you can say all that but there was an article in some journal of buddhist/christian dialogue where a zen roshi from japan was ripping into this jesuit who taught zazen because he would be completely unable to accept certain teachings of zen that are especially anti-theist. admittedly i read this in undergrad so i'm not gonna remember it like i would five years ago, but i don't think i'm off base by saying that there are aspects of zen buddhism that are not compatible with catholicism, and that the catholic church is especially concerned about doctrinal purity and has silenced asian theologians that they consider to be crossing the line between dialogue and syncretism, and thus someone who is able to comfortably be a priest within the catholic church AND teach zen cannot be considered to be on the same level as, say, a roshi in japan. not to mention that the whole "interreligious dialogue" thing is usually done on christian terms, with christian vocabulary and christian methodology which other religions have to learn in order to be part of the dialogue. i didn't consider this to be accurate until i read a jodo shinshu priest writing about interreligious dialogue between jodo shinshu and christianity, and had i not known the author was a japanese shinshu priest i would have thought he was a protestant theologian because he cited mostly theologians and western scholars as opposed to japanese buddhist thinkers and scholars. i think being suspicious of the cost of even coming to the table is important, and in this case being suspicious of a jesuit teaching zen is especially important
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
apropos of nothing in particular, i decided to check out two podcasts recently: hardcore zen (discontinued or inactive) with brad warner; and the rochester zen center podcast with roshi kjolhede. didnt necessarily agree with everything i heard, but both were interesting and i thought both of the speakers were good sanshin zen also has a podcast (also inactive) that i thought was worthwhile, featuring shohaku okumura
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
been doing zazen again lately such a simple practice, but i forgot just how challenging it could be also reading a few translations of shobogenzo (again) and finding it alternately great and extremely confusing (again)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Uh, hello. I have a question but a bit of information first if you don't mind. Been looking for a religion for a long, long time. Well, more like been looking for some "purpose" in my life for a long time, be it politics, religion, whatever. One problem holding me back is I can't see very well. I'm legally blind, in fact. It makes reading long books rather impractical.As I'm sure ou can see, this presents me from delving into many religions because their texts aren't available in audio format which is easily the best method for me to get through a big book. Christianity of course is so prolific that it's easy to find many audio Bibles (although there are still many translations without audiobook versions) but Buddhism is so popular that it honestly looks like there are more audiobooks for it than anything besides Christianity. It's quite impressive, although I have heard all sorts of scathing comments around the net about how Westernized Buddhism is not real Buddhism. I wouldn't know how true any of that is. All I know is what I found on Wikipedia and in this thread. Buddhism interests me but obviously I need something a bit more substantial. And that brings me finally to my question. http://www.audible.com/pd/Religion-Spirituality/In-the-Buddhas-Words-Audiobook/B01J4IUOCM/ref=a_search_c4_1_1_srTtl?qid=1488685007&sr=1-1 Would any of you say this is a good introduction to Buddhism? From my extremely sketchy understanding of Buddhism, Pali refers mainly to the Theravada school but I would imagine anything the Buddha said should be invaluable and thus even if I end up really hooked on some other form of Buddhism, this will still lay all the necessary groundwork and fundamentals I might need. So...yeah. Sorry if that was a bit longwinded. I appreciate any help or answers. Thank you. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Bikkhu Bohdi is an incredibly well respected scholar; Both withing Buddhism and academically. That book in particular is a good introduction into the suttas. I didn't know there was a audiobook though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure how great the translations are, but this website has a ton of Mahayana Sutras some with text-to-speech capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Christianity of course is so prolific that it's easy to find many audio Bibles (although there are still many translations without audiobook versions) but Buddhism is so popular that it honestly looks like there are more audiobooks for it than anything besides Christianity. It's quite impressive, although I have heard all sorts of scathing comments around the net about how Westernized Buddhism is not real Buddhism. I wouldn't know how true any of that is. Imho western Buddhism is as much Buddhism as any other form, you just need to be aware that it's a bit different and not go around lecturing people from Asian forms of Buddhism about how they're doing it wrong. People on the internet will get sanctimonious about anything. The Pali Canon is basically very old sutras, which are generally said to be based on what the historical Shakyamuni Buddha said, although they weren't written down until long after his death. They're not that central to most Mahayana Buddhists (they have other, later sutras that they care about), but they're certainly central to western Theravada Buddhism, and I personally find them very edifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
pidan posted:Imho western Buddhism is as much Buddhism as any other form, you just need to be aware that it's a bit different and not go around lecturing people from Asian forms of Buddhism about how they're doing it wrong. People on the internet will get sanctimonious about anything. Well, shouldn't everything the Buddha said matte to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist? Even my very surface-level knowledge says that, while there are a billion different schools of Buddhism (Eastern religions don't put me off on moral grounds like some Western faiths but damned their lack of a Bible counterpart is frustrating) they still all believe in a few core tenets. Aren't those tenets laid out in these texts? I can't imagine every sutra talks about Nirvana/Nibana for example. I guess what I'm asking, since these are supposed to be what the Buddha taught in his "ministry", shouldn't they be pivotal to all Buddhists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well, shouldn't everything the Buddha said matte to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist? Even my very surface-level knowledge says that, while there are a billion different schools of Buddhism (Eastern religions don't put me off on moral grounds like some Western faiths but damned their lack of a Bible counterpart is frustrating) they still all believe in a few core tenets. Aren't those tenets laid out in these texts? I can't imagine every sutra talks about Nirvana/Nibana for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
What is this self that calls itself a Buddhist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Take the plunge! Okay! posted:What is this self that calls itself a Buddhist? A miserable pile of aggregates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well, shouldn't everything the Buddha said matte to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist? Even my very surface-level knowledge says that, while there are a billion different schools of Buddhism (Eastern religions don't put me off on moral grounds like some Western faiths but damned their lack of a Bible counterpart is frustrating) they still all believe in a few core tenets. Aren't those tenets laid out in these texts? I can't imagine every sutra talks about Nirvana/Nibana for example. The Dhammapada wasn't translated into Tibetan until within the last hundred years or so. Basically within other branches and schools of Buddhism things like the four nobles truths are taken as done without much particular scriptural time being spent on it. It's not to say those sutras are disregarded or regarded as inferior or something, I've always loved at the local inter tradition Buddhist teaching exchange how my Khenpo, equivalent to a doctorate in Buddhism, will appreciate deeply Theravadan sutra. It's just that there is a lot of Buddhism and not enough time to do everything to an equal degree. Beyond that there is the difference in focus between the Theravadan and Mahayana traditions that makes the early sutras of relatively minor value. You don't learn much about, for example, conducting yourself as a Bodhisattva from the early texts, whereas later teachings specifically speak to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The Dhammapada wasn't translated into Tibetan until within the last hundred years or so. Basically within other branches and schools of Buddhism things like the four nobles truths are taken as done without much particular scriptural time being spent on it. It's not to say those sutras are disregarded or regarded as inferior or something, I've always loved at the local inter tradition Buddhist teaching exchange how my Khenpo, equivalent to a doctorate in Buddhism, will appreciate deeply Theravadan sutra. It's just that there is a lot of Buddhism and not enough time to do everything to an equal degree. That does make sense. Thank you for the clarification. I'm interested in Mahayana Buddhism too but I figure I have to pick a point and start there, ya know. The book I linked to earlier seemed like a good start and I'll just have to figure out what to read after that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well, shouldn't everything the Buddha said matte to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist? Even my very surface-level knowledge says that, while there are a billion different schools of Buddhism (Eastern religions don't put me off on moral grounds like some Western faiths but damned their lack of a Bible counterpart is frustrating) they still all believe in a few core tenets. Aren't those tenets laid out in these texts? I can't imagine every sutra talks about Nirvana/Nibana for example. Loaded question. It helps if you can picture the history of the buddhist tradition like stratigraphy with layers of tradition deposited earlier and later. These different doctrinal and institutional layers are not relevant to all buddhists for various reasons. Of important distinction is that even the bottom layer Pali Texts are not texts in the conventional sense of a traditionally received body of written work. They were orally transmitted for several hundred years before being written down, and even then Pali is not (and many think was never) a spoken vernacular language, it was a formal language used to fix defined terms across a region where Buddhism existed among several different vernaculars. Even in parts of the Theravadan tradition for example in Thailand, many monks do not speak or understand a word of Pali, even the ones who make it a point to memorize and recite parts of the Pali cannon. Furthermore, early on in Buddhism's history even though many schools had access to reciters for all parts of the Pali cannon (vinaya, sutra and abhidharma), not all branches of the tradition saw equal relevance in the disparate parts of the cannon. Some schools thought the Buddha's truth was in his system of seeing reality as it truly was, the "abhidharma" system of philosophy which is generally thought to be composed after the Buddha's death. Some thought the Buddha's truth was really in the Sutras, some in the Vinaya. It is unclear to what extent these divergences were merely the result of the fact the reciters who specialized in reciting and memorizing in different parts ended up teaching in different regions and so therefore specializing in different parts of the Dharma. These schools had split up and started drifting and specializing long before the tradition in Ceylon (then already on the fringe of the Buddhist world) decided to write down the entire pali cannon, of which certain parts of the tradition spreading out of India over land were already de-emphasizing. For most of the Buddhist tradition which spread out through Gandhara (modern day Pakistan/Afghanistan) onto the Eurasian Steppes and into China, pali texts and pali reciters were not a relevant thing (to use sloppy internet slang). Rather what was spreading were traditions and cults centered around Mahayana texts, largely composed several hundred years after the death of the Buddha replete with stylistic differences and doctrinal emphases and arguably ignorant of the gritty details of the Pali cannon. And so like a game of telephone subtly alters the message, what is Pivotal to these Buddhists taking their traditions from later layers of the Buddhist tradition is necessarily going to be different from what was "Pivotal" to early Buddhists that were "ministered" to from content either from the Pali cannon or that would go on to influence the creation of the Pali cannon. The sort of idea you're drifting towards is in modern times called Protestant Buddhism, a notion that the Essential Truths of Buddhism can be located in the earliest texts and that identifying what these Essential Truths are is merely a hermeneutic exercise. The most recent manifestations of this are a reaction and result of British Colonialism, however, it is a trend which has emerged multiple times in Buddhist history. Chinese buddhism would go through a crisis of legitimacy about basic tenets of the religion and these issues are of course heart and central to the tradition of Zen Buddhism which later sprang from Chinese Buddhism. Deep in the midst of scholastic buddhism in Tibet, all of these issues resurfaced then as well. Generally this perspective has not "Won out" over time among the large body of self-identified Buddhists, either in the East or the West. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well, shouldn't everything the Buddha said matte to anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist? Even my very surface-level knowledge says that, while there are a billion different schools of Buddhism (Eastern religions don't put me off on moral grounds like some Western faiths but damned their lack of a Bible counterpart is frustrating) they still all believe in a few core tenets. Aren't those tenets laid out in these texts? I can't imagine every sutra talks about Nirvana/Nibana for example. The discourses that are from before Buddhism split into different sects, they are reckoned to be the ones most likely to contain the actual words of the Buddha. These early discourses contradict the later stuff on several important issues, both in Theravada and Mahayana. So for many Buddhists, taking the early discourses seriously means giving up views that have been taken up and held for a long time. You may be interested in the Buddha's discourses on 'future dangers', i.e. how the Dhamma will decline in the world over time. You can read them here; an5.77 to an5.80. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
So now it's my own story. I visited my local Buddhist temple - there was a giant Buddha in the woods and a meditation trail behind it for a few acres. I felt... something; "good" is probably the most honest way to put it. I was briefly spoken to by a parishoner who shook my hand and said he was glad to hear I was interested and encouraged me to speak to the abbot. I met that fellow in the temple and looked at him - we didn't speak but he seemed welcoming. I'm rather embarrassed at the prospect of going back, but I also want to. What would be the right way to approach things so I don't feel like I'm barging into an ethnic community here? (It seems to be, far and away, a majority-Sri Lankan situation.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
You have everything that you need already. The very fact that you feel hesitancy speaks to your qualification to enter respectfully. Return with kindness, openness, and respect and you'll have what you need. Imagine that you're in their shoes. If a person visited your space, would you feel like they were barging in on you? Well, it would depend upon how the person approached, and their actions when they entered, wouldn't it? What do you think is the cause of your embarrassment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:You have everything that you need already. The very fact that you feel hesitancy speaks to your qualification to enter respectfully. Return with kindness, openness, and respect and you'll have what you need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Subtract the durr and that seems an eminently reasonable way to begin the conversation. It's not as though you're some boundless fountain of idiocy. Do not imagine that! You've come up with a perfectly reasonable way to begin the conversation yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Subtract the durr and that seems an eminently reasonable way to begin the conversation. I have this sense that I may have entered a parable of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
I find your unceasing mis-characterization of yourself as an idiot baffling, but if it works for you.  Your sense of being inside a parable is not, I think, something to merely shrug off. It is, I think, important to "read" the world around you, to observe it and interpret it in an interpretive mode, at times naively, at other times more critically. Also, there wasn't "nobody" there. You were there, and you had an experience which had value. Or at least, I suspect it did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Your sense of being inside a parable is not, I think, something to merely shrug off. It is, I think, important to "read" the world around you, to observe it and interpret it in an interpretive mode, at times naively, at other times more critically. Here's an actual question from the big "rules for being around the Buddha statue" sign they had posted up. They mentioned that they did not want people "backing" the statue while taking photos or, ideally, in general. Does that just mean turning your back towards the statue or is there some other nuance here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I would characterize stumbling across a broken vase in a Buddhist temple and feeling compelled to clean it up a mystical experience but ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I would characterize stumbling across a broken vase in a Buddhist temple and feeling compelled to clean it up a mystical experience but ymmv. maybe you feel compelled to clean it up because you see garbage on the ground?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Please explain all of this garbage on the ground, if people feel compelled to clean up garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Please explain all of this garbage on the ground, if people feel compelled to clean up garbage. Just because they are compelled to clean doesn't mean they will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
If they don't, then how strong was the compulsion really? Strong enough to even merit the word?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:If they don't, then how strong was the compulsion really? Strong enough to even merit the word? We feel compulsions all the time, acting upon a compulsion is a matter of the person's free will. Thus even if a strong compulsion is there a person can freely ignore it for something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
also they might not have seen it this is a very silly conversation
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
If a vase breaks and there is no self around to witness, did it achieve moksha? Did it need to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Enlightenment is like the broken vase reflected in the eye of the disciple. The shards do not tough the eye, nor is the eye injured. Although its pieces and dust are many and distributed widely, the vase is reflected even in the eye of a cockroach. The whole broken vase and the entire room are reflected, even in one spider's tiny eye. Enlightenment does not divide you, just as the vase does not break the eye of the disciple. You cannot hinder enlightenment, just as an eye does not hinder the crashing of the vase onto the tile floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:We feel compulsions all the time, acting upon a compulsion is a matter of the person's free will. Thus even if a strong compulsion is there a person can freely ignore it for something else. Ultimately I think this comes down to differing definitions on our parts. I'd argue that an inner sensation that one feels but declines to act upon does not merit the label compulsion, I would term it an impulse or an instinct. When someone asks us why we did something, often we say "I felt compelled to do it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:If a vase breaks and there is no self around to witness, did it achieve moksha? Did it need to? It depends upon what that particular vase's dharma was. One should consult Krishna to discover that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Buddhist practice centers looking for new people will almost always have either orientation or introductory things (usually once or twice a month) or will have someone specifically for new people to talk to to get them up to speed on the particular practices of a center. If you're checking out a Zen place of practice, just tell them that you're interested and ask if there's anything you should know or anyone who could run you through the steps around zazen practice or what have you. Calling ahead is usually the best way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 21:14
|
|