|
Impermanent posted:i don't know, i think a lot of charitable work dramatically over-emphasizes the treatment of symptoms of suffering rather than causes. But this could be a more political conversation than we mean to have in this thread, so I don't want to push this point too hard.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Nessus posted:If the most compassionate thing we can do at any time is pursue Buddhahood, how is it justified to pursue other actions (save for a necessary minimum)? I personally don't have the capacity, opportunity, or conditions in life to strictly and exclusively go into retreat for the purposes of pursuing enlightenment. I have a friend who has been in retreat for several years in Nepal, because he does have those conditions. We're both doing exactly what we can do to benefit sentient beings. I'm administrating a Dharma center, he's practicing Dharma. We're both of us laypeople. Buddha taught 84,000 heaps of Dharma, because practitioners have many different circumstances and conditions. So we can have longterm goals like "attain enlightenment" that take many lifetimes, and shorter term goals like "ease the suffering of sentient beings" in this lifetime, and these don't conflict. quote:I don't disagree with the theory at all, to be clear, but if there is a "weakness" in Buddhism that I have observed it is that there seems to be relatively little of what you would call "charitable work," at least as a foundational part of the teachings. This may just be something where there is a large amount of charitable work but it is primarily in Asia It's a tricky thing. If you can ease the suffering of others, teach them Dharma, benefit the material conditions of their life, and so on, you should do that. That's good practice of generosity and compassion, so if nothing else, we should have the mindset where we are always practicing Dharma, always trying to improve. Growth mindset vs. fixed mindset is beneficial even in Buddhism (especially, maybe)! If you give up your loaf of bread to feed another, that is very good. If you can do that without any attachment to this life, you'll be in a great place. But if for even a moment you're going to regret that action while starving to death, all that practice will be for nothing. Why not split the bread, so you both have something? Don't do more than you can too quickly. The "lamrim" is a gradual path for a reason. Pursue it gradually. I think Sanju Kannon would agree with you. If we can't benefit the material conditions of sentient beings' lives, our practice is nothing, isn't it? But on your path to attaining enlightenment, benefiting others will be natural. Edit: I am absolutely not any kind of expert, and my contributions, though wordy, are I'm certain flawed. If anything I've had good teachers and a rare opportunity to hear some things that I can pass along. What I do know is also very narrow and there are a number of other traditions that are very strong with a good number of scholars in those traditions in this thread. Don't mistake my abundance of words for an abundance of knowledge: I'm just not pithy. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
I'm just starting to explore Buddhism. The thread has been a great resource and starting point. I don't feel qualified to discuss anything yet, just looking for some initial advice. I'm drawn to rinzai zen as I like the focus on the koans and mental discipline. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a rinzai presence where I live. There is one group affiliated to one drop zen, which is led by roshi shodo harada. He seems legit - anyone know anything about this particular lineage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
adamarama posted:I'm just starting to explore Buddhism. The thread has been a great resource and starting point. I don't feel qualified to discuss anything yet, just looking for some initial advice. I'm drawn to rinzai zen as I like the focus on the koans and mental discipline. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a rinzai presence where I live. There is one group affiliated to one drop zen, which is led by roshi shodo harada. He seems legit - anyone know anything about this particular lineage? nothing about that lineage, but note: if you are in a major metropolitan area i could probably suggest soto zendos, and to the extent you wind up being drawn to some of the elements that are typically more prominent in rinzai, be aware that many soto zendos are part of or have been influenced by (in some cases heavily) sanbo kyodan, meaning that those rinzai elements will be present in some measure even in those nominally soto groups. also, the differences tend to be in degree rather than in kind when it comes to practices. both traditions have koans, meditation intensives etc. and finally, i think both are fundamentally nondualistic, which means the soto emphasis on zazen (both in sitting and in life) brings you to the same place as rinzai, and it is an amazing tradition, worth giving a shot if you are still feeling around best of luck to you
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
I know I'm a little late to the show here, but to add to the whole bodhisattva-compassion discussion: Compassion doesn't always have to be peaceful and happy and full of rainbows. Compassion can be very direct and sharp, and doing something like drawing a boundary can be an act of extreme love and kindness. One example I've heard before is of a child about to run into traffic with their mother right next to them. She yells out "Stop!" very fiercely and grabs the child's shoulder before they can make a mistake. It's intense and fiery, but an expression of love and compassion at the same time. Indeed, within the Tibetan tradition, you often see very wrathful deities depicted holding weapons and surrounded by fire. They are supposed to represent that aspect of compassion, that compassion can be fierce. So, don't be afraid to draw a boundary, thinking that if you do it represents a failure to live up to the ideal of a bodhisattva. Sometimes the very opposite can be the case. Also to note is that, bodhicitta doesn't always necessarily mean "you go last, everyone else goes before you." At least within the Tibetan tradition, there is an explanation of there being three kinds of bodhicitta: that of a king, a boatman, and a shepherd. A king wishes to save himself first so that he can help the kingdom afterwards. A boatman takes everybody with them. The shepherd doesn't go until everyone has made it through safely first. All three are considered profound, although of course the shepherd's bodhicitta is most noble. The point being, you don't always have to live up to being a shepherd. Even just embodying a king's bodhicitta, having a sincere wish to liberate yourself and all beings and to traverse the path, is considered extremely profound. So don't put too much pressure on yourself to be a martyr of any kind!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Hi again Buddhism thread. I hope you all are well, I'm about to post a bunch of questionable opinionsadamarama posted:I'm just starting to explore Buddhism. The thread has been a great resource and starting point. I don't feel qualified to discuss anything yet, just looking for some initial advice. I'm drawn to rinzai zen as I like the focus on the koans and mental discipline. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a rinzai presence where I live. There is one group affiliated to one drop zen, which is led by roshi shodo harada. He seems legit - anyone know anything about this particular lineage? Rinzai is generally stricter and ostensibly more formal, likely will involve slightly more people being hit with sticks unless they specifically removed that as a part of Americanization (I mention this because it's a deal breaker for some people and IMO should probably be removed). That certainly appears to be a valid lineage so it should be worth checking out. If you've only got Soto in your area, check them out, they're not interchangeable but they likely will scratch the same itch. That said, every zen group has its own family style and additionally, the smaller the group the more formal ritual components they leave out in most cases. So while core parts of the experience will be similar wherever, the experience and community can vary quite a lot. Imo just check out any valid lineage around you. Call or email ahead, all of them will have someone who specifically helps get new people situated. Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:nothing about that lineage, but note: if you are in a major metropolitan area i could probably suggest soto zendos, and to the extent you wind up being drawn to some of the elements that are typically more prominent in rinzai, be aware that many soto zendos are part of or have been influenced by (in some cases heavily) sanbo kyodan, meaning that those rinzai elements will be present in some measure even in those nominally soto groups. also, the differences tend to be in degree rather than in kind when it comes to practices. both traditions have koans, meditation intensives etc. and finally, i think both are fundamentally nondualistic, which means the soto emphasis on zazen (both in sitting and in life) brings you to the same place as rinzai, and it is an amazing tradition, worth giving a shot if you are still feeling around Yeah there's an immense amount of overlap between Soto and Rinzai groups, especially in modern times and as Zen has struggled with how to adapt to American approaches to religion. My kneejerk feeling is to direct someone new towards a Soto group, but American zen is really very warm and finding a community of likeminded people probably is more important than the specific lineage. Besides at a certain point, they'll just encourage going out and experiencing other zen communities anyways Nessus posted:I mean the ideal is where there is no need for "charity" other than temporary aid to regions that catch poo poo from the weather or earthquakes. Part of my conditioning here is that I was raised in a very Jewish environment, though I was not myself a Jew; and so I tend to see charitable projects as a major expression of what you could call beneficial religious behavior. Its relative absence in Buddhism has thus stood out for me, even if it's hardly been a "deal breaker," and since Paramimetic is probably the thread expert I thought I'd raise the question. Paramemetic or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik every Tibetan lineage has lineage specific projects of a variety of scales (and a lot of their charitable resources/efforts are directed into helping the Tibetan diaspora and improving the circumstances in the regions where they have a presence, which are some of the poorest on the planet). On a tangible level, it seems like every single center is funding medical clinics and schools in remote villages otherwise largely devoid of services. Conditions in Bhutan or rural Tibet are pretty shocking. I know Zen traditions are big on charity, but there is a strong emphasis in Zen of it being rather poor form to mention your affiliation in passing/in public or even doing anything that draws attention to your practice. That said, in both Soto and Rinzai, Zen all emphasis is on compassion and altruism to an extent that it really is the raison d'etre for Zen practice itself. It's most actively emphasized in an interpersonal format, but every zen priest or higher I've known specifically oversaw other charitable pet projects? Also forgive me because I can't remember the specific origin of the story, but one of the better known Zen anecdotes involves a young surgeon trying to join a monastery and being turned away repeatedly because he'd be of far more service as a surgeon than as another monk. That said, in both Zen and Tibetan traditions with formal engagement with the tradition people will be doing a lot of service work, albeit a lot of it is intended to build up the community/center itself so as to better function as a hub or focal point for redirecting resources around to where they are needed. This is indeed quite different from Western style volunteering where a bunch of untrained people showing up offering to help and expecting to be trained is considered the norm. Edit: This got me thinking and it's worth adding that, as far as I know, all Zen traditions strongly encourage altruistic activity as a livelihood if at all possible as an elegant way of both meeting one's own needs while also being of benefit to others. As to theravadan ttraditions' practical modern approaches to charitable work I am wildly unqualified to speak Edit 2: also congratulations Paramemetic on now managing a center! Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
TLDR; Can someone suggest a link to a solid (online) dictionary of terms used in Buddhism. Maybe a Buddhist encyclopedia based on original etymology (?) would be a better term. I know that the nuances of these words/experiences etc can be extremely complex, especially transcribing experiential phenomena and that I could read many books exploring these facets - but for now I'd just like a bit more context, not maps just a basic guide to the legends on the sides of some traditions maps. I experience broken sleep a lot, and during one of these periods I was contemplating 'awake'ness, and how it differs according to how much capacity I have to experience (eg if I am in pain then a lot of capacity to experience goes into masking that pain, when I havent slept I conflate and confuse information easily), and how lucidity in dreams varies, I would say I have had dreams where I have greater capacity to experience what is in the dream than I experience waking life normally. Then there are the moments where you step beyond the dream content, or in waking life perceive a deeper layer or arising of something. Or I have heard people speak on dream yoga or people becoming realised in dream. A point of this meandering was me realizing that my misunderstandings are greatly compounded by my mis-assumptions, eg in the original usage in this very particular meaning of a word (or several words) that eventually translated to 'awake' in English what were they pointing at? This also applies to my knowledge of lots of non-english-translatable terms (I hear people speak or I read about them and feel I have a sense of them, which may be a varying level of untruth). A friend who practices yoga learnt Sanskrit to understand the subtleties of the practices, a lot of terms carry incredible nuance that does not translate easily or cleanly. His examples were beautiful and also a sobering moment. I know that the nuances of these words/experiences etc can be extremely complex, especially transcribing experiential phenomena and that I could read many books exploring these facets - but for now I'd just like a bit more context, not maps just a basic guide to the legends on the sides of some traditions maps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Perpetual Hiatus posted:TLDR; Can someone suggest a link to a solid (online) dictionary of terms used in Buddhism. Maybe a Buddhist encyclopedia based on original etymology (?) would be a better term. I know that the nuances of these words/experiences etc can be extremely complex, especially transcribing experiential phenomena and that I could read many books exploring these facets - but for now I'd just like a bit more context, not maps just a basic guide to the legends on the sides of some traditions maps. Here's a very basic but descriptive 'glossary' of a small amount of basic concepts/terms: http://secularbuddhism.org.nz/resources/glossary/ Here's a 'glossary' of sorts with a more terms: http://www.rangjung.com/glossary/ I know that neither of these links are exactly what you are looking for, and I would find what you're describing helpful, as well, but maybe these will be of interest to you, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, covers terms from several languages and traditions. http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/ Another invaluable resource is a Handful of Leaves. Look at the more general titles (or ones particular to your focus, if you’re interested in say meditation, dhyana etc.) and look up your terms in the index or text glossaries. For instance a good starting point would be Hajime Nakamura’s Indian Buddhism, the whole text is in the link below. http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/Library.html That library is such an incredible resource I backed up a mirror and have it on a few different thumb drives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
If you are in the New York area the Fo Guang Shan library is a good source for dictionaries, sutras and other materials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Given that humanity has progressed to a point where we could realistically end our own existence as a species, either directly through something like nuclear war or indirectly like through possible climate change destroying the habitability of the planet, what is the Buddhist line of thought on working to prevent that? From what I understand, the prime reason for not ending another's life, specifically human life, is because you deny that being the potential for enlightenment. But if there was a reasonable degree of certainty that an individual or group of humans were about to push the proverbial Big Red Button, would one be justified in working against that because if there's no humans, there's no chance at Enlightenment (at least for a while, assuming there's life elsewhere)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
The reason for not killing isn't just that it ends a being's chances at enlightenment. That is very specifically why it's not great to kill teachers and arhats and Buddhas and so on. Generally, we don't kill (or do violence at all) because it causes suffering. Nobody wants to die, everyone fears death and injury, and doing violence causes death and suffering. We don't want that for ourselves or for others. It is worse, too, for violence to happen to others because they may not be liberated from attachment to self and aversion to death, or even aware of the Dharma. If we're killed, at least we know about the Dharma! Killing the entire world also causes a lot of suffering, obviously, and we should try to avoid causing that. If we can prevent a tremendous amount of suffering by averting the end of the world, of course we should do that. Look at the current situation with global warming for example: a lot of people are already suffering as a result, a lot of people are fearful of what is happening. We should avoid hastening that if we can. But the world ending or even just human life ending wouldn't really prevent chances at enlightenment - if someone has the karma to be reborn in the human realm, they'll be reborn in the human realms. There's no avoiding cause and effect, we can't stop human rebirths just by killing ourselves. People with human rebirth karmas will be reborn perhaps on other worlds where Buddhism exists (there are mentions of other Buddhas and other worlds in such as the Brahma Net Sutra), or perhaps as spiritual beings in the human realm, like nagas. In any case we each have to practice Buddhism according to our capacity, doing our best within our causes and conditions. For some people that means reclusive mountain retreat and withdrawal from the world. For others that means we need to strive actively to make it a better place for others. Senju Kannon posted a fantastic argument for Buddhist socialism earlier on the last page of this thread, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:Given that humanity has progressed to a point where we could realistically end our own existence as a species, either directly through something like nuclear war or indirectly like through possible climate change destroying the habitability of the planet, what is the Buddhist line of thought on working to prevent that? From what I understand, the prime reason for not ending another's life, specifically human life, is because you deny that being the potential for enlightenment. But if there was a reasonable degree of certainty that an individual or group of humans were about to push the proverbial Big Red Button, would one be justified in working against that because if there's no humans, there's no chance at Enlightenment (at least for a while, assuming there's life elsewhere)? The teachings are not something that is exclusive to humans. We, as humanity, are working on having the ability to exterminate ourselves but that doesn't mean the chance to achieve enlightenment dies with use. We can't exterminate life itself. We might put a temporary end to intelligent life but like all things that's temporary. The teachings are fundamental truths of reality that the Buddha happened across and shared. The Earth, and the universe for that matter, will go on just fine without us. We are temporary; the teachings are not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The teachings are not something that is exclusive to humans. We, as humanity, are working on having the ability to exterminate ourselves but that doesn't mean the chance to achieve enlightenment dies with use. We can't exterminate life itself. We might put a temporary end to intelligent life but like all things that's temporary. The teachings are fundamental truths of reality that the Buddha happened across and shared. The Earth, and the universe for that matter, will go on just fine without us. We are temporary; the teachings are not. The Lotus Sutra also has an account of a bodhisattva from another area coming by to visit Shakyamuni, possibly in a sonic rocket ship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:But the world ending or even just human life ending wouldn't really prevent chances at enlightenment - if someone has the karma to be reborn in the human realm, they'll be reborn in the human realms. There's no avoiding cause and effect, we can't stop human rebirths just by killing ourselves. People with human rebirth karmas will be reborn perhaps on other worlds where Buddhism exists (there are mentions of other Buddhas and other worlds in such as the Brahma Net Sutra), or perhaps as spiritual beings in the human realm, like nagas. What precisely is a naga?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
nothin much, what's a naga with you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:What precisely is a naga? It’s a multifaceted term with a long history. In modern Indian context it refers to: 1) Indians from Nagaland, 2) a type of sadhu/wandering ascetic that generally renounces clothes and goes nude 3) snakes. Historically you see Naga as a term referring to tribal peoples, and Nagaland likely derived from this usage referring to the tribals that lived in this area. In context of Buddhism I would refer to a passage from Richard Gombrich’s How Buddhism Began quote:The word naga in Sanskrit and Pali has three distinct meanings: supernatural cobra (the meaning discussed so far), elephant, and ironwood tree. At the seminar, Mr Sumana Ratnayaka quoted a saying that the naga is the greatest among trees, among serpents, and among the laity. He added that the naga was a symbol of wealth, like the Chinese dragon. This seems to take the question of the ordination candidate a step further, though it remains unclear how this symbolism arose. So in short some of the thinking seems to be that one of the Pre-Buddhist religions floating around the Greater Magadha Area was a cult of snake and tree worship and the practitioners were known as Nagas. In the course of the Buddha’s tours around Magadha he converted several groups to his following, the snake worshippers being one such group. In the course of time the term naga morphed and would be cooped and applied to advanced spiritual practitioners. It is in this sense you see the term still alive today in india when describing the more extreme ascetics that don’t even wear clothes as Nagas. They are generally afforded respect by other aspects of the ascetic community in situation like the Kumbh Mela where I think they receive priority during one of the ritual baths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
In addition to Yiggy's scholarly response, I'll talk a little bit about what Tibetan Buddhists teach about them. The postulation about competing with naga worshipers in that way makes a lot of sense to me, but it's not something I would have learned in ritual training. In Tibetan Buddhism they are called "lu" and are underground- or water- dwelling spirits considered to be in the human realm (as opposed to any of the other realms, which we usually think of when talking about spirits). There are a number of practices regarding teaching Dharma and making offerings to the nagas, and a number of stories of the interactions the Buddha had with nagas, including stories where naga king Mucalinda protected Buddha from the elements, and a few stories where naga kings receive Buddhist teachings and make commitments to protect Buddhists in return for Buddhists practicing and including offerings. In Tibetan ritual they are considered extremely fickle because they are considered to be in the human realm. Whereas deities, demi-gods, and so on don't usually care about substitutions made with regard to offerings, or about errors in the offering, or so on, nagas care a lot about those things being correct, just as humans do. For example, a practitioner must not eat meat or eggs on a day where they perform the naga ritual, as this is seen as threatening. The offerings have to be correctly prepared, and the ritual itself should only be performed on certain astrologically determined days. Because of this a practitioner who does the Naga Buddha Practice has to be skilled both as a practitioner and as a ritualist. It's generally better to skip it entirely than to do it incorrectly, which is uncommon in these kinds of practices. I included them there simply because they're an example of beings that aren't physical humans but are in the "human realm," i.e., they have suffering and the opportunity to practice Dharma. So if we all died out it's entirely possible we all just get reborn as snake people. Ritually they're practiced because they are connected deeply to the earth (living in lakes, streams, and underground) and we are constantly loving up their environment. We can't see them because they are spiritual beings, possessed of subtle bodies rather than coarse bodies (but still possessed of bodies - they similarly cannot necessarily see us, we're sort of out of phase). The rituals where we teach Dharma are accompanied with vast (and particular) offerings which are meant to try to repair our transgressions and ameliorate their anger because they are believed to be able to control the weather in the greater magico-religious tradition. So if there is a drought or flood, nagas may be responsible. So the "practical" reason is profoundly magico-religious, and the "actual" reason is to share Dharma with other beings and repair our transgressions to avoid accumulating negative karmas through loving up the environment. As with all those kinds of rituals, though, there are several layers of abstraction from the socio-political that Yiggy pointed out to the magical that provides the "outer meaning" of the practice to the deeper meanings. It's also a bit peculiar in that it's one of the practices in the Tibetan Buddhist ritual corpus not intended to actually benefit the practitioner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
When you put it that way it makes it sound like the Islamic stuff with the djinn, though I'm not sure if you're supposed to go preach or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
That's amazing stuff, thanks a lot! I've only ever encountered them in roleplaying games, and the reason I even think to ask is that the Shadowrun cyberpunk RPG notes that Naga live primarily in India and Nepal, where they enjoy protected citizen status.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
They unnerved the crap out of me as a kid playing Chrono Trigger, in the scene where the nuns turn out to be nagas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
This thread has been very sleepy! The liturgigoon thread had a nice question today about daily rituals. What are you all doing daily/weekly for your practice? I know many more secular-minded fellow travelers concentrate only on meditation, but I'm also interested in how many of us pray, give offerings, and so on. In fact, I'd love to hear about offerings. We keep a small family altar at my house that was at first something I did to keep peace with my mother in law. But earlier this year, she sent us a large statuette (or small statue?) of Medicine Buddha since she and my partner work in healthcare. To better appreciate her gift, I've concentrated on Yaksayore-bul since then, and honestly, I've found solace in it. I'm not disciplined enough to keep up a daily schedule (sometimes I feel like it's a miracle that I get to just sit), but on Saturday I tidy the altar, give offerings, visualize, and pray. Our offerings are mainly flowers, herbs, and tea, though we also do incense and fruit sometimes. That's an area where I follow my partner's lead; he grew up with a family altar. So our Saturday morning prayer feels a bit idiosyncratic, but also very warm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:This thread has been very sleepy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:The liturgigoon thread had a nice question today about daily rituals. What are you all doing daily/weekly for your practice? I know many more secular-minded fellow travelers concentrate only on meditation, but I'm also interested in how many of us pray, give offerings, and so on. In fact, I'd love to hear about offerings. I would love to hear your thoughts on offerings. A couple days ago I listened to a dharma talk by Thich Nhat Hanh. He talked about considering car-free days as offerings to Lord Buddha. I wondered about this and how other practitioners generally see engaged Buddhism. Is it Buddhism to make an offering from an act of mindful consumption? I like to hear and mentally recite this chant of the heart sutra in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwA9pZstJY&t=201s
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Going to my finals in Advanced Religion and there's a good chance I will draw a question on Buddhism - so, one thing I don't get: What is buddhism's exact concept of reincarnation as pertains to the soul? I thought a core difference between you guys and hinduism was that you didn't believe in the soul. An-Atman as opposed to Atman, right? So, if there's no soul-stuff, but you still get reborn according to your karma, what is it that gets reborn? The only source I can find states that it reincarnation can "be likened to lighting one candle with another." which doesn't immediately enlighten me 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Tias posted:Going to my finals in Advanced Religion and there's a good chance I will draw a question on Buddhism - so, one thing I don't get: I forget the exact nature of this so I will probably be wrong, but from what I recall, the Anatman represents the fact that when you are reborn, what is reborn is not you - the idea of the soul represents an aspect of you as you are, and through the continued rebirth cycle the soul remains attached to the you. Buddhism anatman represents the opposite idea, that when we die, what gets reborn is something completely different, whose only connection is the karma that flows with them, At least that is the way I understood it, living out in the boondocks far away from any temple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Tias posted:Going to my finals in Advanced Religion and there's a good chance I will draw a question on Buddhism - so, one thing I don't get: My vague understanding is that a multitude of causes and conditions led to the arising of the senses and the mind, which in turn leads to other conditions, and so on. Similar to the way that Buddhism teachings describe karma, to me, anyway. Someone will expand on this, I would imagine. The particular instance of senses arising today are different than those of yesterday (heck, even those that arose 10 seconds ago), and weren't even present at all in this form before this body came into being. But the arising of these senses and this sense of mind are a consequence of prior causes and conditions. Strangely, I think your candle analogy is perfect. 
Chinook fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Dec 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
even in life there is both nonidentity and continuity: we are all on theseus’s ship. and it may help to consider that buddhism is not an annihilationist religion. some sources on this point are in the op perhaps on a slightly different point, but here’s a bit of dogen for you quote:“Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after.” Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Dec 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
I generally like the mindstream explanation. Mind flows like a river and like a river every time you step in the water is different but the river is the same. Or at least that's my incredibly novice understanding of the mindstream
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Hell of a question for a final. The tradition is old enough you can find contradictory positions represented within it. One way to consider the basic gist of anatman is that we are a collection of processes rather than some sort of discrete entity with an enduring, essential essence. We are a bundle of aggregates, none of which has its own essential nature separate from the process and web of causality/karma that precedes us, shapes us, and echoes out from us when we disintegrate. The more complicated answer is that in the history of Buddhism on multiple occasions you can identify periods of scholasticism where on the other side Buddhists will come out of these intellectual ferments with newly reified concepts which function like an ontological entity we would colloquially think of as a soul. It’s a recurrent tension in the religion, you see cycles of realist and idealist philosophy go back and forth. A great example of this is in truth Tibetan Buddhism and other forms of tantric Buddhism. Doctrinally you could argue there’s not a soul, but the entire tradition has a carved out a space where they keep an ontological entity/concept that most people would consider a soul and to them functions essentially like one. So, quick answer would be “no soul” but as soon as you scratch the surface you see that it’s been a complicated point for Buddhists stretching back to the redactors of the Pali cannon. Edit: To put a finer point on it, it’s difficult to know how your prof wants you to answer that question without the benefit of your experience.. If it’s an essay I guess just be sure to argue your position. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Dec 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
My thoughts are, let's say, of limited skill, but I'd like to share them (and see what corrections may arise) anyway.  I'm not very skillful, so this ended up being a long post.There's no equivalent to an eternal soul or self in the teachings. It is explicitly denied. An eternal soul represents something unchanging and essential. Buddhism denies an ultimate creator deity, so no eternal souls could emanate from that source. No eternal souls arise of themselves, without any other causes. Buddhism is deeply concerned with causality. When the teachings say something does exist, or denies that something exists, that denial may be better understood as a description of whether that concept arises from other causes -- dependent origination. Sure, you have a self. In fact, over time, you are composed of many selves; would you say that you're the same now as you were ten years ago? Will you be the same ten years from now? Are you the same self when you are drunk? What if you receive a severe brain injury? What happens when you wake up after sleep? We always change; clinging to the idea that we do not, or that there is some essential, unchangeable part of ourselves, is ignorant, egoistic, and leads to suffering. Nude Hoxha Cameo pointed out that the ship of Theseus is a great example here, because Buddhism does offer an answer: no. It's not the same ship, but also, it doesn't really matter, and you shouldn't spend time freaking out over it. Reincarnation isn't transmigration. No soul is transferred between lives. There is no static essence. What exists is karma, a series of consequences giving rise to other consequences, which impermanent, dependent existence crops up to shape for a limited time. The fruit of good karma is a decrease in suffering and an increase in wisdom and compassion that help that dependent being avoid choices that lead to more bad karma. The fruit of bad karma is more suffering and more consequences, but again, the fruits of good karma can help that being learn and turn that suffering into something at least a little fruitful. Is it fair that there are a whole bunch of beings who live and die by the consequences of other beings' choices? Is that satisfactory? That does describe our consensual, observable reality, but no, it's not a satisfactory state of affairs. If you come at karma thinking it's a ledger of accounts carried by something like an eternal soul trying to perfect itself, you open yourself to a belief that the world is just, and that bad things happen to people who deserve them. POOL IS CLOSED fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Generally speaking when religions talk about a "soul" or some related thing it's some core, essential piece of you that is eternal and unchanging. It lasts forever and is just "you" for eternity. Buddhism rejects the idea of eternity entirely. Not in that infinite time can't exist but in that everything changes. If there is a soul then it isn't "you." The idea of "you" doesn't really exist as everything is always in flux. There can't be eternal souls as moment to moment you're constantly changing. Buddhism doesn't completely reject the idea of a soul existing it says that that is asking the wrong question. Buddhism rejects the idea of the self entirely. You as some eternal, unchanging thing doesn't exist, can't exist, and never will exist; you're a part of the universe and the universe is part of you. There isn't any real separation between you and everything else; you're part of it and are always changing. Your body, whether you have a soul or not, is going to age and eventually die. When it dies it will rot and the things that made it up will return to the earth and become other things. The stuff that you think of as "you" will be arranged into other things; some of that might go into making people. The atoms that make up your cells never go away but they quit being arranged into what you think of as "you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Tias posted:Going to my finals in Advanced Religion and there's a good chance I will draw a question on Buddhism - so, one thing I don't get: Answers to your question will vary by school and teacher. Most of the Buddhism I've learned has come from the Plum Village monastery and their online publications. The teachers there are neither intolerant nor unconscious of things they would call popular Buddhism or devotional Buddhism. This includes things like a soul or consciousness existing separate from the body, or the common notions of reincarnation and retribution, or forms of ancestor worship. They'll say that these may be useful in certain conditions and an obstacle under different ones. They'll also talk about a deep form of insight Buddhism which is not caught up in the forms or cultural expressions of the practice. And they'll also caution against too extreme a reaction against conventions, including common notions about the self. They're very into the middle way. I think what the Plum Villagers teachers talk about with popular Buddhism applies to other religions. I see that there is a popular, devotional Christianity and a far-less-popular insight Christianity. I wonder if there is a popular paganism and an insight paganism, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Tias posted:Going to my finals in Advanced Religion and there's a good chance I will draw a question on Buddhism - so, one thing I don't get: This "you" is not your memories or necessarily your personality. The idea for the flame analogy is that the flame is intuitively a "thing" you can understand as being in common, even if it does not correspond exactly to a conventional material reality. The flame will also disappear if its conditions (oxygen, fuel) disappear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
The professor doesn't expect me to answer it, so no worries. It's more that I will get a better grade if I am able to compare similarities and differences between the religion I draw (can be christianity, islam and hinduism) and the other things we've studied (which includes buddhism). Thanks for all the excellent replies! I guess I understand a little more now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Tias posted:The professor doesn't expect me to answer it, so no worries. It's more that I will get a better grade if I am able to compare similarities and differences between the religion I draw (can be christianity, islam and hinduism) and the other things we've studied (which includes buddhism). Just remember; understanding is the first step to being completely lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I got some sick mala beads so I do a round of mantras periodically, which I suppose is unofficial but it usually helps me. Personally I'd love to hear a ton more about ritual, prayer etc. and other practices of this sort. Yes! More of this would be a great help, I think. Caufman posted:I would love to hear your thoughts on offerings. A couple days ago I listened to a dharma talk by Thich Nhat Hanh. He talked about considering car-free days as offerings to Lord Buddha. I wondered about this and how other practitioners generally see engaged Buddhism. Is it Buddhism to make an offering from an act of mindful consumption? I'm kinda new to offerings that go beyond passing around an offering plate. Something that helped me become more comfortable with the practice is the understanding that the offerings aren't given to benefit a Buddha (because they probably don't need such things; why should they?). When a teacher clarified that for me, I stopped feeling guilty and the act stopped feeling weirdly transactional. So the main purpose of an offering is to generate some merit for oneself and others, right? And the act of giving makes us happy and is soothing; ritual helps us clear our minds and focus on the moment. And when we give concrete offerings, they're used -- the temple may keep or redistribute material offerings, incense is usually burned, and so on. It is a little difficult for me to immediately embrace not doing a thing as an offering in the same vein. In a way, that feels more like fasting, or trying to cut back on an essential which happens to be harmful. However, I don't think it's a bad idea, and I'm certainly not in a position to disagree with Thich Nhat Hanh on this matter.  After all, many practitioners cut back on or stop using animal products for similar reasons, beyond building on a practice of nonviolence.Also, I saw that Thich Nhat Hanh returned last month to Tu Hieu Temple, which is a great blessing. Plum Village posted a short article on offerings last week, actually: https://plumvillage.org/news/memories-from-the-root-temple-does-the-buddha-need-incense/
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
One thought comes to mind: Get some money you intend to donate in the form of quarters or dollar coins or whatever and put a pushke or a donation bowl in your devotional space. As part of your daily prostrations etc. offer a certain amount of the money; if you want to be clever you can jigger the totals around so your sixty dollar donation becomes 240 quarters and thus eight coins each day. Or whatever. And if you forgot a couple of days... you can donate it anyway!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:This thread has been very sleepy! I’ve gone through a few different phases, I would sit and dabble in meditation when my life had the routine and stability for it but I wasn’t able to sustain it. When life was a little more chaotic I had an altar with a Buddha statue and would occasionally light votives and sit periodically with a mala and just do a quick practice with that. Our family has a toddler now and the altar got put away with the child proofing. Our little Buddha statue still has a prominent place in the home but we don’t interact with it really. What I have kept up with most regularly and for the longest period of time is just regular study of the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. Reading about texts, their history, the historical context, archaeology, modern contexts and traditions etc brings me a lot of peace from the... unsatisfactory storms of daily life. I feel like the better understanding of the tradition’s sweep, history and change that I am able to reach the better I can see the Buddha in spite of my poor vantage point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:Yes! More of this would be a great help, I think. From one perspective 'offering' is wildly open ended and all practice can fall under it (both formally and informally) and the merit for the practice will then be, uh, basically released afterwards in a brief dedication of merit. The generation of merit is a particularly meaningful form of offering, but in other contexts offerings are more aspirational (eg putting out a bowl of water for enlightened beings) or sometimes semi-mundane (eg specific food offerings in a ceremonial context, sometimes including alcohol or meat), to fully mundane (eg contributing literal sustenance to monastics or for that matter a soup kitchen or what have you). I'm rushed so this is a brief kind of essentialist answer, but all practice generates a certain amount of merit and regardless of the form of the offering, so long as there is practice, then there is something to offer. Merit is a complicated word in this, too, where it (seems to be generally referred to as) something separate and real that is generated by virtuous actions, but also it is the cause and conditions and results/rewards of virtuous actions as well. Unless you're formally involved in a specific tradition (which will have ritualized various offerings) just pick some simple ones that you can keep and feel meaningful to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 03:51
|
|