|
Yeah, I agree with the points made previously. When a multi-billionaire tweets out about "loosening attachment to material things to live simply" from his California mansion while paying his employees less than a living wage, it just makes the whole scene look bad if you don't actually know anything about Buddhism to begin with.
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Another complicating factor is that doing meditation practice probably works for the son of a bitch and gets him some results, which of course he finds pleasant. But there is no Dukkha Distribution Officer we can appeal to to turn off his meditation, nor even really a Pope we can get to say "Nah, gently caress this guy."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
But he, too, suffers.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
i genuinely think people looking at religious practices or metaphysical teaching as having any sort of relevance when it comes to perpetuating capitalism is being reductionist. in every religion you can name, you have rich people who justify their wealth in religious terms, and you have people fighting for the poor using religion to justify themselves. while i, personally, as a religious person and a trained theologian am interested in the mechanics by which people use their religion to justify their own political worldview, it's not really that big a deal it's just one component of cultural and social factors that make up our society, and in our current american society it's one of limited importance. i read an article that said gramsci thought there were intellectual authorities in societies, and that when societies change the old intellectual authorities are still invoked, but in different ways and not as much as new intellectual authorities. which is why, in the italy of his day, religion was still an important intellectual authority but was subordinated to other, more modern authorities. america is very similar. we're in an increasingly secular age, and while there are a large proportion of religious people in this country, the way religion is invoked is somewhat different from how it was earlier, i think. i haven't done the research on that one yet, but basically christianity is used as a justification for neo-conservative ideology that's the real new intellectual, while christianity is simply adapted to it so that it can maintain some relevancy in an era that requires less and less of it tech billionaires appropriating buddhist practice should be seen similarly; as spiritually dead people who've been conditioned by capitalism to feel like absolute poo poo while making their money trying to find some new intellectual authority to make them feel better. they'd be doing the same type of poo poo if they turned to evangelicalism or any new age movement, like how the hippies dealt with a changing society by seeking out eastern religion and new age stuff (before a lot of them bottomed out into pentescostal christian movements like quiverfull). acting like mindfulness is somehow specially bad for this misses the fact that it's not about mindfulness; it could've been anything. it's the people who are bad, not the religion
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Chinook posted:But he, too, suffers. To me this is the key. I am not a Buddhist but I do like philosophy of all sorts and I was recently re-reading Plato. In the Gorgias he makes the case that the tyrant is the most pitiable person of all because he has material wealth and power...but who cares? There is nothing more meaningless. He does more harm to himself than anyone else. I would think Buddhists would feel similarly. We're all prisoners here and surely how much meaningless wealth you possess is no true judge of your moral character. And those who do abuse their wealth are just abusing themselves, prolonging their suffering. But do you have to give up all your wealth to be a good person then? Bill Gates giving away billions in charity doesn't matter and he's still a monster?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Discussion of the morality of individuals can be divorced from discussion of the morality of systems. We don't necessarily need to condemn individuals for the conditions their karma has afforded them, but at the same time individual acts of moral good do not and cannot make a fundamentally unjust and exploitative system a moral good. That samsara sucks and all things are impermanent doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in political critique or action to attempt to materially improve the conditions of people's lives. As bodhisattvas we're in fact called to attempt to reduce the suffering of others both through propagation of the Dharma and through materially reducing their suffering in re. Just because ignorance prevents us from seeing the actual solution to our suffering doesn't mean we can go "ah, so it goes." Because he came as an example, it's blatantly obvious that @jack has suffering. It's obvious that he has tried many things to reduce this suffering. I feel tremendous compassion for @jack. I hope his suffering ends and that he attains complete enlightenment. I also recognize that his platform does tremendous harm to people. Further, his participation in a system of inequality and exploitation as a member of the capitalist class isn't great. But it's also his karma. And that's about the gist of it. Bill Gates and @jack and Donald Trump and the Koch brothers and so on don't get to choose their material conditions any more than any of us do, they're also subject to cause and effect and they are who they are because of what they have done in this and past lives. And that's okay. Donating some billions to charity is a good thing - does it make up for the actions that participating in a system of exploitation that enables billionaires to exist? I don't know, I'm not the karma police. If it reduces his suffering and the suffering of others, that surely counts for something, but that doesn't make capitalism Good. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Canonically too high of a birth or too low of a birth can be a barrier to progress and can prevent enlightenment. In the extreme a birth as a deva or a yaksha or some other powerful being can obscure suffering but all things are impermanent and even devas and yakshas fall prey to samsara. In the texts the Buddha states that because of this the optimum birth for attaining enlightenment and progress is (conveniently) a human birth; you are not so far from suffering that you cannot see the utility and truth of the dharma and you’re not so buried in suffering and the three delusions that you can’t work your way out as presumably many animals or a hungry ghost might be. This can be seen in a grand sense and in a closer, more mundane sense. A high birth into a life of wealth and privilege obscures much suffering and places a person farther from a vantage where they can grasp their suffering, yet they suffer none the less. The work becomes more immediate and important for those in the thick of it and you see this spoken to in many parts of the Buddhist cannon of literature particularly the Buddha’s hagiography. Only when Siddartha leaves his privileged existence and sees the world as it is for the bulk of us is he even able to begin on the path. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 06:38 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:But do you have to give up all your wealth to be a good person then? Bill Gates giving away billions in charity doesn't matter and he's still a monster? This Citations Needed podcast episode might be of interest regarding Bill Gates. Here's a fairly random quote I picked that might be of some relevance: quote:Um, I want to talk about the lavish media praise, but first I want to establish something. A lot of this boils down to, and I think, uh, a lot of listeners may listen to this and say, ‘oh, y’all just being sort of cynical,’ and I’m, I’m sure you get that a lot. There’s this idea of good intentions, which is I think politically a very uninteresting question. What matters is material effect, and I think in many ways the good intentions is baked into the ideology of what we’ll sort of broadly call capitalist ideology. Take, for example, Gates, you know, his affinity for charter schools, even if he, if he accepts the premises, which I would argue is a free radical right-wing premise that unions are fundamentally bad for children. So he therefore wants to help bust unions or undermine unions as do the Waltons, then his intentions are sort of irrelevant because the capitalist model, the libertarian model, the model that billionaires know what’s best, is baked into the cake of his worldview. And so the good intention question is sort of less relevant than what is the ideology at play here. That’s where I think that most people who think, ‘okay, I don’t think that he’s evil.’ It sort of doesn’t matter, you know what I mean?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 09:58
|
|
|
Maybe this is a misconception, but I thought that buddhism was more about "skillfull" vs "unskillfull" or "enlightened" vs "ignorant" actions. Even if Gates loves charter schools out of a desire to do good, his funding of them to bust unions would be an unskillful or ignorant act, right?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Judging other people's actions as skillful or unskillful gets into a whole big can of worms and I generally find it more fruitful to just focus on my poo poo because there are so many differences in circumstances and perfect knowledge of another's minds, actions, or karmas is limited basically to Buddhas.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Judging other people's actions as skillful or unskillful gets into a whole big can of worms and I generally find it more fruitful to just focus on my poo poo because there are so many differences in circumstances and perfect knowledge of another's minds, actions, or karmas is limited basically to Buddhas. I've been wondering about this in the context of Right Speech lately. How do we balance, on the one hand, speaking truthfully — specifically, speaking out about what we feel confident is causing suffering, as with folks speaking out against actions taken to start and prolong wars and conflict, or furthering climate damage, or actions causing exploitation and the like, etc — with, on the other hand, the importance of not speaking in an unkind way and only mentioning skillful traits in others, to develop compassion and help beings towards awakening? It seems like a razor thin margin, at times, between causing suffering in others' minds and enabling unskillful conditions to keep arising.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Keret posted:I've been wondering about this in the context of Right Speech lately. How do we balance, on the one hand, speaking truthfully — specifically, speaking out about what we feel confident is causing suffering, as with folks speaking out against actions taken to start and prolong wars and conflict, or furthering climate damage, or actions causing exploitation and the like, etc — with, on the other hand, the importance of not speaking in an unkind way and only mentioning skillful traits in others, to develop compassion and help beings towards awakening? It seems like a razor thin margin, at times, between causing suffering in others' minds and enabling unskillful conditions to keep arising. We often speak sort of to a general audience, to shadows on a wall. I see a lot of people who have a deep and passionate relationship with those shadows on the wall. These invisible people on social media in particular, but also this sort of construction in their head of what people will think. The kind of thinking where you go "Boy, I bet (GROUP) would hate THIS!" as a first response to a thing. (I will draw a distinction here from people who have become repetition engines, but I don't think the answer is to become a slightly superior repetition engine.) The vast majority of us are speaking to audiences in the dozens at most. More likely, a small handful. But those are the handful to whom we can make an impact. So what I think we ought to do is think about how we communicate to the people who we are closest to. This is a place where karma can in some places come into play, in the sense that if we have an established practice of being skillful and compassionate, people may be inclined to give a little more credence when we say something uncomfortable, and sometimes that little extra credence is what was needed. This of course wasn't exactly what you asked. I don't know if there is going to be some Buddhist rhetorical trick to convincing people to adopt our views except in the application of the same general means. The main thing I turn to usually is the parable of the burning house. When I am actually trying to convince someone to change their ways I try to get in on their concerns, the particular form of their suffering and their desires. I think that is a principle that can be generalized.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
Keret posted:It was surprising, and very encouraging, to see you post this, Paramemetic. I had sort of subconsciously baked in some very negative and pessimistic expectations about what I could (or, more acutely, could not) accomplish and do with my dharma practice after being diagnosed, and felt in a way that, perhaps, people with ADHD did not have a place in the sangha. So, to see you — an individual so involved in dharma practice, and so often a conduit for such skillful and helpful observations in this thread — dealing with the same issues, was quite a realization. Your post was exactly what I needed to read, and I am deeply grateful for it. I'd like to expand a little bit on it all, since there are now multiple of us in the thread, and maybe it can be of help. A lot of people conflate the specific practice of sitting with being a good buddhist and while it's a good practice and certainly is iconic af, it's not especially vital so long as some form of effort to develop or cultivate or train the mind exists. Ironically I asked some people from the specific lineage you're studying with about this because I was curious about what practice is important for people who are paralyzed or disabled in other ways. The response was two-fold: first, practicing in a way that works for a person is what's more important than any specifics around sitting or shikantaza etc. and second just be mindful of the rising and falling of the breath. Also wrt medication, do what you need to do and what lets you live the best quality of life. There's a lot of messaging like 'no one should take anything psychoactive ever' or the even weirder 'no one should take pharmaceuticals' poo poo that gets pushed by people who are also drawn to buddhism and it's just staggeringly bad and dangerous advice. Also there's some kind of interesting discussions that I've heard about whether or not ADD meds are benefitting or hindering practice in particular. Most people RXd them seem to feel that they are either generally or specifically a net positive and for some people lead to an easier time sliding into the deeper states of concentration. Really though, it's just another dimension of human experience, if you need to take them to live your life to the fullest, by all means take whatever you need to and ignore all the hippy anti-pharmaceutical poo poo. quote:At the practice center that I have started becoming more and more involved with (Ancient Dragon Zen Gate in Chicago, which a goon in this thread recommended, many thanks to you), everyone is really into working with Dharma Gates, and looking deeply to see them everywhere. I think, then, that ADHD could be a wonderful Dharma Gate for me to explore, and perhaps be able to see it with eyes of compassion rather than eyes of disappointment or frustration. I'm jealous, one of my great regrets wrt practice was turning down an offer of introduction to Leighton as he is, by far, my favorite translator of older Zen writings. I'm happy to hear you're finding it to be a good place. In particular, trying to see adhd in that regard is about the best you can do and it will still be frustrating, but eh that's life and sometimes that's the cost of getting to see the world from a different perspective. I go through some similar stuff as someone with quite severe narcolepsy and other REM disorders: it's frustrating and at times disruptive to life, but it also is an interesting af thing to experience. Keret posted:I've been wondering about this in the context of Right Speech lately. How do we balance, on the one hand, speaking truthfully — specifically, speaking out about what we feel confident is causing suffering, as with folks speaking out against actions taken to start and prolong wars and conflict, or furthering climate damage, or actions causing exploitation and the like, etc — with, on the other hand, the importance of not speaking in an unkind way and only mentioning skillful traits in others, to develop compassion and help beings towards awakening? It seems like a razor thin margin, at times, between causing suffering in others' minds and enabling unskillful conditions to keep arising. Tbh, if I'm reading this right: just try not to depress people and don't be too much of a bummer. The world has always been a hosed up horrible terrible place full of evil poo poo and the future has always been brutally dire. At the same time, people need a certain amount of happiness and freedom from that reality to live their own lives because, while it's true, it doesn't really accomplish anything to dwell on. On the other hand, if someone is being inappropriate, don't hesitate to call them out, just don't be more of a dick about it than you have to? IMO to some extent being able to worry about global issues is a bit of a privilege and everyone already has their plate full of worries. I'm not saying don't discuss stuff or have those sorts of convos (quite the opposite), but definitely be mindful that nearly everyone is already doing pretty close to what they actually feel that they are capable of doing. IDK how to put this well, but basically: don't massively overthink it, just consider peoples' circumstances before dropping some heavy conversation on them and be prepared to apologize and take a step back if you over do it. Paramemetic posted:Judging other people's actions as skillful or unskillful gets into a whole big can of worms and I generally find it more fruitful to just focus on my poo poo because there are so many differences in circumstances and perfect knowledge of another's minds, actions, or karmas is limited basically to Buddhas. Yeah, when in doubt, how are they affecting the people around them? Are they hurting anyone? Those are the things that we can absolutely observe and form some opinions on Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
I usually lurk, but: Mindfulness when practiced freely and consciously is no scam, however: In a lot of northern europe, public sectors and private businesses have glommed onto mindfulness 'experts' to 'cure' their challenges, like making people survive brutal hours or get really ill people to attend minimum wage jobs. They must attend these seminars or lose their work or disability payments. It's part of the notorious 'new public management' in which all sectors must cut employees and costs and use coercion to control the resulting defects in the welfare state. Essentially, mindfulness in this form becomes forced and twisted into a bare bones version enabling the practicioner to serve the needs of the rich, and naturally this pisses off both the left and those of us who have met it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Tias posted:I usually lurk, but:
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
The joke will be on the capitalists when their employees start attaining satori out of the blue
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Take the plunge! Okay! posted:The joke will be on the capitalists when their employees start attaining satori out of the blue I got interested in personal daily practice after my brush with it at my weekly "MINDFULLNESS FOR ROBUSTNESS: BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE JOB MARKET" 'therapy' session, so I guess it worked out for me. A lot of people get just robust enough from these campaigns to work for a while, then relapse with depression/anxiety and become even more sick than they were before, and with the psychiatric system bursting at the seams from underfunding and overdemand things are not likely to get better soon.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Keret posted:I've been wondering about this in the context of Right Speech lately. How do we balance, on the one hand, speaking truthfully — specifically, speaking out about what we feel confident is causing suffering, as with folks speaking out against actions taken to start and prolong wars and conflict, or furthering climate damage, or actions causing exploitation and the like, etc — with, on the other hand, the importance of not speaking in an unkind way and only mentioning skillful traits in others, to develop compassion and help beings towards awakening? It seems like a razor thin margin, at times, between causing suffering in others' minds and enabling unskillful conditions to keep arising. Not a real Buddhist (just incorporating some elements in my daily life), but hopefully I will be able to help here. Two important questions about trying to tell someone something uncomfortable is how does that make you feel and what reaction do you really expect. Do you believe they will be convinced, or do you fully expect them to double down? Does that make you sad? Angry? If they suddenly announced they changed their mind, would you be happy or disappointed? Do you expect the message to hurt them? Do you care? Do you actually anticipate it? When activists tell others unnecessarily harsh truth, it's usually not about the message, it's about them. They want to feel righteous or show they are righteous. For some is a way to feel powerful or get back at someone who for them represents the enemy. Identifying these feelings in yourself really helps being less harsh and more convincing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Not a real Buddhist (just incorporating some elements in my daily life), but hopefully I will be able to help here. It isn't that he was wrong, it's that he was making the wrong approach. While this isn't really on topic for the Buddhism thread, I think there are many cases where people are trying to use their favored method to persuade a hypothetical individual instead of figuring out a method to persuade an actual individual.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
Ask Us About Buddhism: I hate it too! But mindfully.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
Keret posted:I've been wondering about this in the context of Right Speech lately. How do we balance, on the one hand, speaking truthfully — specifically, speaking out about what we feel confident is causing suffering, as with folks speaking out against actions taken to start and prolong wars and conflict, or furthering climate damage, or actions causing exploitation and the like, etc — with, on the other hand, the importance of not speaking in an unkind way and only mentioning skillful traits in others, to develop compassion and help beings towards awakening? It seems like a razor thin margin, at times, between causing suffering in others' minds and enabling unskillful conditions to keep arising. I think this is a question of very advanced practice. I'd have to admit that I have learned things from unkind speech even directed at me. But I also had to see that unkindness is also a product and creator of suffering and misperceptions. Now, it's less painful to hear an unkind thing said. But I'm not inclined to use unkind speech, either. Uh, most of the time. I want to learn a better and more effective way of sharing what's true. I think there is a shortage of people who have the patience to listen compassionately to others, who will have right and wrong views, and we may have right and wrong views about them, too. I recognize that shortage of patience in me, too. So I would be fortunate if there are really at least 84,000 dharma doors for the vast majority of people whose paths do not closely follow mine. And for those close relations that I'm lucky to have, and with whom I've had the time to cultivate mutual loving kindness and patience, it is easier to share truths about suffering and joy, personal and social. I think it's also very advanced to want to see honestly whether we use any part of our practice to pacify our sense of justice, responsibility, and right and wrong. You can use your concentration to avoid something real and unpleasant. But there are monks and nuns and lay practitioners who will tell you that passivity is not Buddhism, and it doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
am I welcome to ask questions about meditation that I have from Sam Harris’ waking up course and other surrounding questions I’ve come across since
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:am I welcome to ask questions about meditation that I have from Sam Harris’ waking up course and other surrounding questions I’ve come across since 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
I don't see why not? Waking Up generally draws good conclusions (that materialist science is deficient and incapable of addressing issues of consciousness and experience) and Harris definitely leans into Tibetan Buddhism with his stuff. I'm not really familiar with it but an emphasis on experience as a primary source of learning is good.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
The things I am getting my head around is vispassina, dzogchen, metta, and the general concept I suspect, that by literally spending more time in certain cognitive states, will make those states more “default”, like metta. what I am beginning to suspect that whole dzogchen can take you directly to the state one may ultimately desire, it’s other practices that mold consciousness so that dzogchen practices take you to a better place also i still struggle with the nature of no self. the concept of associating myself with my thoughts isn’t really familiar to me, so i don’t have to lose that, but I struggle to conceive that I am not the experiencer or the experience, but perhaps I just need to keep practicing. under the influence of psychedelics I find it quite easy to just be the experience, I can feel myself leave my body alone, and just be the experience.. and some experiences that I believe some would describe as ego loss, it’s not too difficult to “become” your experience, but nothing about that feels like i’ve let go of something precious like my ego. hmm either i’m still miles away from it or it’s already normal to me this is interesting
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:The things I am getting my head around is vispassina, dzogchen, metta, and the general concept I suspect, that by literally spending more time in certain cognitive states, will make those states more “default”, like metta. what I am beginning to suspect that whole dzogchen can take you directly to the state one may ultimately desire, it’s other practices that mold consciousness so that dzogchen practices take you to a better place I have only the very beginnings of Dzogchen training from the Drikung Yangzab tradition. My practice is generally focused on the Mahamudra tradition. However, these are two approaches to the same goal - the enlightened state is the same and only the techniques vary slightly. I'm saying this just to make clear that I'm not a Dzogchen guy generally but I do have some basic education in it. That said, I've had very helpful experiences with aspects of Dzogchen meditation, such as meditating on the space between the sense object and sense basis. Regarding the concept that you spend more time in states to make those "default," that is accurate. Your mind is driven by habit. We do not control our thoughts, but we can tame our thoughts. Thoughts that arise are the result of habitual tendencies. Just as we can willingly choose to change a habit such as how we tie our shoes or what shoe we put on first, we can willingly choose to change our habitual tendencies. When we think violent thoughts, engage in violence, steep ourselves in reading about violence, and so on, our mind will naturally be inclined toward violence. Similarly, when we practice lovingkindness and compassion, constantly foster compassion for others, avoid violence, and so on, our mind naturally arises compassion in response to encountering people. Likewise, our natural habitual tendency is to see ourselves as a "self," objects as "outside us," ourselves as "experiencers" having "experiences," and so on. This leads to grasping to our "self." But we can practice and change this natural tendency in order to see things differently, through diligent practice and so on. Dzogchen practice is meaningless without compassion. The enlightened state requires the development of both wisdom and compassion. If we have supreme wisdom of understanding emptiness, but no compassion, we won't achieve any sort of happiness, and (while Harris I suspect would reject this) we will find ourselves reborn as evil spirits or formless gods. Dzogchen means "The Great Completion" in Tibetan, but without compassion (metta) or insight (vipassana) we cannot possibly have that great completion. The concept of no self is like this: there is no experience or experiencer because depend on one another for their very existence. Without an experience, there is no experiencer. Without an experiencer, there is no experience. Thus there is no way to isolate or distinguish experience from experiencer. Both are part of the other. This is called "interdependent coarising," and is one way of understanding emptiness. Understanding ourselves to be the "one having an experience" and the experience that is something that we "have" introduces a dualistic distinction that leads towards self-grasping ("I" exist, and "I" want to have certain experiences that are pleasurable, and not have experiences that are unpleasant). One way of describing this historically has been a father and a son. We generally see a father as a cause for a son. However, until the son is born, there's no such thing as a father. The father cannot cause the son because until the son exists, there was no father anywhere. Similarly, the son cannot cause the father because without the father, the son cannot exist. The son and the father are mutually coarisen and interdependent, both exist because of the other. Experiences, in the form of consciousness, is the same way. All experiences, sights, smells, sounds, and so on occur within a phenomenal field that is not other than our consciousness. We might think "a table exists" but we have no access to a table that exists outside our consciousness. Our experience of a table exists entirely within our consciousness, and cannot exist without our consciousness. The table does not cause the experience of a table, nor does consciousness cause the existence of a table, but both are mutually co-arisen and therefore neither have intrinsic inherent independent existence. Both are emptiness. Psychedelics are useful for some people because they help to show us that our experiences are not based on physical, material things but rather based on an interaction of sense objects (things) and sense organs (eyes, ears, etc.) and the arising consciousness-events that result from that interaction, and those consciousness-events being given names and labels by our mind and so turning from sense-consciousness-events into thought-consciousness-events. Through meditation, we can observe this process and gain a lot of insight into the nature of reality as mind itself. For this I like to meditate on the Fire Sermon. It sounds like you're going in a good direction. I don't know much about Sam Harris, I generally find neuroscientist-conscioussness folks to be a bit obnoxious and there's a tendency for them to overreach into other fields (there is in fact no evidence linking the mind to the brain). That said, it sounds like his insights are helping you a lot, and that's really good. I would suggest looking at some other similar books (Waking, Dreaming, Being is a good one on similar topics) and then looking at the philosophies from which Sam Harris is drawing in order to make sure you're getting it directly (rather than through a lens darkly with a particular set of dogmatic assumptions about reality that taint things). Looking at the Buddhist models of consciousness and particularly at Yogacara and Madhyamaka philosophy would probably add a lot of clarity. But, one thing I agree with Harris about (and in fact something my own lineage founder writes about in his treatise, The Single Intention) is that you absolutely must experience these things through practice, and cannot possibly gain any real insight through study alone. In that regard, you are already making great material steps towards improving your understanding and having a more fulfilling spiritual life, a goal which I absolutely must agree with Harris about. And to reprise your previous question: this is extremely on topic and cool. Thanks for posting.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Hey wow, thanks.. Thankyou for your extensive answer. Appreciate your time. I definitely see all of this in general as a very positive addition to my life and hopefully something that can really help steer me right. I’m quite depressed often and have a tendency to self medicate (often drinking) and this tends to lend itself to me not practicing, so obviously breaking that cycle by simply practicing more is going to be essential. Earlier this year I practiced more, my interest has been steady but practice has waned, and looking back I can see the difference. Having a personal outreach in this thread will hopefully help. Once again thankyou 😁
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Yeah, if it fires it wires is absolutely a neurological process wrt states of mind. One dzogchenny clarification is that the state (quality might be a better term) of mind described, i.e rigpa, isn't a new, different state of mind, but rather one that was already present but now hopefully increasingly unobscured by weird bullshit and useless distractions and aversions and attachments and poo poo. As an aside, Zen practice encourages essentially the same, as well, though I don't mean to reductively equate the two. The meditative states of concentration are more like side-effects of practice, but can and often are distractions. Still, as a side effect of intense practice, they're a sign that you're doing something mechanically right, if that makes sense. They can also be harmful if they're used as an escape. Ironically, people using meditative practice like a drug for escapism is kind of a big problem at the moment. Drugs are interesting because they can absolutely get people into some similar or sometimes the same states. The drawback is that they give you a tantalizing taste without a non-drug way of getting back there without putting the effort into some kind of practice. Drugs obviously have similar potential for being used as an escape, as well. Personally, I'd suggest seeing things like metta as a quality of mind rather than a state of mind or something. It's a quality you cultivate continually, not a state that you are in or not in Anyways, what paramemetic said is good stuff as normal Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
i’ve been up for 16 hours so far, so forgive me if i don’t make much sense. my brother, forums poster 13 orphans, is in the hospital with pneumonia, and as i am no longer the praying kind i figured medicine buddha practice would help both of us. if i recite the medicine buddha mantra for my brother, he receives the merit and healing promised by yakushi nyorai’s vow, right? i’m jodo shinshu, which means amida’s vow alone is what leads to enlightenment, so i’m unfamiliar with the other buddha’s and the practices associated with them. but amida doesn’t heal the sick, yakushi does, and he’s a buddha all the same, right? i’m not looking for rebirth in the east, just healing for my brother, so it’s probably fine
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Medicine Buddha has 12 or 8 vows (depending on the formulation) but in both cases yes, the 6th vow is that all beings who faithfully pray to the Buddha will receive physical healing and support of the body and so on. On an ultimate level the nature of all Buddhas is the same, they are "like water mixed with water" abiding in the dharmakaya state and so there is no error or flaw in your reciting the Medicine Buddha mantra. My understanding of Jodo Shinshu is that it's depending on Buddha Amitabha's aspiration that any who faithfully call his name with devotion are reborn in the Sukhavati pure land, yeah? Medicine Buddha's aspiration is that those who call on him with devotion receive healing and physical support for their practice, so reciting his mantra and dedicating it for your brother should bring that support. From a Tibetan perspective even reciting Medicine Buddha's mantra fulfills your obligations to Buddha Amitabha because they are inseparable in nature and you're acting on your devotion etc. etc. So yes, reciting the Medicine Buddha mantra should help bring that healing influence. Dedicate for your brother, yourself, and all sentient beings - that increases the merit and spreads the benefit around more and this helps. Additionally, I remember I did astrology for your brother a few years ago. This year is a "sky door" year for him, he should avoid balconies and high places, climbing mountains, generally work involving heights as they have some particular danger. I'll PM you some things also in a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
he’s very acrophobic so that’s easy, but i let him know thanks. and thank you for letting me know about merit transferral, in jodo shinshu we don’t recite the nembutsu for other’s rebirth because reasons my sleep deprived hospital couch phone posting rear end can’t explain, so i was like “wait is yakushi nyorai just gonna heal me cause that’s unhelpful but probably good in the long run”
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
In the Vajrayana every practice should open with Refuge and establishing motivation, and end with dedication. In the middle is the practice itself. Dedicating the merit is important because it not only commits it towards a purpose but also it protects it from being destroyed by negative mindsets or so on. We're all about min/maxing merit so it's a big part of it. The important part is to dedicate for the specific person and all sentient beings. Doing it for just the one person works, but it's less meritorious so it kind of "counts less" I guess is how to say it. The merit of a Buddha's activities cannot be exhausted, so dedicating it for all sentient beings is better than one sentient being, but you can also specify it and there's more of it because it's also benefiting all those other beings and not just the one person. Something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
he (and by extension myself since i’ve been actually sleeping at night when sleep is meant to be had) is doing much better, so i’m going to keep doing this practice and once i get to a computer i think i’m gonna try to write out an approach to the medicine buddha mantra and yakushi nyorai’s vows from the logic of jodo shinshu’s views on amida, his primal vow, and the nembutsu but he’s doing much better than he was earlier, for which i’m thankful. on koro koro sendari matougi soukara. namo amida butsu
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Hi, thank you for answering my questions earlier, I have some more if that's ok: I have been having something of a climate changed enduced existential crisis that also has its tendrils wrapped around the fear of death. I'm not asking anyone to cure me of that ( I think I need to meditate on no separation more ) but I am curious about a few things with regard to the Buddhist conception of rebirth: When I am reborn, what part of me is reborn? The person or thing I am reborn into is radically different from me: what has it inherited from the experience, just my karma? Do I cease to exist when I lack karma? How can I gain a larger understanding of the karma I have inherited from previous lives? I grew up Catholic, and no longer have it in me to participate in the church due to abuses of trust that affected those close to me. However, I felt and sometimes still feel some luminous sense of holiness around the Eucharist, specifically. Is this explicable, in a Buddhist sense? Is it a kind of repetitive wisdom transmission? Or likely more possibly just old feelings being stirred up in me? I always feel a kind of... intense feeling of desire/unworthiness which in certain circumstances reminds me of some teachings of hell realms, around the Eucharist. Maybe this is extremely catdrugs, but let me know if you have any conceptions of how to parse the things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
The causes and conditions and effects of your current and past existence cause a given rebirth, which is itself really just a continuation of the previous causes and conditions generated by your actions. It's like the momentum of who you have been and what you do gets carried forward. It's not you being reborn per se (nor to some extent is it not you) and Buddhism in particular rejects the idea that what is being reborn is specifically the soul.quote:How can I gain a larger understanding of the karma I have inherited from previous lives? Paramimetic will probably have a better answer, but generally: if you have a human birth you are fortunate. If you have a human birth that allows you the opportunity to practice some dharma of some kind you are very fortunate. Dharma generalizes out to include almost any activity that is of benefit to others, so the circumstances to study and practice medicine would be included in that. Conversely, dealing with crippling addictions or extreme poverty for ones entire life would be seen as less fortunate. Not exactly bad, but not preferable either. Strictly speaking though, pretty much all human birth is considered fortunate and the real central question is 'do you have the means and opportunity to do things that benefit people and/or study dharma.' For 99% of situations that's really all that matters wrt ongoing karma quote:I grew up Catholic, and no longer have it in me to participate in the church due to abuses of trust that affected those close to me. However, I felt and sometimes still feel some luminous sense of holiness around the Eucharist, specifically. Is this explicable, in a Buddhist sense? Is it a kind of repetitive wisdom transmission? Or likely more possibly just old feelings being stirred up in me? I always feel a kind of... intense feeling of desire/unworthiness which in certain circumstances reminds me of some teachings of hell realms, around the Eucharist. Makes sense to me. Just on a basic level, people treat the eucharist with a ton of reverence and just by having a bunch of mirror neurons and basic human empathy you're going to feel some of the same reverence as others. On a ritual level, that's just what ritual does: it continually reminds and reinforces and ensures a continued lived expression of something. Besides, humans have been engaging in ritual behavior basically forever, it's nearly hard-wired into people to respond to ritual. Anyways, I know this isn't a great answer, but it's what comes to mind and those are definitely some thought-provoking questions Also idk about fear of death because as a wildly morbid person it always seemed more intriguing than something to fear (and if you've seen people in the process of dying from cancer or old age etc., death actually seems wildly preferable to dying). Really though, you've already experienced non-existence once. I doubt your next experience of it will be terribly different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:When I am reborn, what part of me is reborn? The person or thing I am reborn into is radically different from me: what has it inherited from the experience, just my karma? Do I cease to exist when I lack karma? No part of you is reborn, because there's no "you" aside from a collection of aggregates that, separated from consciousness itself, mean nothing. When you die, you die. Another being is born, based on the karma generated by you in this and past lifetimes. That being will be linked to you by cause (your grasping, clinging, etc let to a consciousness to gain form), but it's not "you" as you currently know it. Rather, it's another being that will be "you" to it, but isn't "you" because the thing you call "you" now died. I've seen commentaries like this to a flame being passed from one candle to another. It's not the same flame but it has the same origin. Ultimately, all distinction between self and other is illusory. There is just a primordially self aware consciousness that we can see when we stop thinking about "self" and "other." quote:How can I gain a larger understanding of the karma I have inherited from previous lives? The Tibetan saying about past lives is "if you want to know about your past lives, look at your present circumstances. If you want to know about your future lives, look at your present actions." You can know your past lives through the results you have now. You must have been doing okay - you obtained a precious human rebirth in a time where the Dharma exists. Here I'm being imprecise because of language, but of course I mean "good causes from now dead beings have led to a good rebirth for this being." There is a thing called a mindstream, which refers to the continuing emanation from which selves arise - the current of consciousness. Consider it like a river, but remember that what we call a river is completely different from one day to the next. None of the water is the same. The water you saw yesterday isn't there today and today's water will be gone soon, it's ever changing but always present. That's how consciousness works, and when we die consciousness changes again. Then it changes again when we're born, becoming once more limited by sense and sense organs. quote:I grew up Catholic, and no longer have it in me to participate in the church due to abuses of trust that affected those close to me. However, I felt and sometimes still feel some luminous sense of holiness around the Eucharist, specifically. Is this explicable, in a Buddhist sense? Is it a kind of repetitive wisdom transmission? Or likely more possibly just old feelings being stirred up in me? I always feel a kind of... intense feeling of desire/unworthiness which in certain circumstances reminds me of some teachings of hell realms, around the Eucharist. It's of course explicable- nothing in Buddhism even contradicts that the religion is efficacious or involves a God. The Eucharist is a magico-religious ritual with tremendous amounts of psychological oomph behind it. There's a lot of majesty involved and a huge uniting factor. It's very much like a wisdom transmission in some ways. Or more like an empowerment, where one receives the ability to self-manifest as Christ. quote:Maybe this is extremely catdrugs, but let me know if you have any conceptions of how to parse the things. I ain't afraid to roll with catdrugs. My sober thoughts will hold up to any stoner ideas (because I'm an idiot)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Hi, thank you for answering my questions earlier, I have some more if that's ok: Although all of this has been covered very well in the (thoughtful and well expressed) posts above, I’ll add a few more comments, for whatever they’re worth: As to the Eucharist, if you’ll forgive something of a mixed metaphor, bhakti traditions can immensely powerful: the heart is, as it were, a spiritual organ. Christianity, while having contemplative elements, is in the main a bhakti tradition, and as others have pointed out, Mass expresses its essential nature, engaging all of the senses in doing so. The type of Buddhist practice I personally engage and participate in as about as far from that as can be imagined, but other schools of Buddhism do include devotional elements, as do, for example, various “Hindu” (forgive the use of that term, but the shorthand is convenient) and Islamic traditions. What you’ll need to work out, or at least consider, is whether that form of spirituality is authentically and essentially a part of your path, and if so, what its best expression is, in your case. (Possibly a form of a Pure Land? Or an alternate Christian denomination such as the Episcopal or Lutheran Church?) Or perhaps there is more than one. For some people it makes sense to confine spiritual practice to a single path (one deep hole, as the saying goes, makes a well, not many shallow ones) but not everyone is the same in that regard. To add slightly to the excellent comments above on rebirth: The concepts of identity and continuity, both in philosophy generally and in Buddhism specifically, are fascinating. Even in our own lifetimes, we’ve been more fulsomely replaced and changed than the ship of Theseus, and the truth of the matter is that nobody knows what happens afterward. So why not make use of the powerful tools Buddhism (or other traditions, if something else works for you) have on offer to reduce suffering in the here and now rather than focusing on interesting but ultimately inscrutable problems? And as a concluding point: Coming from Catholicism, it may be useful, as a kind of bridge, to cover some of the Christian contemplative tradition, if you haven’t already: the Cloud of Unknowing, the Dark Night, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Hello Buddhists. I am a beginner in all this, just learning my way as I go along. I am comparing branches of Buddhism and various teachers to see if I find some that are preferable in my area. Should take about 12 years of scrutiny before choosing one? I am in Europe, so Diamond Way or Zen seem to be major ones around here, but there are options. Vajrayana is something I definitely want to know more about. I am also starting to learn some Sanskrit on the side (as if starting to learn Chinese isn't hard enough. What is wrong with me?). Any good online resources or books to look for? And yes, I am aware of the differences/connections of Pali prakrit and Sanskrit. Don't come firing the Pali Cannon in my general direction just yet, Theravada Buddhists. I will read the Canon later.   (That typo always keeps happening and the mental image cracks me up, like cavalry "army dudes with horses" vs. calvary "place of the skull". I can imagine the confusion when I similarly misread the Sanskrit squiggles by a single letter. WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SCRIPT???)Not relevant to anything and not a serious question, but what does a Buddhist say when he stubs his toe? "Jesus Christ" or various pagan gods/devils are mentioned in my language, but I have never heard the Buddhist version. They must be so mindful of their surroundings they never hit their toes on anything. Anyways, thank you for this thread, I have found many interesting things here. I wish you all the best in this life and good karma to whatever pops up in rebirth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
The mechanics of rebirth and how to reconcile ot with anatman are one of the issues that Buddhist traditions are most divergent on. You should keep in mind that the Buddha was Indian and so he was arguing against the Hindu idea of what the soul is rather than the Christian idea of what the soul is that most of us who converted grew up with. In either case however the soul is considered to be something pure and eternal. But eternal implies that a thing must be unchanging. If you say that a thing can be both eternal and changing then everyone and everything is already eternal since we know from science that matter is never destroyed nor created only transformed. Do you look at a wooden table and say to yourself: "what a lovely tree?" As a person you exist in a constant state of change, who you are now is different than who you are 10 years ago or even 10 minutes ago. However we will mistake the qualities we have which are long-term or persistent for being permanent or eternal. A person who is often angry is said to be an angry person. People will say that their race, their gender, their sexual orientation etc. are essential parts of their being. And those sorts of qualities do possess enormous influence over how those people experience the world. But if being a black lesbian, for example, is essential to who you are, how is that reconciled with the possibility that after death you might become a straight white man, or maybe even an animal or a ghost? All things are devoid of inherent existence, they are what they are from the qualities they possess, but as those qualities change in the next life, the person themself is different. But as those qualities change in this life too you are constantly becomong different as well. Death is when long-term qualities such as sex or species are changed while short-term qualities are changed throughout life. I do believe in the supernatural things the buddha taught such as the six worlds and I can't reconcile Hell and the God realm with the idea of when you die, you die. And if every being experiences nothingness when they die then there doesn't seem to me to be any point to pursuing Nirvana or to escaping Samsara as you could simply wait or just commit suicide. I apologize if that came off as rude to the people arguing for the other interpretation and its possible that they are simply more advanced than me in their practice and understanding. But there isn't a singular Buddhist answer to your question, it is something there's a lot of debate around and I thought it would be good to bring up an alternative answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
I'm not really understanding your objection, but the part of a person that perceives an identity and makes angry facebook posts about identity politics ruining everything or some such, that part dies, tooBIG FLUFFY DOG posted:I do believe in the supernatural things the buddha taught such as the six worlds and I can't reconcile Hell and the God realm with the idea of when you die, you die. And if every being experiences nothingness when they die then there doesn't seem to me to be any point to pursuing Nirvana or to escaping Samsara as you could simply wait or just commit suicide. Killing oneself is a violent act, but to some extent waiting out samsara is technically possible, just impractical by many orders of magnitude. More significantly though, escaping samsara is relatively pointless without any compassionate or altruistic intention, which is why cultivating boddhicitta (eg desire for englightenment for the sake of helping other beings) is steps 1 2 and 3 of nearly every buddhist tradition. Idk about pure land, I suspect in pure land step 1 is pray to amida then 2 and 3 are cultivate boddhicitta. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:18
|
|