|
How do y'all feel about secular Buddhism? In the Stephen Batchelor vein. Is it white appropriation? Is it an interesting perspective on western Buddhism? I'm curious especially how goons who may have been raised Buddhist feel about that.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
It's better than no buddhism, but only just. mostly because unlike many corporate-sponsored mindfulness and meditation programs, at least it's honest that it's taking a rich and beautiful tradition and removing large chunks because people feel weird about approaching stories in a way other than "is either literally 100% true or is nonsense". Tbh it's not like it's the individuals' fault here; that is how a lot of communities approach christianity and it makes a lot of people bad at reading texts. But yeah. I'm glad that people are getting a watered down and inferior version of the dharma as opposed to nothing, but I'd obviously rather they get the full deal
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Mushika posted:How do y'all feel about secular Buddhism? In the Stephen Batchelor vein. Is it white appropriation? Is it an interesting perspective on western Buddhism? I'm curious especially how goons who may have been raised Buddhist feel about that. It's effectively impossible to appropriate Buddhism. The Buddha himself said that the teachings and the path were fundamental truths of the universe that nobody owns. He didn't invent them; he found them and decided to share. All Buddhists are working toward the same destination regardless of denomination. That's the part that matters; everything else is just going about it a different way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 11:42
|
|
|
I agree with everyone above regarding the idea that the dharma is for everyone in whatever way they benefit from. I believe the phrase is 84,000 dharma doors. However, you asked how I feel.. as a relative novice with strong mystical inclinations it is kind of annoying how a lot of the English-language material kind of reifies the same basic ideas in a big loop. There is a big struggle with reconciling a particular sort of secular-materialist view of the world with what I assume are the genuine and inarguable positive experiences of meditation and so on, and I understand why it is necessary... but that isn't my problem, so it often feels like I am gleaning for scraps. As for cultural appropriation it is hard for me to judge. However, I don't think it is reasonably possible to "appropriate" the teachings of the dharma because they were deliberately and more-or-less explicitly for all humanity. (I say more-or-less because it was not articulated in that sense, but it was not a teaching for northern Indians -- that's just where Shakyamuni was.) There probably is a point where you are more engaging in a mimickry of Indian, Cambodian, Japanese etc. religious practice more than following Buddhism, but I would not claim the discernment to say where that point was. I do think that there is often a certain arrogance in the modern day scene which says "Aha, I, the white guy with a college education, have applied the critical theories of the late 20th century to this body of teachings, and now I understand what the guy REALLY meant." Some of this will be inevitable in anything, but there are degrees. Henry Steel Olcott no doubt brought some 19th-century Christian and occultist frameworks to his Buddhist catechism, but they still hail him as a hero in Sri Lanka.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:It's better than no buddhism, but only just. mostly because unlike many corporate-sponsored mindfulness and meditation programs, at least it's honest that it's taking a rich and beautiful tradition and removing large chunks because people feel weird about approaching stories in a way other than "is either literally 100% true or is nonsense". Tbh it's not like it's the individuals' fault here; that is how a lot of communities approach christianity and it makes a lot of people bad at reading texts. I agree, but which full deal? I guess that's a problem I still wrestle with. ToxicSlurpee posted:It's effectively impossible to appropriate Buddhism. The Buddha himself said that the teachings and the path were fundamental truths of the universe that nobody owns. He didn't invent them; he found them and decided to share. All Buddhists are working toward the same destination regardless of denomination. That's the part that matters; everything else is just going about it a different way. I think this is nice and succinct. Thank you. Nessus posted:I agree with everyone above regarding the idea that the dharma is for everyone in whatever way they benefit from. I believe the phrase is 84,000 dharma doors. Yes, this is what I'm wary of as well. The thing is, I've always felt conflicted as to what tradition to follow. I feel grounded in Theravada and the Pali Canon, but I can't deny the wisdom of the Mahayana sutras even if their "mystical" (for lack of a better word) aspects don't resonate with me. The Heart sutra in particular really speaks to me. The temple I attend regularly is Vietnamese Thiền, and I really get a great deal from practicing there, even though I don't really ascribe to the concept of Amitābha or the Pure Lands. I've always thought that the best approach would be to choose a tradition and stick with it, but the breadth of Buddhist literature and teaching spans so much time and so many vastly different traditions that I often feel overwhelmed when it comes to finding one that really resonates with me that I can functionally practice. I've also been told that finding a proper teacher and relying on their guidance is the best way to go, but that is also quite difficult. The nuns and monks at my temple are really busy performing their regular tasks, and really few people have the time to simply volunteer to be a mentor, and I wouldn't really know who to trust with that anyway. Secular Buddhism seems like it might be a workable way to practice without bogging myself down with the worry and doubt about whether to follow this tradition or that one; not approaching secular Buddhism as a doctrine itself, but rather a framework of practice that supersedes the approach of doctrine. I feel like it's better to practice than to not, and the question of how to practice is really hindering me from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
glickeroo posted:At a certain meditativeness we've also found such overwhelming bliss to also coincide with an arising of fear - because the feeling is one of being swept away, of letting the bliss completely destroy/overwrite/drown/clear/cleanse all our sense of self. However, again, surrendering/relaxing/letting-go/allowing into the meditation has never destroyed the sense of SELF, just the false imaginings that we falsely identified with. Yeah that's a good description of the fear/experience. Mushika posted:How do y'all feel about secular Buddhism? In the Stephen Batchelor vein. Is it white appropriation? Is it an interesting perspective on western Buddhism? I'm curious especially how goons who may have been raised Buddhist feel about that. Someone published a book (McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality) about this, there's an interview with the author online. Here's an excerpt: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/m...lness-1.5369991 interview with author of the book posted:This reminds me of a phrase I hadn't encountered before reading about mindfulness. What's an integrity bubble?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
It is 1000% possible to appropriate buddhist culture and practices in bad ways. Buddhist teachings are, in theory somewhat a-cultural and are certainly meant to be more or less freely offered to all who won't be hurt by them, but in all of their recorded or repeated forms I don't think I've seen one that lacked a cultural context so it is hard to fully separate them. I want to say that to some extent it's alright to take them and see what fits with your life, but also taking something and using it purely for your own purposes is generally the exact definition of appropriation. The more nuanced response is probably 'if you find them helpful or useful, please keep it up, but do make an earnest effort to understand what you are engaging in at some point' There's a sense in which dharma is just 'anything which holds true' or is useful (and that isn't really possible to appropriate, but I dont' think that sense of dharma or practice are what most people trying to do the secular thing are encountering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:Someone published a book (McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality) about this, there's an interview with the author online. Here's an excerpt: That is abhorrent. Nauseatingly abhorrent. The "mindfulness" industry is a disgusting marketing tool to justify consultants' careers as they struggle to find relevance. Herstory Begins Now posted:It is 1000% possible to appropriate buddhist culture and practices in bad ways. Buddhist teachings are, in theory somewhat a-cultural and are certainly meant to be more or less freely offered to all who won't be hurt by them, but in all of their recorded or repeated forms I don't think I've seen one that lacked a cultural context so it is hard to fully separate them. I want to say that to some extent it's alright to take them and see what fits with your life, but also taking something and using it purely for your own purposes is generally the exact definition of appropriation. This is also what I'm wary of. I don't want to cherry-pick what I find useful and strip it of any cultural or religious context. I know that the dhamma is the path that I want to follow, but which of the eighty-four thousand paths that leads to the boat to the Other Shore do I choose to take? That's largely a rhetorical question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
You pick the path that works, in the end. Whichever one it is you're sure to find people on the same or similar paths that would love to help you along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Well, then I guess I consider myself a non-orthodox Theravadin who practices at a Vietnamese Mahayana temple and who respects a great deal of Mahayana Sutras. I respect the Bodhisattva vows, but still believe that arahantship is required before leading others to liberation or otherwise it's the blind leading the blind. I absolutely respect the Mahayana sutras, but still believe in the primacy of the Pali canon. Am I still picking and choosing my dogma here? Because this is what I believe, but I also don't hold my beliefs to be unshakeable or free from correction. e: If I had to choose a tradition that spoke to me specifically, it would be the Thai Forest tradition, but that's largely a monastic tradition and I'm not ready to release myself from the fetters of my wife or my dog, though I would love to take a Dhutanga regularly. Mushika fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jan 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
I think a certain amount of picking and choosing is inevitable, given the access you can have these days to multiple traditions at once. I do think its a good idea to settle into a single tradition if you've got the opportunity, but I wouldn't be overly concerned about having influences from multiple places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
I struggled a lot with this issue for a long time. I wouldn't call myself a buddhist because I didn't want to be that guy, and I had some metaphysical hangups that I briefly described above, so I thought I wasn't a "real" buddhist. But I was wrong. It's fine to struggle with or not believe certain things. As long as you believe the four noble truths you're probably good. "I just don't see how x could be the case" is very different from "Well ackshually, when Buddha said 'rebirth' he didn't mean it and was just skillful-means-ing at those dumb Indians. I will now tell you what he really meant, and it will blow your mind." I'm not saying that secular Buddhists are doing that, just to be clear - that's what I was worried about coming off as. I think a lot of westerners just don't get that the metaphysics of rebirth, hells, etc aren't, uh, dealbreakers, and nobody is going to care as long as you're not being a jerk about it. As far as picking a school, what I did was to strongly identify with a historical school and then get hung up on how it's not really practiced anywhere, and it's only very recently that I've come around to it being okay with just finding a zen center or tibetan group or smth. I recommend skipping straight to not worrying too much about it - just find a group you like 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I struggled a lot with this issue for a long time. I wouldn't call myself a buddhist because I didn't want to be that guy, and I had some metaphysical hangups that I briefly described above, so I thought I wasn't a "real" buddhist. But I was wrong. Now that you say that, I think I have. I think I should refrain from trying to reconcile my personal practice with the temple ceremonies that I share with others. I may not believe in every bit of minutiae that Vietnamese Buddhism exhibits, but at the same time I see the wisdom in it. I also recognize that, while I do feel that the Pali Canon is the closest we have to the direct teachings of the oral traditions of the Dhamma as the Buddha taught it, it is also fallible, being an oral tradition, and subsequent Mahayana commentaries are on the level of the Pali Abhidamma, especially considering that there is so much Buddhist oral and written histories missing from our literature simply because those schools died out and we don't have a record of them. In conclusion, Buddhism is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The right thing to do is to find a path that is getting you in the direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. Good thing I'm not a Taoist! I kid, I kid! Thank you, and I really do appreciate that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Mushika posted:In conclusion, Buddhism is a pure land of contrasts. Now that I think about it, it is funny that appropriate and appropriation have the same linguistic root. Mushika posted:How do y'all feel about secular Buddhism? In the Stephen Batchelor vein. Is it white appropriation? Is it an interesting perspective on western Buddhism? I'm curious especially how goons who may have been raised Buddhist feel about that. In my previous job as a house cleaner, my work-partner identified themselves as a secular Buddhist. I don't think they ever talked about Stephen Batchelor, who I am not familiar with. They talked about learning from Michael Taft who hosts the podcast series Deconstructing Yourself. They're the only person I know who identifies as a secular Buddhist. They and I got along very well both professionally and spiritually. We still keep in contact even though we both no longer work for the cleaning company. A part of why we were both work-friends and friends-in-the-dharma is their obvious sincerity in trying to reduce the suffering in-and-around them. The owners of the company were exceptional people, but house-cleaning is still a hard job. Since many (if not most) folks are unskillful about their suffering, anyone who makes the genuine time and effort to suffer better is welcomed company by me. I caught a break in that no one tacks white appropriation onto me because I am not white, but if they looked deeper, they may say I am guilty of western appropriation (and apparently there are those who've criticized Thich Nhat Hahn of creating un-Buddhist interpretation perhaps to appeal to a western audience) because although I'm Asian, there are no known Buddhists in my family or recent ancestry. Back in China, my ancestors appear to be mostly Confucian in practice and became at least nominally Catholic when they emigrated to Indonesia. However, I still maintain that if you really want to take the measure of someone's spirituality, whatever form that spirituality takes, then go and taste the fruit of their practice. A vexing person is self-evidently vexing. A pleasant person is self-evidently pleasant. Keret posted:Finally, with regards to rebirth, I think that Caufman's video from Thich Nhat Hanh is a beautiful way of looking at it and I am thankful that it was linked. Rebirth has always been a thorn in my side, so to speak, in terms of being able to vibe with Buddhism. For a long time, I more or less just pretended that it didn't exist and focused on everything else. But, eventually I realized that without knowing it, what I had thought was rebirth was actually just a western ego-centric idea of reincarnation that I brought with me, masquerading as rebirth which is why it seemed so out of place in Buddhism. I don't think we can say that people are lying about rebirth to make people feel okay, though. In my experience, I think that it's more of a matter of perspective and phrasing. When we think about rebirth, we naturally assume we are talking about something which happens when this body and mind "die" at the end of our lives. But that's actually a totally arbitrary decision we're making. I don't think that moment, whatever it will be, is actually any different from what is happening right now. And in fact, who is it that is dying anyway? Or being reborn, for that matter. To me, rebirth is right now, every moment. It's already happening, at least from the provisional, conditioned view of things. Well said, Keret. I, too, believe that the insight of no-birth-and-no-death means realizing that we are dying and being reborn at every moment. The practice is to help us become less dragged around by the notion (and especially fear) that we started on such-and-such a day and will end on such-and-such a day. The paradox is that the less we are hung up on the dates on our birth certificates and death certificates, the more enriched our lives can be. Herstory Begins Now posted:Personally I hate the word and think that a ton of people waste a crazy amount of time seeking that instead of doing the basic, important, but more boring 'be a good, dependable person, and work towards some charitable duty that benefits society' steps. That said, at a certain point, full, unbounded enlightenment definitely becomes a useful aspirational goal, or at least there must be some reason why nearly (probably all of them, tbh) every Buddhist tradition includes something about the pursuit of full enlightenment in their liturgy/full formal daily practice. Ha, your hatred of the word reminds me of the story of the dharma teacher who says he hates the word Buddha and has to wash his mouth three times whenever he says it, then his student says he also hates the word as well and must wash his ears three times whenever he hears the teacher say it. A Plum Village monk said something like, "When you're really dealing with the ultimate, it won't look like you're always dealing with the ultimate." I think it was part of a dharma talk cautioning practitioners from engaging in mere absorption with their meditative practice. For sure, a wrong view in spirituality can either push people away from the practice, as they think it's hokum, or it can lead people to fixate on an idealization which is not helpful. For me, I think the most challenging part of daily practice is to consume mindfully, which should mean ultimately consuming less. I think that's probably a significant challenge to most people in our particular place-and-time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Well, then I guess I consider myself a non-orthodox Theravadin who practices at a Vietnamese Mahayana temple and who respects a great deal of Mahayana Sutras. I respect the Bodhisattva vows, but still believe that arahantship is required before leading others to liberation or otherwise it's the blind leading the blind. I absolutely respect the Mahayana sutras, but still believe in the primacy of the Pali canon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Caufman posted:
I genuinely chuckled at this. Thank you. Caufman posted:I caught a break in that no one tacks white appropriation onto me because I am not white, but if they looked deeper, they may say I am guilty of western appropriation (and apparently there are those who've criticized Thich Nhat Hahn of creating un-Buddhist interpretation perhaps to appeal to a western audience) because although I'm Asian, there are no known Buddhists in my family or recent ancestry. Back in China, my ancestors appear to be mostly Confucian in practice and became at least nominally Catholic when they emigrated to Indonesia. However, I still maintain that if you really want to take the measure of someone's spirituality, whatever form that spirituality takes, then go and taste the fruit of their practice. A vexing person is self-evidently vexing. A pleasant person is self-evidently pleasant. I'm actually a big fan of Thich Nhat Hanh, but I'm aware of the criticism of the Plum Village tradition. While I respect the tradition a great deal, I do have to admit I'm often off put by its "new agey" tone and feel, for lack of a better term. I sometimes participate in Plumline online sangha meditations and dharma talks, and do appreciate the environment, but it just isn't for me, at least as a full-time practice. The Magnolia Grove sangha is not too far away from me, and I've often thought about taking a pilgrimage there for a retreat. I'd like to think of myself as a pleasant, non-vexing person, but I'm really not the best person to ask. Nessus posted:I think you have a good overall attitude here and I think that a whole lot of it boils down to, "Can you respect the difference in peace." Thank you. I most certainly can, and it's why I don't want to demean any particular method of practice by paying it mere lip service and incorporating it into my own practice as an act of flippant appropriation. At the end of the day, though, I just have to accept that my beliefs are reflected in multiple traditions and I have to pay them as much respect and honesty as I can. Mushika fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:This holds true right up until you start trying to read it, lmao. I know this is from many pages back, but good lord, you weren't kidding. I'm a huge language nerd but even I can't parse this language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btn0-Vce5ug
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Thank you. I most certainly can, and it's why I don't want to demean any particular method of practice by paying it mere lip service and incorporating it into my own practice as an act of flippant appropriation. At the end of the day, though, I just have to accept that my beliefs are reflected in multiple traditions and I have to pay them as much respect and honesty as I can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think - to answer your question from a little ways ago - is that the answer is that all of the doors lead to the other shore. I can certainly understand why, if you don't dig on rebirth, you would be especially concerned about getting it right within a period of a few decades, though. To be perfectly honest, if I may? I'm mostly concerned with reducing human suffering, rather than my own enlightenment. I'm less concerned with ending my Self than I am with helping others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
Yeah just go with that, that's good
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 06:48
|
|
|
I get most of my knowledge from Sam Harris, and I want to know why he’s so keen on non-duality, which I think is what he’s getting at with the dzogchen pointing out instructions. Like I see so much benefit from mindfulness meditation, I’m not sure what kind of benefit is derived from spending time in a non-dual state. Though I am super keen to experience it. I wonder if I’ve had glimpses but not sure
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Though I am super keen to experience it. I wonder if I’ve had glimpses but not sure I was listening to a podcast with some older psychology/spirituality types chatting. Talking about the old days at Esalen, coming back and breathlessly to others 'do/did you *get* it?'. Then coming back from another retreat, 'do/did you *get* it?'. A warm shared chuckle. Most likely there will be profound experiences that will change your (anyone's) perceptions of your (anyone's) self and the world. Epiphanies and breakthroughs, breakdowns. Frameworks and things will pop up, words and context (I asked this thread for links to a glossary to try and translate something I *got* into an idea). I think something I enjoyed from meditating fairly regularly was getting a bunch of different experiences simply sitting there, it provided a better context for my day-to-day experience. Boring, soul-crushing, blissful, pure fantasy, hard, soft, rapidly-flowing, still, epiphany, 'epiphany', counter-epiphany. Now its easier to move through my life and go 'well thats weird' (in a truly positive way). Perpetual Hiatus fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 09:43
|
|
|
Mushika posted:To be perfectly honest, if I may? I'm mostly concerned with reducing human suffering, rather than my own enlightenment. I'm less concerned with ending my Self than I am with helping others. Those're the same thing. Pursuing one leads to the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Like I see so much benefit from mindfulness meditation, I’m not sure what kind of benefit is derived from spending time in a non-dual state. Discard these words as one would a used band-aid. They are meant as only a temporary answer. We hope this helps one find the light within the Self where all answers are. Depends on what is meant by mindfulness meditation, we'll go off the definition of: "focusing on emotions, thoughts, and sensations that you're experiencing 'in the now.'" This can lead to a temporary stilling of the mind/thoughts which brings with it a certain level of peace. The temporary stilling of thoughts brings one out of a layer of the illusory thought world (past and future only exist in thought, and much suffering is created by 'should' thoughts [subset of past/future]). However the benefits could be said to be limited in scope, as it still confines one to a single body/mind/perspective/awareness. Mindfulness can lead one to focusing on passing phenomena instead of (focusing on that which never changes or releasing focus into the unknown). Not to say reject what comes through the senses, rather let them be. Not avoiding any emotion, thought or sensation; but accepting a lovingly detached awareness of it. Samadhi is the non-dual state, the unification of awareness and that which it is aware of. Mindfulness is part of the path, because Samadhi isn't possible if one is trapped in thought/mind/time. All 8 parts are connected/one. The non-dual state is closer to the true self than the passing phenomenon that seems to appear through the senses. It's almost impossible to over-state how important/healing/rewarding/blissful/loving the non-dual state is. In it what you perceived as a separate self is seen to be false. It is a state of total knowledge, before the mind. Although this video is from the perspective of Ramana Maharshi / Advaita Vedanta, the speaker discusses Samadhi. (Linked to time-code of discussion) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l72gv5cIUrQ&t=503s In this experience there was no question what state was what, as the light shines with it's own truth that makes all clear. There is complete clarity of what the state is. We hope this helps. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
I would like to read some of the “canon” of Buddhism, where should I start?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:I would like to read some of the “canon” of Buddhism, where should I start? https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Buddha-Translations-Nikayas-Classics/dp/019283925X/ref=nodl_ https://www.amazon.com/Buddhas-Word...79836894&sr=8-1 Those are good starts. Lotus Sutra would be relevant if you think you’ll contact or study up on any sort of East Asian Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
glickeroo posted:Discard these words as one would a used band-aid. They are meant as only a temporary answer. We hope this helps one find the light within the Self where all answers are. Very interesting, thankyou. appreciate your time to share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I get most of my knowledge from Sam Harris, and I want to know why he’s so keen on non-duality, which I think is what he’s getting at with the dzogchen pointing out instructions. I don't feel particularly qualified to speak much to this not really having done the practice or studied it, but from what I understand dzogchen pointing instructions generally attempt to point out rigpa, which is non-dual, but maybe is a little more specific. Deferring to wikipedia (citing a book published by Ranjung Yeshe which is legit): "wikipedia posted:Unknowing (marigpa) is not knowing the nature of mind. Knowing (rigpa) is the knowing of the original wakefulness that is personal experience. I don't know all the specific benefits of knowing your own mind but it certainly seems like it might be useful. At the least I bet it feels really good and liberating (free from the extremes of existence and nonexistence). For all I know it may even lead to wizarding powers. Again I'm not speaking with much confidence here but with regards to the benefits or main goal perhaps in the Buddhist tradition I will first defer to wikipedia again (citing Sogyal Rinpoche this time): "wikipedia posted:The practical training of the Dzogchen path is traditionally, and most simply, described in terms of View, Meditation and Action. To see directly the Absolute state, the Ground of our being is the View; the way of stabilising that view, and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating the View into our entire reality, and life, is what is meant by Action. ie after recognition the view is completely integrated into ones life. This is where I'm especially not confident but I think now (at the culmination of this practice) one experiences everything through rigpa ("Knowing") one is free from delusion as this is the true nature of reality, hence is free from ignorance, and as ignorance is the root cause of dukkha is thus free from dukkha and involuntary rebirth. Maybe this requires additional tantric practices or I'm completely wrong here though, I am really not an expert. e: does anyone know how to get rid of the " when quote linking? I didn't put any in the bbcode but if I try and add one to the end so it at least looks symmetrical it messes up the link "example" posted:with closing marks zhar fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Like I'm not trying to refute glickeroo or anything, but if they are authentic dzogchen pointing out instructions, then I think "the non-dual state" is a bit loose a description given that could describe a different thing in a number of different traditions, buddhist or otherwise, but in dzogchen it is definitely not samadhi. I'm quite interested in how Harris describes it though, he seems very secular and everywhere I've encountered this stuff it's been wrapped in what I imagine the secular types consider religious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Mushika posted:I'm actually a big fan of Thich Nhat Hanh, but I'm aware of the criticism of the Plum Village tradition. While I respect the tradition a great deal, I do have to admit I'm often off put by its "new agey" tone and feel, for lack of a better term. I can definitely relate to this aversion, and I also have not intimately encountered the Plum Village tradition. I plan to go to Deer Park in San Diego this summer, and it may feel strange and off-putting to me, too. Ah, but probably not Mushika posted:I'd like to think of myself as a pleasant, non-vexing person, but I'm really not the best person to ask. That seems highly credible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 10:01
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:I would like to read some of the “canon” of Buddhism, where should I start? The Dhammapada. Most buddhist sutras are very dry and technical and hard to read because they were passed down orally originally and were filled with mnemonics and repetition that made memorizing easier but makes it a lot more dense when written down. The dhammapada is short and sweet and is used by both Therevada and Mahayana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:The Dhammapada. Most buddhist sutras are very dry and technical and hard to read because they were passed down orally originally and were filled with mnemonics and repetition that made memorizing easier but makes it a lot more dense when written down. The dhammapada is short and sweet and is used by both Therevada and Mahayana. I will second this. The Dammapada is an excellent source of wisdom that one can use day-to-day. I do. e: I try to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Funnily enough, that is the only official Buddhist text I have ever read. I've had a small pocket copy in my bag since college. Maybe I'll just stick to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:Funnily enough, that is the only official Buddhist text I have ever read. I've had a small pocket copy in my bag since college. Maybe I'll just stick to that. Bear in mind that the development in Mahayana is very substantial; on that front, I'd refer back to an earlier suggestion by Yiggy, which is an excellent resource: Yiggy posted:One of the best resources on Mahayana I've come across is Paul Williams Mahayana Buddhism the Doctrinal Foundations and here is a link to the second edition http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Mahayana%20Buddhism_Williams.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 08:12
|
|
|
you should read the tannisho
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:you should read the tannisho Isn't the Tannisho rather specific to Jodo Shinshu? If referring someone to broadly accepted "canon" bodies, wouldn't the Lotus Sutra, the Prajñāpāramitā-hrdaya, or the various works of the Pali Canon that are accepted by many traditions (such as the Dhammapada) be a better reference? e: I think the best would be collections of works, but what collections to take into consideration is a big question. Mushika fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Feb 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
I guess it depends what your goal is. I don't think there are many schools of Buddhism that approach the sutras in the same way that Torah or the Quran get approached, although Nichiren more or less worships the Lotus Sutra directly, if I understand them right... BDK gives out cute little Gideon Bible collections of Buddhist teaching in dead tree format, for free, and I found that very useful when I was getting started. They have citations in the back of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I guess it depends what your goal is. I don't think there are many schools of Buddhism that approach the sutras in the same way that Torah or the Quran get approached, although Nichiren more or less worships the Lotus Sutra directly, if I understand them right... I think this is also complicated by a perennial tension within the Buddhist tradition between emphasizing teaching and canonical works vs emphasizing direct experience and realization, which can be seen both in the historical developments of Buddhism but also in some of the earliest sutras in the Pali nikaya. So which canonical works to emphasize and whether those are ultimately the most fruitful means to realization is an evergreen argument which can make things confusing for aspiring students and the generally curious. Though much of the perception of Tibetan Buddhism is wrapped up in the more esoteric elements of tantric & vajrayana practice, the Gelug sect has historically taken a scholastic approach to the Buddhist cannon, viewing each earlier set of canonical texts as foundational to the next set of higher teachings where the “lower” goals do not interfere with the later ones. So in that respect, though they would have primarily dealt with the Sanskrit versions of the canon they still largely dealt with it in ways similar to how the Torah and Quran are approached, with an emphasis on doxography, understanding and interpreting the texts, etc. Within the Gelug tradition a popular genre of literature are treatises on stages of the path with a classic example being Atisha’s A Lamp for the Path to Full Awakening. So one thing this genre does is lays out the scope of the Buddhist tradition and canon in successive stages which build upon each other, with the work of early stages not undermining the later ones and viewing the Buddhist cannon and tradition as building upon itself. So viewed this way if you were to accept these sort of stages you could also single out keystone canonical works which speak with relevance to their particular goals. Viewing the early stage of reducing suffering and obtaining arhatship an important sutra to consider would probably be the fire sutra/fire sermon discourse etc. Many other sutras cover similar ground from different angles but the fire sermon would be a big one. These early works are about the reduction of suffering for the individual. Later the emphasis is on obtaining buddhahood, an early and key work would be the lions roar sutra of queen srimala/the simhanada sutra. Of course the further we get into the Buddhist tradition the more texts are going to be a reflection of the idiosyncrasies of that particular branch of the tradition. Texts abound within the canon but what is relevant is always going to beg the question of to whom it would be relevant for and why. And when. For the curious student of Buddhism it can be easier to work backwards from the part of the tradition you’re most interested in. For the zen Buddhist the platform sutra of the sixth patriarch is cannon but not for the theravadin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:40
|
|