|
Yiggy posted: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. This is so very true of zen.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Wouldn't it better to start at the beginning and trace how differing schools of thought evolved and study in that direction rather than backwards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
It depends what you're after
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Wouldn't it better to start at the beginning and trace how differing schools of thought evolved and study in that direction rather than backwards? Sure and I’d tend to agree. I think the sutras are the best place to start. This approach is not without certain issues. I appreciate that there can be a daunting amount of ground/text to cover and that there can be exegetical difficulties for the beginner that can take a lot of thought/meditation/study to work through. We’re also in a weird place as lay practitioners because for many of us despite persistent efforts it’s slow going study when balanced against our other responsibilities, so I see the appeal of things like the dhammapada which is a later, more ecumenical text. And you see the tradition respond to this very difficulty in a number of ways. For one you see summary works like the dhammapada or the later stages of the path texts that try to amalgamate the teachings in a digestible way. On the other hand at multiple points in the history of Buddhism the response has been anti-intellectual and negative on too much emphasis on texts and their study. That can lead a student down various cul de sacs where they study a particular series of texts and then run into one school or another that invalidates that approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Wouldn't it better to start at the beginning and trace how differing schools of thought evolved and study in that direction rather than backwards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
There is an accepted body of things that constitute buddhist scripture, the tripitaka, (that afaik seems to be more or less consistent between both theravadin and mahayana traditions) and it's a lot more varied (and a lot more interesting imo) than just sutras and some stray lineage texts. That said for how much americans love to read about buddhism, running into people who have read their way through any meaningful variety of buddhist scripture is pretty unusual. I was trying to find a good short list, but I'll just link the whole article since it explains some of the less immediately clear ones in more detail. It's rigpawiki which is primarily tibetan buddhist, but this stuff was basically taken directly out of indian buddhism so it's still the same list. https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_branches_of_the_excellent_teaching Of note, the buddha's account of their past lives are entertaining (sort of an Indian aesop's fables crossed with nasruddin stories), as are the generally heavily hagiographic accounts of saint's lives, which probably require some serious suspension of disbelief for most people. Also they sound unsexy, but commentaries are particularly worth reading and often you'll find ones that are a commentary with a second commentary on the commentary included and if you're reading ones pertinent to a practice or tradition you're involved with, they'll be extremely informative. I'm at a loss for explaining precisely why commentaries are so good, but they are often some of the core teaching texts. Basically, sutras are good, but there's a ton of other interesting stuff to read and engage with. Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:This is so very true of zen. As a means of maintaining interest it's good, but I think a lot of people interested in zen would do well to read a much wider variety of material. It's also a remarkably expedient way to clear up any misconceptions about whether zen is utterly grounded in an extremely communally conscious ethical perspective or not. Which does seem to be an important thing to grasp quickly. -------- Anyways I'm tired, I hope this came out clearly, if not, feel free to correct anything I got wrong. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Feb 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:As a means of maintaining interest it's good, but I think a lot of people interested in zen would do well to read a much wider variety of material. It's also a remarkably expedient way to clear up any misconceptions about whether zen is utterly grounded in an extremely communally conscious ethical perspective or not. Which does seem to be an important thing to grasp quickly. I agree with this completely; it's just that the statement was around the way in for someone new and the notion that it can be helpful to start with the tradition one is interested in and work backwards, rather than the idea that you wouldn't expand to understand the broader context and shared commitments. In other words it was about what order to go in, not the content to cover. And on that front, given the very substantial development in Mahayana (both relative to what preceded it and within various traditions), the huge overall volume of materials and the practical need to provide some initial orientation, if I were just joining a zendo, I personally would start with some brief materials on Soto specifically, then proceed to an overview of the early sutras and the development of Mahayana, then come back to a deeper dive within Soto. (A terrible analogy, but in part for reasons similar to why someone in RCIA would learn about Christianity before taking in the unmodified Judaic tradition.) I do think the lack of early attention to the precepts and paramitas is (or can be) an issue and think, irrespective of timing for Jukai, that it would be good to focus on them as well at an early point. So, again for Soto, my personal route would be along the lines of: - Fukanzazenji, Bendowa, Genjokoan - One or more of: Opening the Hand of Thought, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Taking the Path of Zen - What the Buddha Taught - Mahayana Buddhism, the Doctrinal Foundations - Possibly the recent Circle of the Way (I didn't love it, but it's a practical overview) - Possibly The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo (or maybe the Shobogenzo as a whole) - Selected Mahayana Sutras, Commentaries, Texts, etc, including: the Diamond, Vimalakirti, Lankavatara, Lotus and Heart Sutras, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way or something similar, the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Platform Sutra - The Dhammapada, In the Buddha's Words - Shobogenzo (if not already read), related commentaries - Eihei Koroku - Possibly Eihei Shingi - The Gateless Gate - Materials from other traditions, other Zen materials etc. There's a good basic list in the formation guide published by SZBA Not everyone's cup of tea, perhaps, and you might still consider that too focused on Zen / Soto, but that would be my initial approach, I think. Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Mushika posted: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? why read other sutras when the tannisho is all you need i’m only mostly joking
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:why read other sutras when the tannisho is all you need Why concern yourself with the teachings of the Buddha?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
it’s not like we can follow them
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:it’s not like we can follow them Pardon? Aren't the words of the Buddha pretty definitively the basis of Buddhism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Pardon? Aren't the words of the Buddha pretty definitively the basis of Buddhism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Senju is referring to the core theological argument of Jodo shinshu which is basically "it is impossible, or effectively impossible, to follow the original dharma in this decayed world; therefore, take refuge in Amida buddha and do it in Amida's pure land." Well, that sounds rather fatalistic. Especially when considering that we are able to follow the Dhamma regardless of how "decayed" our world may be. I guess I'll just avoid Jodo Shinshu, then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
I've always been fascinated by religious ideas of time. You know, in a lot of ancient religions and systems, time was cyclical. Things rose, flourished and fell away. We live in a darker age now but a golden age will come again eventually. I believe w'e're waiting on Maitreya for that. Posters here are thinking of Mappo but Hinduism has the Kali Yuga as well. They're not exactly the same but, interesting to me, some Tibetan Tantric Buddhists believe in the Kali Yuga which is to say a time of degeneracy and decline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Well, that sounds rather fatalistic. Especially when considering that we are able to follow the Dhamma regardless of how "decayed" our world may be. For Shinran, the founder of Jodo Shinsu, it’s just the opposite. Amida, by his vow, gives anyone the ability to achieve Buddhahood by being reborn in his Pure Land. Even Mappo cannot stop the Dharma, because Amida Buddha will teach it to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah, like, its original audience were people who could not do formal practice, become monks, etc. -- even they could be saved if they took refuge in Amida's vow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Peasants in Medieval Japan did not have the luxury of meditation, sadly. Buddhism in Japan was actually quite aristocratic before Pure Land took off thanks to Honen and Shinran. They and others spread it to the common people through a simpler way, faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
That's really quite sad, considering Buddhism's origins as equalizing, even mendicant religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Mushika posted:That's really quite sad, considering Buddhism's origins as equalizing, even mendicant religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't understand. What's the sad part? It's brought spiritual comfort to millions! Oh, no, I didn't mean that! I meant the pre-Pure Land aristocratic nature of Japanese Buddhism. It's sad that, in that context, it was a religion of the wealthy considering its origins as a religion that ignored class (and caste) boundaries. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Well, that sounds rather fatalistic. Especially when considering that we are able to follow the Dhamma regardless of how "decayed" our world may be. We live in a later time with a unique vantage on the wide scope, breadth and depth of Buddhism as a whole. It can be easy for us to center what we now know to be the oldest teachings closest to the Buddha because we have a broad access to compilations of texts, translations, commentaries, etc. Historically this is a privilege that many Buddhists and lay followers did not have. When the dharma transmitted into different cultures we know that eventually monks go to great lengths to obtain and then attempt to translate and understand seminal texts and commentaries, but often times even just having the texts isn’t enough. We know that this problem is age old because texts across several periods discuss issues of exegesis. Condemnations of reciters that had memorized and could recite dharma and formula but who did not understand it. In the extreme form you have monks in the Thai forest tradition who will memorize and recite the dharma in Pali as a merit gaining exercise that do not speak or understand Pali. So in this context one can see how certain branches of the tradition might have sort of throw their hands up and just said “there’s no way we can do this, best to just hope for a next life where we can.” In my opinion the general fog obscuring the dharma is no longer quite as thick as it was in those times. Though in other ways even if we have access to the dharma, arguably our world and society have developed to a point where it is difficult to impossible to embody the dharma, especially if you’re a lay practitioner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Mushika posted:That's really quite sad, considering Buddhism's origins as equalizing, even mendicant religion. Alas, in this degenerate era,,,
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:very good words See, I kind of have trouble with this. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are basic tenets to live by. Much of the Pali Canon, such as the Dhammapada, is as well. Meditation is wonderful, and liberation is something to be sought after, but at its basic core, isn't Buddhism as much, if not more than, about relieving suffering for all sentient beings in this life as it is about how we may fare in subsequent lives? It's not all going beyond-Self and conditional existence and breathing through your taint, it's also about suffering, about dukkha. About how alleviating dukkha benefits all beings, and not just for merit, but because we all are in this crazy cycle of samsara together and we can all do something about it right here and now and not just wait for a better go the next time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Alas, in this degenerate era,,, All eras are degenerate and wonderful. Sentient beings are capable of great kindness and great cruelty. There has never been a golden era, but we can still strive for it. There is no Shambhala, but that doesn't mean we can't work towards a better world for everyone in this life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Mushika posted:isn't Buddhism as much, if not more than, about relieving suffering for all sentient beings in this life as it is about how we may fare in subsequent lives? It's not all going beyond-Self and conditional existence and breathing through your taint, it's also about suffering, about dukkha. About how alleviating dukkha benefits all beings... because we all are in this crazy cycle of samsara together and we can all do something about it right here and now and not just wait for a better go the next time. Sure and I think again I tend to agree with you. How does it go? “The dharma is good in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.” In particular a lot of the earlier sutras emphasize that the dharma is good for reducing suffering in the here and now. Arguably and ironically that starts to change with the advent of Mahāyāna. Despite rhetoric and the later formula regarding work for the enlightenment of all living beings, the emphasis of early Mahāyāna was more of a revivalist movement of monks seeking buddhahood for its own sake, rather than arhantship and the extinguishing of suffering for its own sake. From the viewpoint of early Buddhism the ultimate goal is just that, release from suffering. For later Buddhism that sort of gets left behind and chastised as a lesser vehicle; becoming a Buddha becomes the ultimate goal, sort of out of the sense of “let’s try and do what the Buddha did and not necessarily just what he says to do.” If the Buddha is the highest why not try and be a Buddha? Hence the Bodhisatva vow. And at that point to be a Buddha, canonically, you aren’t going to get a shot at that in this life because being a Buddha requires rediscovery of the dharma once it’s been lost again. Which sort of goes hand and hand with a classic tension you see in many lay Buddhists from Sri Lanka to Thailand to China that for many self ascribed Buddhists what’s important actually isn’t reduction of suffering, or even enlightenment or becoming a buddha (which is often said to be “for the monks”) but rather a Good Rebirth. Either in a materially good life in this world (https://www.amazon.com/Nirvana-Sale-Buddhism-Dhammakaya-Contemporary/dp/1438427840/ref=nodl_) or in some other world with a cosmic Buddha that will teach you the true dharma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Sure and I think again I tend to agree with you. How does it go? “The dharma is good in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.” In particular a lot of the earlier sutras emphasize that the dharma is good for reducing suffering in the here and now. Thank you for this explanation. I have the utmost respect for the Bodhisttva vow, but I don't aim that high. Hell, I'm not even that terribly concerned with attaining arahantship. I see too much suffering that I can do something about in this life, even if I don't have the material ability to do that much. And oof, that link. Even as a (mostly) Theravadin, I recognize that there's plenty wrong with the monastic culture of southeast Asia. A colleague of mine was a monk in Cambodia for several years and has so many stories of how the monastic system there was basically a money making scheme that took advantage of believers. I don't know much about Mahayana/Vajrayana monastic culture, but I have a feeling that clergy systems everywhere breed corruption and exploitation of laity. The vinaya is written to prevent that, but religious, social, and political structures exist based on how people integrate them together, and it doesn't always happen according to the Tipitaka.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Some of this may also be the question of what is easier to articulate, especially if you are a lay person. "I want a favorable rebirth" is pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Some of this may also be the question of what is easier to articulate, especially if you are a lay person. "I want a favorable rebirth" is pretty straightforward. Yes, but my question is, "how can I make the lives of other people around me better in this life" because I can't be certain I'll be able to do it in the next. Simply praying for a better rebirth is useless to me. And to others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Yes, but my question is, "how can I make the lives of other people around me better in this life" because I can't be certain I'll be able to do it in the next. I suppose one thing that affects my perspective here is that I am pretty dog certain of rebirth, even if I imagine there are nuances I don't get, so placing efforts and hopes into rebirth doesn't seem like punting or giving up - it seems like it can be a reasonable call, though going all-in on it when you have the resources to also do some improvement here and now isn't that great. (Many Japanese peasants probably did not, or got that benefit from the material surrounding the practices that were supposed to lead to the favorable rebirth.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Yes, but my question is, "how can I make the lives of other people around me better in this life" because I can't be certain I'll be able to do it in the next. I think the thing being missed here is that Pure Land practitioners aren't praying for rebirth in Sukhavati and then going "get hosed, nerds" to beggars on the street. It is possible to do both. But people are of limited capacity. I cannot possibly ease the suffering of all sentient beings with the limited capacity of this transient body. So, I can do my very best, and then aspire to a rebirth that will afford me more capacity. For the Mahayana practitioner*, this is in the form of the Bodhisattva vow. Out of compassion, one deliberately chooses not to become a non-returner, but instead chooses to stay exactly for the benefit of sentient beings you're discussing. To that same Mahayanist, there is also the necessary recognition that no material comfort will actually reduce the suffering of sentient beings. The conditions of this world are unsatisfactory. Any material comforts are unsatisfactory. No act of benefit to other beings except the practice of Dharma can free a being from suffering. A compassionate Chakravartin King could grant all the world peace and boons of happiness and all those people would still suffer death, rebirth, sickness, and aging. So, we should still absolutely do that thing. We should still aid to relieve the suffering of beings who, in their ignorance and because of their conditions, cannot or will not practice the Dharma. But to do that alone is insufficient - it doesn't really ease suffering, it only prolongs or changes suffering. So we must practice the paramitas in this lifetime - generosity, endurance, patience, wisdom, renunciation, moral action - the whole shtick. But that alone cannot liberate sentient beings. In order to gain the capacity to benefit all beings, to liberate all beings, we must become Buddhas. What that means is a subject of a lot of debate. I find a great irony here that what kicked this all off was a glib remark by Senju Kannon, who has many times linked an incredibly profound treatise on the necessity of Buddhist Socialism, and how we cannot escape our responsibility for the benefit of sentient beings in this very lifetime, and cannot simply "kick the can down the road" in terms of practicing compassion. *edit: I originally said "Vajrayana practitioner" here, but the truth is for the Vajrayana practitioner you do wizard poo poo to expedite your enlightenment with powerful sorcery, and bullshit yourself with nondual wisdom all the while. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
I wonder if I am following the wrong path. Placing one's faith in the hopes of a better rebirth, as opposed to working to better everyone's condition in this life, seems enormously arrogant to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Mushika posted:I wonder if I am following the wrong path. Placing one's faith in the hopes of a better rebirth, as opposed to working to better everyone's condition in this life, seems enormously arrogant to me. Is your desire to minister, or to channel Buddhist thought to further secular social improvements? These are not really mutually exclusive, as Paramimetic said, but this may help you guide your search. I would also say that you want to be careful about "everyone." "Everyone" is a great way to set yourself up to continue the interior pattern of suffering, perhaps even counterproductively: you can perhaps do anything in this life, but you cannot do everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Is annihilation of the self as big a thing in all buddhist traditions? Alongside that, why do Zen monks keep punching each other in the stories I read? Is it a sort of Diogenes esc attempt to make people think differently?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is annihilation of the self as big a thing in all buddhist traditions? quote:Alongside that, why do Zen monks keep punching each other in the stories I read? Is it a sort of Diogenes esc attempt to make people think differently? The Rinzai tradition stresses sudden enlightenment. In practice, the thinking goes, this can be precipitated in an individual that has cultivated themself through meditation and then in stillness is jolted. In stories you’ll often see how a meditator experiences kensho when hearing the sound of a stick banging against a board (kept for these purposes) or the sound of a bell or a whack from a monk overseeing meditation sessions to correct posture/sleepiness. There is a neurologist named James H Austin that wrote a sprawling work Zen and the Brain where he tried to make an understanding as best he could of this and other aspects of the zen tradition and what he thought was underlying this practice was something to the effect of advanced meditators cultivate a brain state that leaves the brain calm and synchronized and that these abrupt stimuli could then send a shockwave through associative parts of the brain that would allow the individual to make connections and insights which to the individual felt like enlightenment as their peers would describe it to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is annihilation of the self as big a thing in all buddhist traditions? But the idea is that the "self" does not have any kind of absolute reality, nor is there a "soul" or a "reality" or anything - save the dharma (maybe, this is kind of arcane to me, a humble puppeteer) - that has absolute, permanent reality. Realizing this is not easy or casually done. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as people, or that "I" and "you" are not distinct individuals, but that this is not a formal and absolute state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think you are, though I do think that perhaps the Mahayana route isn't going to do a lot for you, and in general a lot of the old-fashioned Buddhist stuff does not move heavily towards social activism in a formal and direct way. Like you can get there from here, but it isn't like Shakyamuni said, "Incidentally, tax capital and fund civic improvements. You'll understand what that means later." Oh good lord, this would all be so much easier if he had. But then existence would be simple and easy, wouldn't it? quote:Is your desire to minister, or to channel Buddhist thought to further secular social improvements? These are not really mutually exclusive, as Paramimetic said, but this may help you guide your search. That's a really good question. I don't think I have any ability or authority to do the former, and I'm not confident that I do for the latter, either. quote:I would also say that you want to be careful about "everyone." "Everyone" is a great way to set yourself up to continue the interior pattern of suffering, perhaps even counterproductively: you can perhaps do anything in this life, but you cannot do everything. This is a good point. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Mushika posted:Oh good lord, this would all be so much easier if he had. But then existence would be simple and easy, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Mushika posted:I wonder if I am following the wrong path. Placing one's faith in the hopes of a better rebirth, as opposed to working to better everyone's condition in this life, seems enormously arrogant to me. But they're not mutually exclusive things? I am a person with limited capacities. I do not have a thousand eyes with which to see the suffering of beings and a thousand arms with which to amend them, you know? Rare is the person who can go into the mountains and be a yogi for the benefit of all beings, and that person should do that. One person cannot do much, and the seed of wisdom they attain is something that persists across lifetimes. This is not the case for feeding the hungry. The meal you give a person persists for maybe a day! The inspiration that Milarepa has given to millions of Tibetan people over generations has been a much greater benefit, hasn't it? The Buddha abandoned his riches and lived the life of a monk. His father begged him to be a wise king, but he refused. Surely Buddha could have been a wise king, he was a fully enlightened being. In fact the Buddha's story is what it is because he chose not to benefit beings in his lifetime by becoming a Chakravartin King. He chose the path of benefiting sentient beings through self-denial, through pursuing wisdom, and through achieving enlightenment. He established the Dharma and became the inspiration for a 2600 year tradition of liberating others. Maybe it's arrogant, but only if the Buddha was arrogant. Pursuing the path of enlightenment is what the Buddha did, and what the Buddha taught. Of course, compassion to sentient beings is central to that. Of course the Buddha wants us to benefit others materially when we can, but critically, he also recognizes that material benefit is transient and impermanent. Teaching Dharma is a gift that fruits continually and benefits countless beings. So the yogi or the monk or the layperson who dedicates to be reborn in the Pure Land so they can become one of those things is not misguided or arrogant or selfish - they are doing what they can do to benefit sentient beings by striving to understand and be able to teach and share and inspire and demonstrate that Dharma, that all who see them can benefit. A vast field of merit that inspires all who see it towards liberation. But the thing is...we can do that and practice compassion, within our sphere, and as best we can. And in this way it often reflects other forms of direct action; that is, you do what you can. I have housed people when they needed housing and given money to strangers, I have dedicated countless hours towards administrating a Dharma center, both serve to alleviate the suffering of sentient beings. I am sure there are Pure Land practitioners who misunderstand and think they can hurt others or cause suffering directly and say the nembutsu, but I think they are probably rare, and beyond that, I think they are still deserving of liberation and will still receive the compassion of Amitabha. And I'm glad of it. But I think far more are saying Nembutsu and then living a life of compassion that touches the hearts of all around them, that alleviates the suffering of their families and neighborhoods and the bugs and animals and ghosts and demons and so on around them. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't let our aspiration of benefiting all sentient beings get in the way of benefiting the sentient beings we encounter in our lives. We shouldn't let global-mindedness interfere in local action. And we can do all those things with this transient, impermanent, meaningless life while still aspiring and striving to be reborn in a better position to benefit others. Why does hoping for a better rebirth preclude using the current one to help others? How is it arrogant to think "alas, I cannot do as much as I would like with this life, so I will do what little I can and aspire to be reborn in a way that I can do more?" Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Feb 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When I say minister I mean in the sense of helping others in a direct and overt way. From what you're posting this is your primary motivation. It is laudable although you also want to care for yourself; you, too, are a sentient being who is suffering. You should cultivate mercy for yourself, because then you'll have the habits and thoughts of mercy to apply elsewhere. Yes, this is the crux of my attitude toward my practice. This also is one reason why I don't feel that I can take the Bodhisattva Vow. If I can't attain arahantship for myself, which isn't exactly one of my highest goals, how can I hope to lead anyone else to liberation? I can do what I can to help others in this life. I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enough to know that I can help them in the next.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Re: Annihilationism I thought the Buddha specifically said Nirvana is not extinguishment but then also left the question of what exactly is Nirvana unanswered because the answer wouldn’t benefit one’s practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 03:58
|
|