Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


I just want to be a pedantic jerk and point out we've never disputed between Yogacara and Mahamudra, but rather between Yogacara and Madhyamaka. Both of which acknowledge sensate consciousness and fabrications.

That said, I agree that words like vijnana and caksur, like citta or cetana are not words most need to be familiar with: but there are still a number of pali/sanskrit/tibetan what have you words that many just pick up because they are so commonplace. Zen, Zazen, Mahamudra, Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada/Hinayana, Karma, Dukkha, Dhyana (or Jnana), Skandha, Klesha, Lama, Tulku, Guru, Sangha, Dharma, Buddha, Bodhisattva, Tathagarbha etc. . .

With this, your point about the audience not speaking sanskrit becomes irrelevant, itself a detracting focus that over-analyzes from the point- Plus you yourself have probably been guiltier than I in this thread of using words not in english :ironicat:

Does one need to call the Buddha the Buddha instead of the Awakened, or "The-one-who-neither-comes-nor-goes"? Of course not- But when you get down to it there IS a certain level of terms you pick up, that you can become familiar with what exactly they refer to and it becomes far more expedient to say "Life is dukkha" than "Life can cause varying forms of distress, but not with the immediacy distress implies, and neither quite is it uneasiness; Suffering's right out it is too strong of a word for a good comparison"

I was responding to someone asking a very academic question, and trying to respond in a like manner that was helpful; I don't want it to be assumed that Yogacara and mahayana are inherently this big offputting mystical heady thing- and I'm thinking that now you think that it is, which is odd because that is what vajrayana is more guilty of. Myself? I am 100% down for burning the sutras and destroying the shrines, they are fetishes that obscure and distract from dharma, from experience and from trying to undo suffering. But I like to read sutras and great teachers deserve our thanks, often in the form of big-rear end statues. I think, paramemetic- we seriously need to sit down and actually have an academic discussion, because my perspective is totally not what you think it is. As an example- I think you stress too much on attachment to forms, sutras, teachings or prostrations. What have you- I would counter your point about my just being with the number of times I tell you that you spend too much time justifying things and just need to sit down and meditate, interrupting dogs or no. We should talk, because I think you have a wrong idea of what yogacara is; and attribute my personal attachment to academic buddhism too much to it.

For what it's worth, I have a contact in my profile- anyone can drop me a line if you'd rather ask me something outside the thread; I am always happy to chat with cool goons.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Paramemetic
Sep 29, 2003

Area 51. You heard of it, right?





Fallen Rib
Whoa, I wrote a lot of words last night that I was way too tired to be writing and I think I wrote things that I totally didn't mean to be writing. Sorry about that. The fact that I can't remember this morning what I wrote clearly is pretty telling. That and I wrote "mahamudra" for god knows what reason.

I'm sorry to the whole thread that I wrote all those words that amount to p much meaningless drivel. The very essence of idle talk.

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 14:19 on May 12, 2013

BrainDance
May 8, 2007

Disco all night long!

It really works both ways. On one hand, it's important to be accessible. There's nothing necessarily essential or magic about the original language this stuff comes from.

At the same time, the more you translate the more subtle (and not so subtle) differences you make. That's just the nature of language, there are differences even in words that seem to literally translate because they developed in different places. Some of those differences can really screw someone up.

I'm learning an Asian language at the moment. You know what words don't really literally translate over?

"friend"
"no"

Let alone something like "suffering."

We can all go in with the agreement that, when we say a word like suffering we really mean something different but, if English is your native language theres a lot of subtle stuff attached to that word that we're still going to associate with it even if we're not all that aware of it.

Warsteiner
Jan 14, 2006

BrainDance posted:

I'm learning an Asian language at the moment. You know what words don't really literally translate over?

"friend"
"no"

I don't get it. How do you say "no" in the language you are learning. Like how do you decline an offer? *Hand signals or something?

With all the things that just happened in this thread some very good things came of it for me at least! I'm starting an introductory class in the practice of Serene Reflection Meditation. Aka Soto Zen. I was feeling some intimidation because I do not have any knowledge of all the words that were being used in this thread and I have a fear of not being able to attain all the information. My native tongue is English and my English is moderate at best. I just do not grasp words and sentence structure like some people do. I'm a jill of many languages but a master of none.
In short- I do not feel like I will now be shunned from the group for having no knowledge of sanskrit. Not to jinx myself or anything but the idea of me learning a bunch of sanskrit was intimidating but I feel all better about it all. So thanks!

Added: *I didn't mean to be sarcastic or funny. Some cultures really use facial expression and hand gestures to communicate certain things.

Warsteiner fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 12, 2013

BrainDance
May 8, 2007

Disco all night long!

Oh there are words for no. I just meant that the closest equivalents aren't exactly the same. There's a word that means "I do not agree/that isn't true" and another for "I don't have/it doesn't exist" that, for the most part are "no."

It's just not entirely interchangeable.

Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you.
Is Amida (or Amitabha) a Buddha or a Bodhisattva? I have seen reliable sources that refer to Amida as a Buddha and others that refer to Amida as a Bodhisattva. The Nembutsu refers to Amida as a Buddha but many in the Jodo Shinshu community refer to Amida as a Bodhisattva. Is there a debate about this within the community?

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


BrainDance posted:

It really works both ways. On one hand, it's important to be accessible. There's nothing necessarily essential or magic about the original language this stuff comes from.

At the same time, the more you translate the more subtle (and not so subtle) differences you make. That's just the nature of language, there are differences even in words that seem to literally translate because they developed in different places. Some of those differences can really screw someone up.

I'm learning an Asian language at the moment. You know what words don't really literally translate over?

"friend"
"no"

Let alone something like "suffering."

We can all go in with the agreement that, when we say a word like suffering we really mean something different but, if English is your native language theres a lot of subtle stuff attached to that word that we're still going to associate with it even if we're not all that aware of it.
There's a big reason why right speech is part of the eightfold path and this right here is a really good example of why that is: Even between two native english speakers in the same household: there are different meanings attached to words. Ultimately words are a fluid and relative thing, we have a thought and we do our best to convey that thought with the words available to us; we can only really convey approximations of that because language is so powerfully an outreach of ourselves. It is shaped by our own experiences; one need only look at hateful words to see how language means something different to every

though this is a specific response, it goes for everyone. Do not be afraid i you don't know some terms. Don't be afraid to ask the wajo, or even the roshi if that's the person saying it, you are there to learn. If you didnt have to learn or practise; you would be enlightened already; asking someone to explain a term (without interrupting them) tells them you are listening, and has the benefit of encouraging them to explain the teachings more. However, the actual glossary of other terms you need to familiarize yourself with is pretty small; larger glossaries are more for reading translations and more arcane teachings.

EDIT: Incarnate dao; Amitabha is a buddha with their own land. If you're into wisdom buddhas. However Amitabha was a bodhisattva before, dharmakara. Also, Avalokitesvara can be seen by some as an emanation of Amitabha, which might be your source of confusion.

Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 12, 2013

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
Wrt Amitabha, more specifically, he is the Buddha of another realm or heaven. Doctrinally, any realm or sphere of existence can have only a single Buddha reigning at one time, although you can still have arahants (people enlightened by the Buddhas dharma) and pratyekabuddhas (people enlightened on their own, like a Buddha, but who ultimately do not spread the dharma. Sort of like a Pre-Buddha Arahant, or a John the Baptist like figure to make an analogy).

Particularly among pure land Buddhists, if you do well in this life, you earn a spot in heaven, which is supposed to be the Buddha Amitabha's realm, where everyone is instantly enlightened and just sits around listening to Amitabha preach the Dharma 24/7. Depending on your hermeneutic approach, this isn't necessarily a different realm per se, but awakening to a world where the dharma is all around you and ever present. Similar to the phrase from another tradition, "Everyone is the Guru if you know how to listen". I'll of course accede to this being a potentially controversial and contentious point though. Like all traditions, Buddhism has its literalists.

Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you.
See, and there's my confusion. It seems so clear to me that Amida is a Buddha, and I am familiar with Pure Land doctrine enough to know what the goal of Pure Land practice is, so I am confused as to why practicing members of Jodo Shinshu would refer to Amida as Amida Bodhisattva. Yes, yes, this could lead to the discussion about words being fluid and the emptiness of meaning but it seems to me that those who refer to Amida as Bodhisattva have a very good reason to do so and why that is is completely lost on me who is, though not a Buddhist, literate in Buddhism.

EDIT: But if this is an unfruitful line of dialogue I apologize for my ignorance.

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
Can you provide some of the context of your discussion? Amita Bodhisattva as past or present, perhaps? Otherwise its hard to tell. If they were referring to previous rebirths than they'd be talking about the Bodhisattva Amita. At this point I'm nearing the end of my pureland knowledge, but if for some reason they're of the mind that the pureland with Amitabha Buddha will happen in a future not reached, than the Bodhisattva Amita would possibly be living out his final births in present time and not quite yet a Buddha. This is one of the twists of Mahayana doctrine and its spinoff sects, that we are potentially living concurrently with all sorts of Buddhas to be, although strictly speaking this isn't necessarily unique to Mahayana as even Theravada acknowledges the future Buddha Maitreya, who if floating around at present is a Boddhisattva until he reaches his birth in Tusita heaven just prior to his Buddha birth.

Without knowing more thats the most I can hazard.

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


Even jodo shinshu recognizing Amida as a buddha, So that is weird if they are talking about presently. Perhaps they are referring to an emanation?

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
Also, and I'm not saying this to raise any spectres of wrong or right Buddhism or of ignorant lay believers vs otherwise, but sometimes people get minor details wrong, or adhere to a tradition of which they know only the sketchiest outlines. I sat in a seminar on anthropology of Buddhism which had two religious studies PhD candidates specializing in Japan. Their reports were that most Japanese, while nominally Buddhist and many of those being Pure Land, that adherents still had a fairly tenuous connection with the institutions and doctrines. For many Japanese lay Buddhists, their only real interaction with the religion is at funerals, and so it wouldn't be crazy for them to mince Bodhisattva with Buddha.

Now if these were monks or advanced practitioners, confusion persists. More context needed.

WAFFLEHOUND
Apr 26, 2007

Quantumfate posted:

I try not to use them

I'm calling bullshit, you know two of us have been telling you to lay off Sanskrit when explaining things for a while~

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


Look back a while. I am being more conscious of avoiding them, not that I don't. I never made an effort to use it, and I think my posts in this thread have been wonderfully devoid of non-english terms.

EDIT: Read more sutras, meditate outside.

WAFFLEHOUND
Apr 26, 2007
You should put a quarter in a jar every time you use a Sanskrit word that isn't like "Dharma" or "Karma" and in a week we'll end poverty. :buddy:

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


There is too much sandeha for santapa-kalpa. Dina-kalpa tops. :v:

Sir Azrael
Jan 14, 2004

Locked, cocked, and polygonally rifled... This creature fears nothing.
Being a beginning practitioner of Jodo Shinshu I've never heard of Amida being referred to as anything but a Buddha or Tathagata. Granted I haven't been around that long but the Buddhist Churches of America website doesn't refer to him as a bodhisattva either? Maybe in other traditions he's regarded as a bodhisattva, I'm really not sure, but in my experience he's generally referred to as the Buddha of infinite (light/life).

As it regards the pure land where Amida reigns, my understanding of how to get there is a little inconsistent with Yiggy's view. It seems to me that Jodo Shinshu doctrine leans more towards grateful acceptance of an offer to join Amida Buddha rather than having to "earn a spot." Shinran himself despaired that regular people would never be able to attain buddhahood over the circumstances given in his time and moving forward, and my understanding is that accepting the invitation of Amida into his pure land would allow one to go there, learn the dharma without distraction, become enlightened, and return to spread the Dharma. Grateful living and the following of the eightfold path for us, then, emanates from trust in Amida's promise, rather than being a means to an end.

Sorry in advance if I am explaining it poorly.

THE LUMMOX
Nov 29, 2004
1st, I'm not expecting one person to answer for the actions of random sects of a giant and diverse religion but that said:

In the 16th century, a Buddhist nation (Japan) invaded another Buddhist nation (Korea) waving a banner that said "Glory to the Holy Lotus". Then the Chinese (many of whom were also Buddhist) intervened and their general brought along a whole bunch of Shaolin monks.

So how does something like this fit in with precept #1 from the OP? I'm hoping to find something more nuanced than the obvious answer that religious people sometimes don't practice what they preach.



I guess I'm most interested in asking if anyone has any insight to share with regards to more militant sects of Buddhism. Both historical but also like the current things going on in Myanmar.

Interesting tidbit, King Beop of the Korean Kingdom of Baekje tried to regain divine favour for his state by building temples and implementing state vegetarianism during the late 6th century. He went so far as to confiscate hunting spears and fishing equipment as well as releasing all the falcons. As you might guess, this was a pretty lovely way to feed an ancient kingdom that was fighting wars on multiple fronts so the policy was quickly reversed.

ashgromnies
Jun 19, 2004
I can't answer your questions but to add more context to the understanding of the current situation in Burma, a video of one of the monks inciting violence: http://m.guardiannews.com/world/video/2013/apr/16/burma-bin-laden-buddhist-monk-video

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't give a religious backing for it because I don't believe there really is one. He repeats dogma similar to what a white supremacist in the West would say: they are raping our women, stealing from us, etc. and we are defending ourselves.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 12:30 on May 13, 2013

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


Unfortunately yeah, there has been a fair amount of buddhist violence in history. While your examples are good, I think the best thing to point out is zen's role in orchestrating massive amounts of violence and hypernationalism in world war two. Brian Victoria, himself an avid and studied practiotioner is often a a go-to reference for that; I highly recommend picking up zen at war if this kind of thing interests you.

But a more nuanced answer is the following: 1) often abbots have preached for the defending of the dharma, all life is suffering and all living generates bad karma, to kill someone is bad karma, but you will get generate ore good karma by defending the dharma and helping the person who you kill by reciting mantras. Because that's totally how it works, right?

2) for a lot of japanese buddhism, in particular the ikko ikki uprisings and the sohei traditions, the dharma is corrupt and you can't learn it in this life/ you weren't born into a privileged caste to practise well. Try to be reborn in the pure lands to learn at amida's feet and spread dharma in this life. So y'know, gently caress it let's not worry about the precepts

3) You can't actually kill, there is no you with which to kill, likewise no entity which is being killed. life continues, andin battle it is simply weapon against weapon, weapon against flesh. It is a perfect expression of emptiness. It is Mu.

4)WRT burma- theravada is not a lay tradition, and most people recognize that you probably wont be born into a position where you can attain enlightenment in most SE asian countries. The monks will be monks and maybe encourage people to violence but don't break the precepts on a technicality.

:shepface:

The real reason is the obvious one of course, that buddhism is human and subject to human fallings including people not practising what they preach. Still, we tend to be fairly pacifist on the average, more so than a lot of religions. Even Jainism, the most pacifist of religions has a history of war. Them's the way humanity is.

Secret Sweater
Oct 17, 2005
dup
Thank you for the explanation of volition and karma. It took a bit, but I feel I understand it much better now.

Next question:
I agree with the reasoning behind the 14 unanswerable questions. It states in one of the questions that life after death cannot be known. However, if your current state is defined as life and reincarnation is accepted as fact, how can the question of life after death then be unanswerable?

Paramemetic
Sep 29, 2003

Area 51. You heard of it, right?





Fallen Rib

Secret Sweater posted:

Thank you for the explanation of volition and karma. It took a bit, but I feel I understand it much better now.

Next question:
I agree with the reasoning behind the 14 unanswerable questions. It states in one of the questions that life after death cannot be known. However, if your current state is defined as life and reincarnation is accepted as fact, how can the question of life after death then be unanswerable?

It is not unanswerable because there is no answer, it is unanswerable because the Buddha would not answer that question when asked. The generally accepted understanding here is not that the Buddha does not know the answers, but rather that any answer would become an obstacle to practice.

The question of life after death, incidentally, is not unanswerable. The fourteen unanswerable questions are if the world is finite, or not, or both, or neither; if the world is everlasting, or not, or both, or neither; if the the self and the body is the same, or different; and if the Tathagata exists after his death, or not, or both, or neither.

That latter question is what I'm assuming you're talking about, and we can only speculate as to why it should not have been answered, but doing so would itself be against the spirit of the thing. It is my guess that Buddha did not answer this question because it would lead to concern for this existence, grasping for continued existence, or so on.

Also important is the distinction between reincarnation and rebirth. It is not believed that you yourself get incarnated again sometime after death. It is believed that a new self, a new being, is born when you die. They are sort of linearly progressing due to karmic consequence, but it's not the same "self." Quantumfate would do a better job of explaining the nitty-gritty of this process, Tibetan beliefs basically hold that the mindstream is like a stream because it is uninterrupted, but this does not imply that it is the same individual, except in the case of voluntary reincarnations which can be performed by enlightened beings who are beyond coming and going and exist outside the dualistic concept of life and death, which, getting to the meat of the matter, is the key point: life and death are dualistic illusions, a misperception of "self" as a thing that can be alive or dead rather than being a sort of nexus of rising and falling thoughts existing entirely dependent on other things and so having no intrinsic identity.

Sorry that got a bit rambly, but I guess I'm not sure of the foundation of the question, since whether or not there is life after death is not one of the 14 unanswerables.

Secret Sweater
Oct 17, 2005
dup
I suppose my question is whether or not that last set of questions "if the Tathagata exists after his death, or not, or both, or neither" is referring to rebirth or not. I interpret the question existing after death to include the iterations of rebirth since, by its own definition, involves a continuation of something related in some way to your current existence (wording this is awkward as hell because there is no self?).

The idea is that something persists(continues persisting) after the body dies in Buddhism. Now, the question of if the Buddha exists after death is fundamentally different from the other questions posed in the unanswerable questions in that none of the questions about the nature of the universe are taught in Buddhism, but the nature of life after death is.

I'll stop there for now, I am heading somewhere with this, but I don't want to deviate too far and have to start over. Is there anything overtly incorrect from what I've said so far?

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


Kind of: Refresh yourself on the concepts of anatta, sunyata and the nidanas. The point here is twofold: Life and death do not exist as things in themselves outside of arbitrary definitions and perceptive media. Second the buddha existing after the death of his mundane corpus is not in any way related to rebrth: See the above three.

The idea is not that something persists after the body dies- that would be hinduism. Buddhism takes a more apophatic approach nothing persists, because there is nothing to persist, no death with which it may persist out of. A life continues into a new becoming when a person is judged to have died, however that life also undergoes new becomings when that person is judged to be alive. So radically that no single definitive state can yet be called continuous rather than a perfuming of individual thought-moments.

As a buddha understands the origination of suffering truly, and lives in such a way that they do not generate karma, do not suffer, no other nidanas can grow from that because the whole system of karma, rebirth and suffering is irreducibly complex. To remove one part is to remove the whole thing.

If the buddha is outside the wheel of rebirht and the cycle of suffering, what happens at death? Parinirvana- the final nirvana. Beyond that is not really worthwhile to pursue: see the unanswerables.

Though FWIW there is a tacit implication of a precedent nature to the buddha (as a force prior to enlightenment) found in the bramajala sutra. Additionally in the lotus sutra we can see an allegorical buddha as present by means of emantion across realms, transcending them. Here there is a buddha-essence after the death of siddhartha gautama; though it's role is allegorical to illustrate that a buddha is beyond all passing away and all arising, or in pali: Tathagata


EDIT: but seriously keep heading where you are! Ask away about anything!:haw:

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
Quantumfate, maybe you could clarify for me, but through my studies it seems to be that the Store Consciousness (Alayavijnana) posited by the Yogacarans is almost indistinguishable from the impersonal, monistic "Self" that developed out of the later Upanishads and became the doctrinal basis later expounded in the Bhagavad Gita. At a certain point it seems to merely be quibbling about Hindu's wanting to refer to that as a self, but ontologically any distinction between that and Store Consciousness would seem to me to be without a difference.

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


drat, that's a good question: One I can't really clarify as any authoritative source because the answer is still deeply schismatic in buddhism- The Alayavijnana and the consequently dependent tathagatagarbha (buddha-nature)have repeatedly been attacked by theravadins as heretical, with plenty of scripture to support them because they have been able to re-frame the meaning of pali words to support those kinds of arguments.

Likewise, the development and popularity of Mahayana and Vajrayana buddhism both paved the way for hinduism for absorb it. . . THe cop out answer is the classical one: It's not alayavijnana but citta-santana "mind-stream" and that usually goes over well in mahayana buddhism because it is hard to suggest that a stream has a reified self

This is kind of a cop-out because it's essentially making an uneccesary ontological distinction about an academic part of buddhism that stresses above all yogic practise. Admittedly I haven't eaten enough today, so I might not be able to explain this properly: but it is not an impersonal monistic self because (as far as I understand) there is a permanence to atman. The karma may come and go, may change based on the lives of the practicioner: but that "self" the seed of Brahman. It is a fundamentally permanent thing.

Contrarily the seedhouse consciousness is not a permanent thing. It exists across "lives", or it doesn't. It is a collection of karmic "seeds". If you have seen every seed that the consciousness had at infancy, but have gathered new seeds by the time that body ceases, there is still a pile of seeds. It is not the same pile, or is it? It is neither the same nor different, because to suggest either answer is to suggest that there can be any inherent anything. All void is form and all form is void.

Now, for what it's worth: later citta-matra thought really harps on the fact that considering this atman is worthless because part of becoming enlightened is to make peace with the concept of a self. Not that there is a self, but that because it arises out of the minds of nearly everyone it is most conducive to acknowledge that.

I feel like I can't give a satisfying answer; and if I keep trying I will just keep saying what I've said more and more. Basically "No" it is not self. But if you feel like this is something you want to really really look into and get into the super-nitty gritty of: Check out the Kammasiddhiprakana, the lankavatara and ratnagotravibhaga. The last one I know has been referenced as dealing tathagatagarbha teaching from a yogacara perspective; but I can't get a hold of a copy :(

Secret Sweater
Oct 17, 2005
dup

Quantumfate posted:

If the buddha is outside the wheel of rebirht and the cycle of suffering, what happens at death? Parinirvana- the final nirvana. Beyond that is not really worthwhile to pursue: see the unanswerables.
This wasn't exactly where I was going, but I can use this to the same effect. Parinirvana occurs at the time of death; Siddhartha taught that this is as a thing that can happen to people. Siddhartha learned this while presently alive as a human, not as a past experience. So why can Parinirvana be spoken of as if truth when it is, in fact, an unknown. I'm not even talking about after Parinirvana, I'm talking about Parinirvana itself. Nobody knows what happens after Parinirvana, how can you truthfully say you know that Parinirvana occurs at all?

quote:

When the Aggregates arise, decay and die, O Bhikkhu, every moment you are born, decay and die.
If life is able to continue without the self or the soul, we are then left to conclude that those same forces can continue without the functioning body. But Buddhism defines life by the existence of the five aggregates, who is to say that something will take its place when the body is no longer there? That's unanswerable right? Why even pledge the concept of Rebirth if the knowledge of what happens after death is unimportant in achieving Nirvana?

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Secret Sweater posted:

This wasn't exactly where I was going, but I can use this to the same effect. Parinirvana occurs at the time of death; Siddhartha taught that this is as a thing that can happen to people. Siddhartha learned this while presently alive as a human, not as a past experience. So why can Parinirvana be spoken of as if truth when it is, in fact, an unknown. I'm not even talking about after Parinirvana, I'm talking about Parinirvana itself. Nobody knows what happens after Parinirvana, how can you truthfully say you know that Parinirvana occurs at all?

Parinirvana is a problematic term. In a great many places in the pali cannon it is used interchangeably with just Nirvana, and often refers to someone who then goes on to very clearly keep living as they had before. It is important not to attach too much meaning and also try to keep a perspective on both Nirvana itself and how Buddhist monks are typically taught to think about death, including some specific kinds of meditation detailing the process of death.

To refer back to Nirvana, as a concept it often picks up a lot of baggage. In a recent, highly detailed, well researched and cited work titled Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities, Stephen Collins goes to great lengths to explore the concept as understood and detailed in the Pali Imaginaire, the overarching body of concepts and imagery employed in the Pali Cannon. Doctrinally, several things are outlined about the nature of understanding Nirvana, notably things like no-self, impermanence, how every facet of our being is conditioned and contingent on causality. Stuff like that. As for the lived experience of Nirvana, what it feels like etc., the Pali Cannon is very careful to avoid this. The closest it gets it through a body of recurrent poetic themes and aphorisms. Collins explains that you really need to look at both to get a full feeling of whats going on. One of the most recurrent pieces of imagery is water returning to the ocean, and reaching a union. No more struggle for separation, effortless flowing back to the source. He goes further to posit that the point of all of this and Nirvana in particular is to create a state of felicity, to end suffering. While lots of other baggage gets added to the concepts in later chronicles like the Chula and Mahavamsa, relic legends, sectarian texts, etc. At least in the beginning, it was about creating this state of happiness where you are free from suffering and self-aware to prevent from continuing it in others. It is, in many ways, for those who can see The City of Nirvana, about finding felicity and freedom from suffering in This Life, immediately, because death can take you at any time, and up until reaching this felicity you are engendering more of this causality, sending ripples into others still bound in ignorance, furthering suffering.

quote:

If life is able to continue without the self or the soul, we are then left to conclude that those same forces can continue without the functioning body. But Buddhism defines life by the existence of the five aggregates, who is to say that something will take its place when the body is no longer there? That's unanswerable right? Why even pledge the concept of Rebirth if the knowledge of what happens after death is unimportant in achieving Nirvana?

For this, its important to think about the how Buddhist monks in the suttas and even up to today tend to approach death, see it, its after effects, and how something could possibly live on after the dissolution of the skandhas. In several suttas there are outlines for meditating about death, especially its process, in graphic detail. In the broader history of ascetic practice in India, including Buddhism, it was common for monks to at some point undergo a series of meditations, each with a fresh corpse. To meditate on the break down of the body, its consumption by insects and other carrion. Its breakdown into soil. The ultimate fate of all these other animals that consume the corpse, what happens to them, how they themselves move forward in this chain. The skandhas are dissolved, but what was left behind is visually and obviously, to the monks, passing on through other things, continuing a cycle.

Why posit rebirth if its not important for Nirvana? There are a handful of partial answers to this. One is, that the Buddha (and the texts are explicit about this) adapted all of his teachings to his listeners, altering and varying as he thought necessary in order to best help the listener end suffering. Rebirth, a very literal, eternalist stance on it was the common cultural assumption about lived existence in Ancient India. I'm not pointing this out to say that secretly the Buddha didn't believe it or something, not at all, though he often times explicitly avoids comment. Rather, that there is no way he was going to be able to even have a common conversation concerning accepted metaphysical truths unless this is in there.

Stephen Collins also goes on to explain the purpose of Nirvana in this life, in the context of the ongoing round of rebirths. At heart, the main concern of the Buddhists (and also many Hindus and other sramanas), is rebirth fatigue.

Its hard for us to understand this to a full extent because we have no real benchmarks for the brutish, short and nasty nature of life in Ancient India, for one. Life is awful, with intermittent rounds of happiness and pleasure, but it never ends. An analogy I've seen is its like being at the party too long. Long after you feel it should be over, you've had your fun, you just want to go home and go to sleep. Your fatigued with the whole enterprise. In samsara, the narrative never ends. It has no closure, which creates anxiety in people, particularly if they think its going to go on for all time. Collins goes on his book to describe how the doctrinal outlines and the imagery used in the Pali Cannon ultimately paint the picture of Nirvana providing a real sense of narrative closure to peoples' lives. If gives them a way out, either directly in this life, or, if they are not ready, perhaps in another life. The main point being, that there is an end, eventually. It really doesn't go on forever, at least it doesn't have to. Even short of full, in-this-life Nirvana, this does create a smaller and still felt sense of Felicity, which to some extent even then is relieving some of the inherent suffering and anxiety of life fatigue.

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


Secret Sweater posted:

This wasn't exactly where I was going, but I can use this to the same effect. Parinirvana occurs at the time of death; Siddhartha taught that this is as a thing that can happen to people. Siddhartha learned this while presently alive as a human, not as a past experience. So why can Parinirvana be spoken of as if truth when it is, in fact, an unknown. I'm not even talking about after Parinirvana, I'm talking about Parinirvana itself. Nobody knows what happens after Parinirvana, how can you truthfully say you know that Parinirvana occurs at all?

If life is able to continue without the self or the soul, we are then left to conclude that those same forces can continue without the functioning body. But Buddhism defines life by the existence of the five aggregates, who is to say that something will take its place when the body is no longer there? That's unanswerable right? Why even pledge the concept of Rebirth if the knowledge of what happens after death is unimportant in achieving Nirvana?

Again though, you are making some specious connections: I would refer you back to sunyata: the concept that all things are just apellations on objects that lack a substantial self outside of subjective perceptions, they are phenomenon (contra the noumenon I talked about earlier) so the first major misconception here is that you are attributing a definition of life to the aggregates, and with those being devoid of substance, transitory and (this is especially critical) dependently originated. If buddhism truly defined life as something colored by the aggregates then a colossal problem arises when you find most sutras suggesting that part of enlightenment is realising that there is no collection of aggregates. One of the most principle and popular sutras; the hridayaprajnaparamita sutra goes over the wisdom of emptiness pretty well, many people find it too reiterative- but I think it's good.

This isn't just a mahayana thing either. The Abidhamma, while stressing emptiness less, does comment on the sutta pitaka by expressing that the aggregates are not part of unconditioned realty, that is nibbana and nibbana alone- save that the paramathas (or ultimate realities, ultimate meaning they cannot be reduced further) arise from form, sensation, ideation, perception and conciousness and are dependently originated things.

There is no self, nor is there soul: the "self" is a collection of these aggregates and (imho) ideative karmic ripening. Our prior experiences and the wake of our actions combine with perceptive media to create a thought moment. Thought-moments are those brief isolated sections of time where a thought arises then decays. But because time does not pause o Theabidhamma r work in isolation, thought moments keep happening, keep occurring. Because we only experience our own karma, and filter all inputs through our ideative and obfuscative tendencies we call this collection of thought moments the ego. But this is a name and a name alone: there is no truly present ego.

Because there is no soul, no self, and because there is no inherent materiality to the aggregates, there is neither life, nor death. Those are meaningless-there is only being. When you become enlightened you exist permanently in that state that we all stumble upon from time to time, those brief flashes of egoless-ness. And permanent carries the wrong weight for what I'm trying to express: It is something which transcends time because without ego, without clinging or desire, the whole chain of suffering and origination cannot support itself. There is no life. There is no birth. No death. No becomng. Neither is there a lack of life, nor birth, nor death, nor becoming. You are tathagata: beyond arising and decaying.

So why teach parinirvana, which is just a term for a final enlightenment after death? Because it is truth: when the body ceases to be with an attained being, so departs an enlightened one from samsara entirely. They get out of game. What follows after that isn't important for those still in the game; only that they see that you are able to depart. You needn't either go bust or win. You need not keep playing. Playing is worthless, and so s pondering about whether your fourth player left for taco bell. You don't have to teach everyone about taco bell to tell them the fourth player left. Likewise you don't have to concern yourself about what happens after parinirvana. Also again, it's kind of a complicated and meaningless term.

Another important mistake in your suggestions is that you are kind of bound to a western monotheistic abrahamic kind of view here: Buddhism absolute agrees that knowledge about what happens after death. The whole faith is built around this kind of soteriology- supernatural stuff aside it is tied to life and death being meaningless terms- there is objectively a continuation of the world and of life after you die. That said; recognition of the nature of rebirth has been a critical thing taught by the buddha and in tons of scripture: it's pretty hard to read the pali canon and a ton of the sutras without rebirth. It is not one of the unanswerables and is very readibly accepted as an important step

This wasn't just the buddha using the common metaphysical assumptions of the time either- the buddha was operating in a sramanic framework (of Sramana, only buddhism and jainism survive) and this ran very starkly against the common grain or assumptions of the society he was in: which taught reincarnation as accepted fact. Rebirth is not allegory here- the buddha believed it genuinely and saw that many people will cling to their views that are already held about death and life. Destroying those views is part of accepting rebirth.

Rebirth as an eternalist teaching is pretty strongly debunked: I link a number of sutras in the OP where the buddha speaks about the six wrong views, of which eternalism is one of them; likewise however is anihilationism one of them- the idea that with death you go to oblivion. So you pledge the concept of rebirth not just because it's important to attain nirvana- but because it is necessary for the faith aswell- it forms the entire soteriology. From a mahayana perspective to not follow rebirth is to renounce the bodhisattva vows, which you state you will be reborn for all beings. You cannot affix a permanence to death.

This is long and rambling but TL:DR- Parinirvana is getting out of the game, a negative fact. Rebirth is real, critical, and genuinely taught by the buddha. Nirvana has nothing to do with birth or rebirth, life or death, form, consciousness, ideation, perception or sensation. It just is. I hope this doesn't come off as too rambling, it is a little late.

EDIT: Yiggy! :rage: You said a lot of this much simpler than I could give, I blame the hour. My point of contention with what you posit though is the relegation of rebirth to a smaller role than it can really stand to play in most buddhism. But your point about the difficulty of having a common conversation without the accepted metaphysical truths is one of the most stalwart roadblocks that buddhism seems to encounter in the west. Atheist or Theist, most people seem to have a tacit agreement that there is one life and one death. That both are permanent and real things. It can make sunyata or tathagatagarbha hard to convey. Still, you have given me a frame of reference to begin to explain this; and for that I am immensely greatful, thanks for the help here as well. I hope I helped repay that by being able to partially (at the least) answer the question you had RE: yogacara.

Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 08:58 on May 14, 2013

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Quantumfate posted:


EDIT: My point of contention with what you posit though is the relegation of rebirth to a smaller role than it can really stand to play in most buddhism. But your point about the difficulty of having a common conversation without the accepted metaphysical truths is one of the most stalwart roadblocks that buddhism seems to encounter in the west. Atheist or Theist, most people seem to have a tacit agreement that there is one life and one death. That both are permanent and real things. It can make sunyata or tathagatagarbha hard to convey.

Sure, point taken. I'm merely trying to strike a balance between making too much or too little of it, as at times I know it was certainly a stumbling point for me. Its hard for us to think about it in the West, I feel, because even when we hear and understand concepts of egolessness, our entire culture, society and intellectual tradition sort of depends on the existence of the ego in order to have ITS metaphysical conversations, and so knowing about it and even understanding to some degree doesn't always lead to internalization. I completely agree with neither eternalism or annihilationism, that there is a lot of nuance not easily captured by words. What that means and how to explain it is certainly no easy task, and so we may both be fairly close to the middle way we may be approaching from different sides of the road.

Also, as an aside, the Buddhist tradition when extended as a whole from 400 BC to present does not always make it easy to get away from the eternalist position. As an example, in the lived lives of many Buddhists in Asian countries today, they really know very little about sutras, texts, to some extent even a fair bit of doctrine. The tradition has largely catholicized, in a sense (as its done many times in its history, in India included). To be more specific, what Buddhists on the ground are frequently familiar with are the relic stories and the Jataka tales, particularly like the Vessantara Jataka, and many of these popular stories make little or almost no sense without more eternalist views of rebirth. I would contend in one sense that its no easier for Easterners to walk away from than it is Westerners. A common refrain in the anthropological literature I've encountered on Buddhist peoples is that most of them very much want a rebirth, of their lived experienced self. They would just prefer it be a good or better one. Nirvana ends up being a quaint ideal to aspire to, use as a moral polestar maybe.

quote:

I hope I helped repay that by being able to partially (at the least) answer the question you had RE: yogacara.

I'll probably come back to that and have some more to ask and say, but I need to chew on it a little. Thanks for your candor.

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 09:45 on May 14, 2013

Secret Sweater
Oct 17, 2005
dup
I appreciate you guys taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly. Your explanations have helped tremendously. I think I will stop for now as it's become clear I'm trying to take counter positions to concepts that I do not fully understand. I am intrigued and would like to learn more, so I'm going to start with a general book first, I suppose.

Will "Buddhism Plain and Simple" - Steve Hagen from the OP provide a good starting point? The amazon reviews look promising, but I want something that will give a good overall perspective particularly discussing all the varying subcategories within the two major schools of Buddhism (eg Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Tathagatagarbha). I'd like one that provides a good broad view before I start to cinch.

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
Two other short books are An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy by Paul Williams and A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton.

Williams book is more about doctrine, the development of thinking, the growth of Mahayana and Vajrayana and the philosophical and ritual underpinnings of them (ritual underpinnings referring more so to Vajrayana). It is careful to balance focus on texts with discussion of material culture, meaning archaeological finds, buddhist art and iconography. It also at points has a comparative religion sort of perspective, particularly with regards to the differences in the three major vehicles. WILliams book sort of ends with the end of Buddhism in India, with not a whole lot of discussion on modern developments and the extant history of Buddhism outside of India. For instance, I don't recall there being much discussion at all of stuff like Chaan/Zen Buddhism, Pure Land or other sects which developed later and farther from India.

Skilton's book is more of a historical blow by blow of the spread of religion and development of internal divisions and sects. The second half of the book or so is a brief discussion of the spread of Buddhism out of India into other Asian countries and the effects of their history on Buddhism and vice versa.

Secret Sweater
Oct 17, 2005
dup
for An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy by Paul Williams are you referring to this one by Stephen Laumakis?

Additionally, do you have any suggestions that would cover some of the more recent sects?

Kennebago
Nov 12, 2007

van de schande is bevrijd
hij die met walkuren rijd
I have been interested in Zen for a while and I'm trying to educate myself as best I can by listening to SFZC podcasts at work and reading whatever I can, but something confuses me.

Brian Enos' book Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals kind of spurred this, but the lenses I've found for mindfulness and letting go of Self are handgun shooting (when I find time to do it) and archery. Enos isn't a Zen teacher by any stretch, but he lines up with a lot of what Shunryu Suzuki seems to be driving at in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and his website has an entire subforum dedicated to applying Zen principles to shooting sports.

I don't see any reason why a martial art (peacefully practiced) or precision sport of any kind should be antithetical to Buddhism, but I see aversion to it out there. SFZC had a speaker make some garbled mention of it after Newtown, and DhammaWiki has some ridiculous distinction between rifle competition (rifles are designed to kill) and handgun competition (apparently handguns are not?) and seems to accept handguns but not rifles.

Shooting is shooting, and letting the Self go to "just shoot" doesn't change from one shooting platform to the next. It's the same on a bow, on a handgun, on a rifle, on a shotgun, doesn't matter. It's even the same casting with a fly rod for accuracy. I just don't see any difference in my experiences.

Am I just confused, or is there some aversion to exploring Buddhist concepts (specifically Zen ones) through martial arts practices?

If there is, why?

Kennebago fucked around with this message at 20:07 on May 14, 2013

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Secret Sweater posted:

for An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy by Paul Williams are you referring to this one by Stephen Laumakis?

Additionally, do you have any suggestions that would cover some of the more recent sects?

Whoops, I had the title wrong. The book is called Buddhist Thought: An Introduction to the Indian Tradition

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0415571790/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1368558884&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

Re: readings on other Buddhist Sects, I'm woefully separated from my library until October. For a good book on early zen in Japan I liked Eloquent Zen: Daito and early Japanese Zen. I found a really good (looking at least, based on table of contents and a quick flip through) book on the history of Chaan and other Chinese sects but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, Buddhism in China by Kenneth Ch'en. The rest were readings from course packets, the Encyclopedia of Buddhism (which I think is accessible online somewhere, had an Asian studies prof assign readings from it) and random book chapters. Gregory Schopen has some interesting things to say about early Mahayana development touched upon briefly in Paul Williams's book and expanded in more detail in some of his articles written for the Encyclopedia.

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 14, 2013

Paramemetic
Sep 29, 2003

Area 51. You heard of it, right?





Fallen Rib

Operating Rod posted:

Am I just confused, or is there some aversion to exploring Buddhist concepts (specifically Zen ones) through martial arts practices?

If there is, why?

Martial arts? Not so much. If you look at a lot of Japanese martial arts and other such things, you'll see Buddhism all up in there. Some of Japanese Buddhism in fact is built around allowing dudes to chop other dudes up in a battlefield without guilt.

In general, Zen-like concepts (specifically many of those pulled from Taoism, rather than Buddhism) work well in things like archery, shooting, and so on. Actually almost especially in shooting arts, because those sports are very much dependent on a sort of harmony and no-effort and no-mind in practice. If you're shooting, the harder you try to hit the target, the less likely you will be to succeed. Rather, it's better to allow the rifle to be aimed at the target, with stance, balance, breathing, sight alignment, grip, rifle balance, and so on all working in harmony. It's about allowing the thing to happen morso than making it happen. If you think very hard or try very hard to hit the target, you will invariably miss it. I always had better success shooting by simply allowing the conditions to be met rather than trying to force them to be met.

There is some aversion I think primarily in the West and specifically with shooting firearms because generally, culturally, they represent war and violence. Archery does the same, but archery has become less a thing for warfare and so has kind of fallen into the "sport/hunting" category in the minds of many people. The mainly associated concept with guns is shooting people, violence, murders, wars, and so on. So there is an aversion there overall. I think a lot of people are simply unable to divorce the concept of shooting from the concept of warfare, and so this comes about.

Also, there are other ways to further your practice than shooting a gun, so they might consider that to be the better case. I personally would see a difference between shooting a performance, sport designed high powered rifle, or a .22LR, and, say, an AR15 or even a Garand or another war rifle. Sports shooting to me is no problem at all, but I don't really advocate or would not participate in something like police shooting competitions where the underlying theory of it is to simulate combat performance. So that is kind of the distinction. If you want to shoot targets on a target range and use that to further your meditative practice or to benefit your health or mental or spiritual wellbeing, then that is great. If you want to gear up like a soldier and shoot vaguely human shaped targets to demonstrate your ability to shoot people, maybe this is not so good.


Edit: And to speak to martial arts more broadly, you'll see some that tend to be very conducive to Buddhist practice and some that are not so. Often the distinction is made between "soft" and "hard" or "internal" and "external." Generally if a martial art is something that advocates lots of force on force, or hitting dudes hard, or killing dudes really efficiently, or a battle of strength, so to speak, it might not be so conducive to Buddhist practice. So, Muay Thai, MMA, things like this maybe are not the best? Ba gua zhang, Tai chi chuang, and so on that involve a lot of fluid movement and such? These can be very meditative.

Hell, bagua specifically employs a lot of information from the i ching, and the entire art is basically a practice of redirection of force and defeating opponents by taking them off balance, so there's that.

Also circles. Bagua loves circles. Buddha loves circles. So probably it's the most Buddhist martial art :v:

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 14, 2013

Kennebago
Nov 12, 2007

van de schande is bevrijd
hij die met walkuren rijd

Paramemetic posted:

Also, there are other ways to further your practice than shooting a gun, so they might consider that to be the better case. I personally would see a difference between shooting a performance, sport designed high powered rifle, or a .22LR, and, say, an AR15 or even a Garand or another war rifle.

I get the first sentence here and can see validity to that suggestion, but isn't drawing linguistic distinctions between "war rifle" and "not a war rifle" kind of at odds with Zen thought, though?

Also, wouldn't kendo or judo be equally not so good as IDPA or IPSC competition (if not much, much worse)? This is where I fall down - striking or throwing someone is ok, but clearing a plate rack or shooting standardized paper silhouette targets at speed is bad?

Or 3D archery vs bullseye competition, etc. At a high level they're just precision sports; there is no force-on-force aspect to them at all, so why does the equipment make a difference?

Edit: Whoops, missed your edit - that makes a little more sense. Thanks for explaining.

Soft vs hard is why I think shooting lends itself so well to Zen or Taoist interpretations, and why I am so confused by the reactions I see out there. The weak link in the system is always the shooter, and the more you "force" a shot the worse you are, and physical rigidity always, without fail, works against the shooter. This is true regardless of platform.

Kennebago fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 14, 2013

Paramemetic
Sep 29, 2003

Area 51. You heard of it, right?





Fallen Rib

Operating Rod posted:

I get the first sentence here and can see validity to that suggestion, but isn't drawing linguistic distinctions between "war rifle" and "not a war rifle" kind of at odds with Zen thought, though?

After a fashion, and I don't hold to be free of aversions, either. My distinction here is that high end competitive rifles are designed to be good at competitive shooting. War rifles are designed to be good at killing a dude.

I used to shoot high powered rifle. I usually shot an AR15. I never once considered shooting a dude with it, and even now I wouldn't necessarily see one and be like "oh drat dude wants to shoot a dude." I know better. But I can understand the general population or other Buddhists and especially Buddhists who didn't grow up shooting not easily making that distinction.

quote:

Also, wouldn't kendo or judo be equally not so good as IDPA or IPSC competition (if not much, much worse)? This is where I fall down - striking or throwing someone is ok, but clearing a plate rack or shooting standardized paper silhouette targets at speed is bad?

Kendo especially has a lot of that Japanese military tradition built into it, and it does a weird thing at a certain philosophical level where the samurai caste started coming to terms with killing, avoiding needless killing outside of combat for example and making justifications like "I'm not killing a dude by hitting him with this sword, rather, this body and this sword moves through that body and a life is ending" kinda thing.

It definitely can be meditative though, Kendo and Judo both, and Aikido and others for sure. Part of why I think that is more culturally accepted as well for Buddhist practice is because nobody really uses Kendo or Judo to kill a dude in 2013. Whereas shooting a dude is definitely the reality we live in. Both shooting well and sparring well involve mind-body discipline and meditative focus and so on, but one of those things does not usually result in dead people and the other one is pretty much the very image of violence.

Again though yeah this isn't necessarily accurate or universally a "truth." It is a cultural perception.

Regarding the shooting stuff, steel plate or standard target is one thing, Jeff Cooper style shooting events based literally on shooting man sized silhouettes to practice combat is another. That's an arbitrary distinction I might make. I make a distinction between something like high powered, even military service, bullseye, field target, etc. versus IDPA, practical shooting, action shooting, and so on. One is focused on shooting targets and nothing more, the other is focused on the "practical use of firearms," but of course what is the practical use of a firearm? In practice, guns are good for sport and for killing things. If we deliberately are focusing on "practical use," it implies non-sport use, and the only real non-sport use of guns is violence. That doesn't mean that sport use is bad, but it does go a long way to explain the general tendency to shy away from shooting sports.

That's also a similar arbitrary distinction I'd make with martial arts. Tae Kwon Do competition where I'm kickin' a person for points is different than boxing competition where I'm trying to make a person unconscious. Again, it's a sort of arbitrary distinction that I acknowledge is not necessarily meaningful, but that is why I might spar around with something like bagua with my old training buddies but probably would not kickbox or do certain Bando systems again.



Edit: Yeah, we're chasing each other's edits. I agree with you. Shooting is very much a Zen discipline exactly because it is not about wrangling the rifle or bow into conformity with your desire, and brutishly attempting to force an arrow or bullet into a target never works. It's about allowing all those factors to arise spontaneously without force. Accurate, skillful shooting is much less "make" and much more "let," and I think that is a very beneficial concept to cultivate. Good shooting is all stance, balance, and so on. Even some of the less conventional "opposing force" methods of using firearms involve balance.

So yeah, I hope I'm not creating the impression I'm against shooting, I'm just trying to propose or explain why I think some people have an aversion to it or see it as unskillful by default. I don't, but I kinda get why others do, and I do see some disciplines as unskillful (IDPA, etc.)

Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:53 on May 14, 2013

Quantumfate
Feb 17, 2009

Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him:


"Motherfucker I will -end- you"


It's worth noting that zen was founded the same time as kung fu- Bodhidharma taught the shaolin monks both original zen (chan) and a rigorous martial arts exercise (kung fu). So there is a very long history of zen and martial arts.

However, working with this you also have to recognize that zen is really trying to distance tiself from its violent past and the numerous warcrimes it helped to perpetrate in world war 2. They want to move away from the whole "Two samurai fight, it is not akusala to kill because there is no self being killed, no self to kill, only two swords, two bodies"

So there's a big discouragement from thinks like shooting or certain kinds of archery etc. It's endorsing of martial arts but less so of those that can be put towards violent ends.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mad Wack
Mar 27, 2008

"The faster you use your cooldowns, the faster you can use them again"
Love the new thread - thanks for keeping me in the OP :) I still follow along with the thread quietly.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply