|
I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. Is there any evidence of the two faiths influencing each other or is this a case of serendipity?
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1zJzr-kWsI On a less vague note... Most would attribute it to the general similarities of sagacity from culture to culture. Also both are syncretic religions that have both made their rounds through similar regions. There's some theorizing that it goes the other way as well with some of the Guanyin/Avalokitesvara stuff having caught on as something of a Mary figure. But that stuff largely all comes down to who was where when and, in truth, we can't say with almost any certainty. The best answer to that question is to check out the different contemplative traditions around the world. Both the Jewish and Christian (and Islamic, i.e. the Sufis) overlap so well with, uh, a Buddhist worldview that often you can't even tell what tradition you're reading for substantial periods. In modern times, there's an active and ongoing exchange among Buddhist and Christian contemplative communities at all levels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. I'm not an expert on the matter, so I will link Wikipedia for the details, but there was a cultural exchange between Buddhist and Greek cultures during the Hellenistic period. If your brand of Orthodox is Eastern, it's not unreasonable that there may be some ideas brought from Mahayana ideology and otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism But on a broader scale, the Buddha was an observer, not a dictator. He didn't mandate the solution to the problem of suffering, he studied it, recognized its causes, and developed a solution. It is not unlikely that other cultures would have developed the same general conclusions. There are some who postulate Christ as a Bodhisattva, for example. Stoic philosophers in Greece, such as Epictetus, had come to similar conclusions. Epictetus is well known in modern psychological circles as the speaker of a favorite quote of Albert Ellis, "it is not things that disturb me, but the view I take of them," which inspired the modern cognitive behavioral movement. This is now merging with mindfulness thought largely inspired by the East. In any case, the teachings of the Buddha were not developed as dogma or handed down as divinely inspired (per se), but rather they are observations of the actual nature of things. And though Shakyamuni Buddha is the Buddha for this fortunate kalpa, there are many other Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Shravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas born all around. So even if there is no cultural exchange, there are likely to be others with other insights practicing other religions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. You'll find the same true in Catholicism, though it does not stress quietism while orthodoxy will. The orthodox tends to put a bigger stress on mysticism, the sacraments for example- Buddhism is a mystic tradition quite plainly, as is jainism, so the mystic aspects of other faiths will ring similar to these two which are more wholly mystic. Sufism for example stresses the abolishment of the ego. There may have been some transmission from buddhism to early christianity; less due to the graeco-buddhists (who never had any real westward transmission), but rather to ashoka's missionaries to greece. See Saint Yodasaph,which is a christian interpretation of the buddha. These transmissions are probably little- maybe the importance of rosaries. So serendipity- more recognizing a common goal in the kingdom of heaven/nirvana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
I would be careful with those kind of statements though... Anyone talking about the "true" way, should be avoided in my humble opinion. I really don't think buddhism is about controlling your passions, denying the physical world, etc. At least i'm sure zen buddhism is not. It's more like : find out who you are. In that quest you often discover that most of the things you thought you needed are useless, and you attach less to them ; but saying "don't attach to things and leave everything material behind" makes no sense if it doesn't come naturally, from acknowledging who you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:I would be careful with those kind of statements though... Anyone talking about the "true" way, should be avoided in my humble opinion. I'm not sure if that was directed at my post, and I don't think I made that implication in my post, but I'd point out that while this is true to an extent, the Four Noble Truths are so called because they are profound. They are universally applicable. Whether you're Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, whatever, the truth is that attachment, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering, and that all sentient beings will inevitably suffer birth, sickness, old age, and death without fail. The solution, renunciation of those attachments and aversions, development of right view, and so on is also universal in that anyone can accomplish it that way. Others might accomplish it other ways, and that's fine, so long as they accomplish it. My lama says that essentially so long as a religion teaches morality, and practices compassion and lovingkindness, that's a true path, because ultimately that's what it takes. Mother Theresa was Catholic, but no less a bodhisattva. Zen certainly has aspects of renunciation. It's a Mahayana school. They may not be so prominent, but Zen does not deny or deemphasize the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path. And I think your statement about denying the physical world is off-point, because very few Buddhist sects outright deny the physical world. Such is wrong view. Now, they do get very involved in philosophical treatises on why the physical world is without essence and ultimately empty, as does Zen, but nobody is saying to deny the physical world. Buddhist approach to physical reality is extremely practical. For example in the Vinaya monks shouldn't eat after midday, unless of course they are sick or have done physical labor. Buddhism is nothing if not practical. Finding who you are is of course important, but I think a problem with this is that self is non-essential. There is no self-essence, there is no "this is intrinsically me." And without renunciation, without abandonment of worldly desire, it is difficult to realize that virtually any statement of "this is who I am" is wrong view. So I think Zen certainly incorporates renunciation and such. I would add however that renunciation does not always mean monasticism, does not mean following the Vinaya, and so on. Renunciation can be done mentally by householders, who can become unattached to worldly things while still possessing them. It's harder to do, I think, but it certainly can be done. So there's no need to become a homeless monk if that is not possible - and you need to work within the facticity of your existence. Buddhist practices need adapted to the culture where they are being practiced, this is important. I know Western monks who have jobs. It is an important aspect of Buddhism that Buddha taught 84,000 paths. Anyhow, I agree fundamentally that the idea that "there's one true truth and all others are wrong" is itself wrong, but I also didn't see anyone saying that? Unless you were responding to something on the page before in which case sorry about all this. Haha
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 14:45
|
|
Wow, you guys have had some threads going since mine and Miss Fats original one. It's awesome to see so many of you interested and practicing. I've been doing my Mahayana Buddhism thing, and practicing Tai Chi (Yes I know), also my bonsai is 6 years old this month! Just posting an update for all my Buddhist buds here on SA.Parametric posted:
Nobody is wrong, and the fundamental issue with any following is perspective on the individual level.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Seeing Eye Duck posted:and practicing Tai Chi (Yes I know) What's that supposed to mean? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:What's that supposed to mean? Clearly Baguazhang is the superior Buddhist martial art. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Uh no guys. You're both wrong. It's Tae Bo  Though I am glad you're happy seeing eye duck. Stick around and post some too!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Spandex is pretty drat liberating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Sorry for bumping the thread, but what is the point of ideas such as emptiness, dependent origination, and impermanence? I've been interested in Buddhism for some time, and have read up on these philosophies. They seem to make sense and I know of nothing which contradicts them (I don't know of any object or phenomenon which is permanent and has an independent existence). But the problem I'm having is the usefulness of these ideas. It's like, no poo poo that everything exists because of prior causes, no poo poo that things are always changing from one moment to the next, no poo poo that we're products of the world and aren't separate from it and everything's connected and our ideas of separation are ultimately arbitrary. But what's the point of acknowledging all of that? How does it deal with the problem of suffering?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Sorry for bumping the thread, but what is the point of ideas such as emptiness, dependent origination, and impermanence? I've been interested in Buddhism for some time, and have read up on these philosophies. They seem to make sense and I know of nothing which contradicts them (I don't know of any object or phenomenon which is permanent and has an independent existence). But the problem I'm having is the usefulness of these ideas. It's like, no poo poo that everything exists because of prior causes, no poo poo that things are always changing from one moment to the next, no poo poo that we're products of the world and aren't separate from it and everything's connected and our ideas of separation are ultimately arbitrary. But what's the point of acknowledging all of that? How does it deal with the problem of suffering? An ego that feeds off of ephemeral and ultimately unsatisfying pleasures (validation from others, material possessions, sex, etc.) is doomed to always desire fulfillment from conditions that are subject to change. The desire for internal fulfillment through external means never really ends; poo poo happens and you can't depend on others or the world around you to always make you feel good about yourself. The awareness of impermanence, emptiness, all that, is the acknowledgement that you are a very small node in an enormous and awesome cycle. Instead of consumption driving more consumption, you become comfortable with your role as a participator in life, and not as an agent that tries to impose its will on those around it. Essentially it helps you go with the flow. This is just my own shallow understanding. I'm sure those with more time to internalize these concepts could explain it better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
I know it's been a couple of weeks, but can we go back to the spider for a minute? (Sorry, I've only just now read the thread.) I know a tiny bit about Buddhist philosophy from my brief stint as a religion major years ago, but this is something I've never quite understood. The spider, in this instance, is ending a life, but is it really causing suffering? An ant's mind isn't really that developed; correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, isn't it debatable whether or not an ant can even be credited with any intelligence, by the conventional definition? Whereas a spider is demonstrably more intelligent - or maybe what I should say is higher-functioning in terms of its mental capacity. Is there any privileging of an animal's mental functions in determining suffering? Anemones and sponges are animals, but they don't really have any mental functions whatsoever, and going by how we think of animals' minds and behaviors, they seem closer to a cabbage than, say, a turtle. Or what about its ecological importance? Spiders have undoubtedly kept some insect-borne diseases in check. I understand that killing is essentially Not Good, but I don't quite understand the equation of animals' killing with humans' killing, which doesn't occur for survival and which is based in malice, something which most animals lack. To use another example, my pet turtles found a snail in a plant I gave them to snack on and killed it. I felt bad for the snail (I didn't see it in the plant), but it didn't "suffer" (in the conventional, not philosophical sense), and provided nutrients for the turtles. They didn't act with any malice toward it; they just recognized it as a food source and quickly killed it to eat it. It's hard for me to think of the turtles having bad karma because of their actions. Which actually brings me to another question -- what is the Buddhist philosophy (or philosophies, if the schools differ) on humans' responsibilities toward animals? I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household in the South, so I'm well aware of the Old Testament imperative for men to act as stewards for animals, but that too often gets interpreted as "we can kill them for sport because God said we're better than they are." Does Buddhism, with its concern for all living things, have any specific views on how humans should treat or engage with them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
The turtles in your example would incur "bad" karma for their actions, because that's how karma works. It isn't a judgemental arbiter, it's a word for causality. Though animals may be driven by instinct or necessity, taking another life is still not the best. But then again neither is anything else animals do- In a way you could say that animals are a less fortunate birth because of this- Most have the capability for enlightenment, but aren't able to realize it within that "Becoming-of-being". Yeah, it sucks if you become an animal, but this is why the brahmajala sutra implores us to recognize animals as our mothers and fathers, to treat them like our parents. In a way the ideal world would see Isaiah sixty five realized, and would see the liberation of all sentient beings. Buddhism approaches animal welfare with a guardianship or assistance mindset. The general assumption is that if you eat meat or whatever because of previous karma or your present circumstance that is OKAY. Everyone suffers and generates unhealthy vipaka. You should be kind to animals, treat them well and try to relieve as much suffering as you while helping them to practise as much dharma as they can to help them attain a birth with more fortunate karma. As for whether ants suffer? Eh, They seem to writhe and show negative impulses when agitated or they lose a bodypart. I would argue that this constitutes a sufficient enough level of intelligence to deem it disease or suffering. It's something buddhists are starting to struggle to grasp with regards to modern science. If something is insufficiently complex enough to suffer but still an animal(I.E Coral, sponges), then it might be something either outside of normal samsara much as plants are, or something with a karmic seed that will never ripen to liberation. With regards to the ecological importance? That seems kind of non-important, because the sutras don't advocate for extermination as a meas of cessation of bad karma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Which actually brings me to another question -- what is the Buddhist philosophy (or philosophies, if the schools differ) on humans' responsibilities toward animals? I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household in the South, so I'm well aware of the Old Testament imperative for men to act as stewards for animals, but that too often gets interpreted as "we can kill them for sport because God said we're better than they are." Does Buddhism, with its concern for all living things, have any specific views on how humans should treat or engage with them? In Tibetan Buddhism, all animals, from the lowest worm to the highest king, are to be considered as one's own mother*. In the vast ocean of Samsara, countless sentient beings have gone through these cycles of birth, sickness, old age, and death, and so it is likely that any being, perhaps all beings, have at one point been your mother. So, when this mosquito is sucking the blood from your arm, and you think to swat, perhaps this is a cause of hesitation, for this very mosquito was probably once your mother, who showed you kindness and nurtured you and raised you lovingly and comforted your suffering. Any animal should be treated as an esteemed guest, and given all the care one can afford. Realistically, with so many numerous sentient beings, this becomes impossible, but at the very least a polite regard is appropriate. Killing an animal because it is convenient to do so is never okay. * One's mother in this context refers to any being that shows you supreme kindness. So if your biological mother in this life is neglectful or hateful of you, this does not mean mothers suck, it means your mother in this life is not your biological mother only. Even still, your biological mother must be highly regarded for the suffering she went through in birthing you. Even the most hateful bio-mom once endured suffering for you, even if only that once. Taliaquin posted:I know it's been a couple of weeks, but can we go back to the spider for a minute? (Sorry, I've only just now read the thread.) I know a tiny bit about Buddhist philosophy from my brief stint as a religion major years ago, but this is something I've never quite understood. The spider, in this instance, is ending a life, but is it really causing suffering? An ant's mind isn't really that developed; correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, isn't it debatable whether or not an ant can even be credited with any intelligence, by the conventional definition? Whereas a spider is demonstrably more intelligent - or maybe what I should say is higher-functioning in terms of its mental capacity. Is there any privileging of an animal's mental functions in determining suffering? Anemones and sponges are animals, but they don't really have any mental functions whatsoever, and going by how we think of animals' minds and behaviors, they seem closer to a cabbage than, say, a turtle. Or what about its ecological importance? Spiders have undoubtedly kept some insect-borne diseases in check. The higher or lower mental capacities are not a consideration. Beings with higher mental capacity are perhaps more auspicious due to a better capability to comprehend Dharma, but in general being an animal is considered quite inauspicious (one of the "three lower realms," alongside hell-realm beings and hungry ghosts), because an animal has little capacity to practice Dharma, and is driven from place to place by craving and aversion. Animals kill to placate their cravings, and this is killing, it is a cause of negative karma, and a cause of rebirth in lower and lower realms. This gives us two considerations: first, that we are very fortunate to have this human life, and should use it to practice Dharma. Second, that we should do all we can to reduce the sufferings of animals, and to show them kindness, and importantly (in Mahayana) to dedicate our merit, so that we can provide sufficient cause for those beings locked in lower cycles of suffering to be reborn in a better position. Incidentally, this is also why Tibetans frequently hang prayer flags, and this is the impetus for one of my favorite things HE Garchen Rinpoche has done, which is to popularize and prepare for mass dissemination mantras of liberation by sight (the Mantra of Hanu) and liberation by touch, which he has advised some people to attach to their vehicles so that if they come into contact with insects while driving the mantra provides sufficient cause for rebirth in a higher realm. Returning to the animals like anemones and such, and whether or not an ant eaten by a spider suffers, the test for that is a common sense sort of one. Specifically, the traditional test for whether a thing is a sentient being or not (and therefore whether it suffers) is whether or not it stirs compassion in us. Basically, does it look like it is suffering? Does it move us? The ant suffers because drat, it looks like it's suffering. I can sympathize with that. Even if it is not thinking in its tiny ganglionic system the cognitive thoughts of "oh my, I am undone! This spider has ensnared me and now is going to kill me! I'll never see my colony again!," it struggles. It attempts to free itself. It thrashes and resists to the last. Even without the cognition of its own death, or life, or so on, it too has suffered. It too was born, has been sick, has waxed in age, and now is dying. So lower functioning being or not, it is suffering. It knows fear, and that's all it knows, so is this not a worse fate even than to be born human and to have known happiness? Anemones and such were probably mainly unknown to the Buddha, but I would apply this same test even there. If it behaves in ways that indicate suffering, if it experiences those same four great sufferings, then it's a sentient being. If not, then not, but we should still be respectful of it because of its provision of aid to us (do not simply chop down a tree that is a home to sentient beings. Do not mindlessly trod upon flowers that are food for sentient beings. And so on).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Sorry for bumping the thread, but what is the point of ideas such as emptiness, dependent origination, and impermanence? I've been interested in Buddhism for some time, and have read up on these philosophies. They seem to make sense and I know of nothing which contradicts them (I don't know of any object or phenomenon which is permanent and has an independent existence). But the problem I'm having is the usefulness of these ideas. It's like, no poo poo that everything exists because of prior causes, no poo poo that things are always changing from one moment to the next, no poo poo that we're products of the world and aren't separate from it and everything's connected and our ideas of separation are ultimately arbitrary. But what's the point of acknowledging all of that? How does it deal with the problem of suffering? Edged Hymn more or less nailed this. These philosophies are the underlying foundation that provide the substrate upon which renunciation can be accomplished. It also provides the underpinnings for the who idea of why non-attachment makes sense as a solution to the problem. For example, if things had intrinsic identity, it is possible that a thing might be intrinsically "good," or might intrinsically cause happiness. If that's the case, why bother with renunciation? Just do that thing. Also, as Edged Hymn says, it provides the reasoning behind the thing. It deals with the problem of suffering because it points out that both suffering and happiness are dependently originated states, and through renunciation of attachment to impermanent, temporary things, we are freed from the suffering of loss of those things. By renunciation of aversion from impermanent, temporary things, we are freed from the suffering of the existence of those things. By seeing things how they really are, we are freed from the ignorance of perceiving things as permanent. If I have a nice car, then this might be a cause for momentary happiness, but, recognizing from the onset its impermanence, the suffering of that car rusting and falling apart, or being smashed in an accident, or exploding spontaneously, is non-existent. Knowing from the onset that this car is not a permanent happiness, the loss of things becomes just another event. Similarly, if I am in even incredible pain, this surely sucks, but it may not be a cause for suffering if I realize the ephemeral nature of this pain. The pain is not intrinsic, it has no absolute reality or truth. It is merely a sensation arising from temporary circumstances. The causes and conditions presently exist for me to be in pain, but those causes and conditions are not permanent. Eventually, the pain will not longer exist, either through medicine or even my own death. It is, one way or another, not a permanent state and so enduring it becomes less arduous, less cause of suffering. Clinging to his life, and fearing death, causes great suffering. By recognizing that this life is empty and without any true existence, we can avoid clinging to it. By realizing that death is inevitable, that we have nothing to fear from it because it is simply another change in state in a cycle much bigger than our illusory selves, we can avoid fear. By recognizing the true nature of things, we can avoid deception and ignorance that leads us to fall continuously into these states of attachment and aversion. In this way, based upon the wisdom of emptiness, we can avoid the sufferings of attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Animal stuff Paramemetic posted:More animal stuff I'm aware of Buddhists releasing rescued turtles, and I have mixed feelings about that (sorry, turtles are my thing  ) since I've heard of them being set loose in ecosystems they don't belong in, which is hazardous to local wildlife and to the turtles themselves, for instance, putting freshwater turtles in saltwater. /turtle stuff On a completely different topic, and this may be a really dumb question, but one of my friends moved to China, began studying and practicing Buddhism, and then as she became increasingly devout, she announced on Facebook that she'd been given permission to enter Tibet, provided that she stayed with her lama (I think it was her lama, but I could be misremembering). Without warning anyone, she deleted her FB account shortly afterward. Is that most likely a personal decision, or is there actually a social or spiritual requirement to be cut off while studying Buddhism in Tibet? I know that's probably the dumbest question, but it really surprised me because I'd been following her posts about her life in China with great interest. Still haven't heard anything from her, and this was maybe a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:04
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Without warning anyone, she deleted her FB account shortly afterward. Is that most likely a personal decision, or is there actually a social or spiritual requirement to be cut off while studying Buddhism in Tibet? I know that's probably the dumbest question, but it really surprised me because I'd been following her posts about her life in China with great interest. Still haven't heard anything from her, and this was maybe a year ago. Social media in Tibet is super heavily restricted, and there's a lot of unrest going on there right now to the point I'm surprised your friend even got in. That said, Facebook is hugely something people get attached to and I could totally see someone dedicated to practice trying to move away from large attachments.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Incidentally, this is also why Tibetans frequently hang prayer flags, and this is the impetus for one of my favorite things HE Garchen Rinpoche has done, which is to popularize and prepare for mass dissemination mantras of liberation by sight (the Mantra of Hanu) and liberation by touch, which he has advised some people to attach to their vehicles so that if they come into contact with insects while driving the mantra provides sufficient cause for rebirth in a higher realm. I'm sorry, but what? This is confusing to me. I don't understand all the "rebirth in higher realms" and such... it almost seems to suggest a travelling soul which I thought was antithetical to the idea of rebirth. I always hear Western Buddhists suggest that "rebirth" differs from "reincarnation" in that it's not a literal transmigration of a "soul", rather just the energy and matter of the being continuing on. I am not a Buddhist, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:
You might like reading things about, for example, this: http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/04/photos-buddhists-bless-liberate-hundreds-of-u-s-lobsters/ . I also read recently of a nun in I believe Seattle whose sangha bought the entire local fishing capture, blessed, and released them. The fish then become a cause for liberation of other fish as they brush up against each other and so on. ashgromnies posted:I'm sorry, but what? This is confusing to me. I don't understand all the "rebirth in higher realms" and such... it almost seems to suggest a travelling soul which I thought was antithetical to the idea of rebirth. I always hear Western Buddhists suggest that "rebirth" differs from "reincarnation" in that it's not a literal transmigration of a "soul", rather just the energy and matter of the being continuing on. I am not a Buddhist, though. It makes such a suggestion but a lot of this whole thing becomes complicated due to connotations that come with for example concepts of "souls" and then concepts of "mindstreams" and so on. The concept of a soul, in the Western sense, is not tenable in Buddhism because in the Western sense a "soul" is a core, fundamental, inherent point of identity. It is an "essence" with intrinsic existence. This obviously is incompatible with Buddhist thinking. Sentient beings do have a kind of perpetuating rebirth system that is somewhat linear and where causes and conditions lead to specific rebirths. It is not the same being, because it's not the same being, but it's sort of related via a kind of spark. To get into detail on that spark, something like "mind" works, but "mind" brings about the idea of conceptual thought here, so there is no ideal word for it. A being dies, another being is born. That new being may be born with new identity. The general concept in Tibetan Buddhism is that a being in the Bardo (the interstitial space between births) will tend to gravitate toward certain circumstances based on the causes and conditions and circumstances surrounding their life and death. A being with great merit, huge good deeds, and so on, but without a heart of bodhicitta, for example, may be reborn as a demigod or god, but even this state is temporary. A being with not much merit, who killed and did other nonvirtuous deeds without care, who lacks compassion, may be reborn as a suffering being, in a lower realm. Honestly, it doesn't matter I think for the core of practical Buddhism, because it is not pertinent to our daily lives usually. It becomes pertinent on a spiritual level. I was initially not pleased by it, too, thinking it implied an essential self that travels along from birth to birth, but that's not really on point. It's difficult to explain in what way it's not on point though without getting into a whole lot of things the content of which would drag and the details of which would differ in name from position to position. The distillation, I suppose, introducing a lot of corruption unfortunately due to my own poor understanding and the inherent dissatisfactory nature of language, is that all beings possess the same "essential nature" of non-essence. All beings are empty, and so share in the emptiness-nature. From that emptiness-nature that is shared universally, manifestations arise. Those manifestations take forms, either in physical forms, or spiritual/illusory forms, but all kind of spontaneously arise and fall away based on causes and conditions. So the gist is that accumulating merit (practicing virtuous deeds, practicing Dharma, etc) leads to the causes and conditions which bear the fruit of enlightenment, and benefiting sentient beings. Practicing non-virtue (being an animal, for example, that murders for every meal, with no compassionate regard for its prey) leads to the causes and conditions which bear the fruit of suffering. Things like mantras and merit dedication provide means of helping other sentient beings who without a "seed" cannot "fruit." All sentient beings could naturally attain enlightenment by eventually cycling down to the hell realms, where negative karma is not gained and negative actions "gain fruition" at which point after that karma is "burned off" by suffering (the effect of the cause, which was whatever nonvirtuous deed) they get spontaneously reborn in more auspicious ways. But by dedicating merit, we can try to spare some beings this suffering. Sometimes, beings who have great vast stores of merit and accumulated miracle power and so on, great bodhisattvas, for example, provide means to help sentient beings. Sometimes they build Pure Lands that anyone can go to if they merely hear the name of the Buddha (Amitabha's Pure Lands, for example), sometimes they produce mantras that when seen can cleanse negative karma (for example, by taking it onto themselves, because as enlightened beings even if they are reborn in the hell realms they do not suffer) and sometimes they produce mantras that when touched can do the same. Always the cause must lead to the effect, however. By attaining liberation and enlightenment though, the misery of those lower rebirths becomes much less. Really though that amount of detail and discussion is almost trifling if your concern is mainly for this life. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Thanks a lot for the detailed responses. I really love this way of looking at the issue and of engaging with the world in general. I've become very interested in animal welfare over the past few years, and since I think, due to my upbringing, I'm incapable of living without some kind of spirituality, so I've started looking at different philosophies on animal welfare. I guess one of the things that really bothers me about a lot of them, including the one I grew up around (though, thankfully, my parents are actually big animal lovers who take in rescues and have never, ever hunted) is the callous neglect of the natural world. My parents are, in my experience, a pretty big exception to the rule in their community; a lot of fundies believe that there's no point in taking care of nature and its inhabitants because Jesus supports offshore drilling and is coming back soon anyway, so gently caress it. It's kind of a sorry outlook, and, at least in my experience, seems to encourage cruelty. I can't count how many times I've heard of people swerving to deliberately run over an animal just because they think it's "gross." Parroting wafflehound, deletion of the FB account was probably a requirement of social media restriction more than anything. Regarding the animal stuff, I can empathise with you pretty well, I probably approach religion the way I do because of my ubringing, and I have also become really concerned with animal welfare lately, thus the whole spider-ant dilemma I had. (Although lately we've had tons of caterpillars around here who fall from trees trying to make a cocoon, I help them back up ).Sometimes there are monks who will do questionable things, a popular thing is buying bettas and then releasing them. Which uh. . . Given that most pet bettas are male and highly territorial is probably a bad idea to do in the same small stream or pond. . . With regards to pentecostal or evangelical christians- It can help to explain things to them in the frame of the nazarene vows, pointing out the story of barlaam, verses in isaiah, or even just illustring the levitical commandments about avoiding death and the noahide covenant being a thing of necessity; rather than an imperative. But this really isn't the thread for that- So bramajala! paramemetic posted:Words about mindstream
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 19:57
|
|
Paramemetic posted:mindstreams May you have the fortune of your next life being filled with right view.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
It would have been nice if you guys actually explained why you disagree with him. Not all of us are familiar with Buddhist disputes here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
fspades posted:It would have been nice if you guys actually explained why you disagree with him. Not all of us are familiar with Buddhist disputes here. Yeah, I've been lurking in this thread and I'm really confused about what's going on. WAFFLEHOUND posted:May you have the fortune of your next life being filled with right view. Also, for some reason, I am really creeped out by this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
 Wow. I feel like Zen is stupidly simple, and then Thich Naht Hanh's teachings make it even more simple. Thay just teaches us to be kind to all living critters as we all share this earth and we are all connected. The entire universe exists in all of us. I don't hear too much about karma anymore...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:11
|
|
fspades posted:It would have been nice if you guys actually explained why you disagree with him. Not all of us are familiar with Buddhist disputes here. There are differing opinions on the nature of consciousness and karma in the context of rebirth. Paramemetic is Vajrayana which follows the belief of a mindstream that flows between lives, quantumfate and I are Yogacara which views this as pretty much a heresy, I'll leave it to them to write a bajillion words since I don't want to deprive them of their favourite activities. my dad posted:Also, for some reason, I am really creeped out by this. Why?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Why? It looked like a passive-aggressive use of a well-intentioned phrase, comparable to an angry "May God have mercy on your soul" occasionally uttered by some overzealous Christian preachers when addressing a "heretic". Stuff like that really creeps me out. I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post. I know very little about Buddhism. 
my dad fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I'm at work on my phone, so I have to make a brief comment rather than mega words presently, but to clarify the mindstream: a mindstream isn't like a stream in that it flows from life to life, but in that it has the appearance of being the same despite constantly changing. When we look at a stream or river, our inclination is to see it as the same. But the water is not the same water. Mindstreams are similar. The mind is the same intrinsically empty vessel, with thoughts and forms arising. In yogacara this process includes the consciousnesses, in madhyamaka we focus down less and just roll with the natural mind, being empty, non dual, and without intrinsic nature, without denying yogacara.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:32
|
|
my dad posted:I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post. I know very little about Buddhism. The context of the post probably was a bit missing, it was just a good-natured jab but more importantly Para, quamtumfate, and I are quite good friends so poo poo kind of gets flung a bit and sometimes we forget that people are dropping into the thread and not used to the smaller group of regular posters in here. I'll try to work on that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The context of the post probably was a bit missing, it was just a good-natured jab but more importantly Para, quamtumfate, and I are quite good friends so poo poo kind of gets flung a bit and sometimes we forget that people are dropping into the thread and not used to the smaller group of regular posters in here. I'll try to work on that. Oh, OK then. Please carry on with your discussion, I'm really interested in learning more about Buddhism - I always felt bad about knowing so little about a major religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Let's get weirder/more esoteric for fun. (I know, this has little practical importance to most practitioners but it's interesting!) Anyone know much about Buddhist cosmology, the heavens, the devas, and such? The different realms and heavens seem really broad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology -- what are good English translations/commentaries of the source sutras? It would be interesting to read, albeit strange and unfamiliar. What about esoteric meditation practices like deity yoga? I was reading "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" and he has a story about meditating "as" his half-animal deity self, and I am curious how a practice like that came to be practiced in Buddhism. What are the historical and theological sources of such practices? Specific sutras or whatever source material would be cool to see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Paramemetic is Vajrayana which follows the belief of a mindstream that flows between lives, quantumfate and I are Yogacara which views this as pretty much a heresy, I'll leave it to them to write a bajillion words since I don't want to deprive them of their favourite activities. May you have the infinite fortune of being born out of the hell-realm of loving yourself.  Joking aside- It's not exactly heretical- wafflehound is wrong. To clarify for you guys: I called paramemetic a pagan because his form of buddhism is weird, and uses many bon yogic traditions. The distinction here is clarifying between citta-santana and alaya-vijnana. Two sanskrit terms, the first is best translated as "stream of mind-ness". The second is translated best as "Seedhouse Consciousness". The concept of a mindstream, from a yogacara perspective as being something which cannot be substantiated independently because it is a continuous thing. The primary issue is that a mindstream is not absolute, nor is it something which, by yogacara views, necessarily carries over to the next life. It's an issue of semiotics- Is an echo of something the same as the origin of the sound? In this case, is a klesha perfumed by karma a continuation of the karma? Or is only the fruit of that karmic seed the continuation. The 'heresy' I think wafflehound is mistakingly referring to is the Samtanantarasiddhi- Which is a treatise refuting the heresy of eternalism: A perpetual self. Specifically it targets a hardline conservative buddhist notion of ekkacitta- "One mind" Mindstream- that had begun to become popular in madhyamaka dialectics. It is an assertion of multiplicity of minds and the inherent unverifiability of mind as an absolute media of cognition, suggesting that perfumed minds do not constitute a perfect understanding and ripening of buddha-nature via understanding the nature of the mind. It is an incredibly minute point to argue over and ultimately not significant in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:21
|
|
Quantumfate posted:It is an incredibly minute point to argue over and ultimately not significant in the slightest. This'd make a good thread name. e. I still have a hard time reconciling a mindstream and Anatman.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Let's get weirder/more esoteric for fun. (I know, this has little practical importance to most practitioners but it's interesting!) I can talk a little about this because the tradition I practice relies heavily on it, but my understanding is not perfect, perhaps just a bit enough to clarify the value or validity of the practices. In Vajrayana, it is very common to practice deity and guru yogas. These are specialized practices that rely heavily on a proper understanding of the concepts that were asked about earlier. Without indulging technicalities that rely a lot on accepting certain Tibetan conceits that are not really necessary, the general idea is that a deity in this case is not the same as in the Western case. A common deity yoga practice for example is that of Chenrezig/Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. Conceptually, if we want to consider compassion, Chenrezig is a personification of it. Whether or not Chenrezig possesses relative reality depends on a degree of acceptance of a lot of trifling details that I will explain below, but which are not essential to the practice. So anyways, Chenrezig is this mental construction, a sort of conceptualized personification, meant to allow our conceptual mind to interface with this being meaningfully. With this being the case, we can say that Chenrezig, a being defined conceptually as compassion, is a being. In deity yoga, we do visualizations and see ourselves as becoming Chenrezig. All beings becoming Chenrezig. This allows us then to mentally recognize that we are the compassion being, that other beings are likewise a deity, and so it becomes easier for us to remember "oh, I should respect this other person because they are Chenrezig" or "oh, I should do compassionate deeds for my enemy because I am Chenrezig." The lynchpin in this mental game of identification is that all beings are ultimately essenceless, empty, and without intrinsic identity. Because all beings are empty and without inherent "self," there is no way to say that this aspect is mine, that aspect is yours, or so on. When you pour two cups of water together, no water can be said to belong to one cup or the other. The water, while remaining the same, becomes inseparable. Likewise, we are inseparable from the deity, our nature inextricably interwoven, and so there is no real way in which we're not the deity. Guru yoga is thus similar, except with the very real guru as the object of supplication and identification. "Below" starts here: This was complicated to discuss without lies-to-children, so I'll go a bit further here. The thing about things having relative or actual existence is difficult. Technically, nothing has any true existence, but also nothing lacks true existence. Emptiness is non-conceptual, and dualistic delusions of existence and non-existence are conceptual. When a thing has "relative reality" it means essentially "existing in the really real world." One could say that deities lack relative reality, except it would be essentially a lie-to-children. Even ignoring the emanated manifestation-bodies of deities (HHDL is an emanation of Chenrezig, meaning he is a physical embodiment springing from that particular mindstream. So while he is not identical to Chenrezig, he is inseparable from and born of the same seed), it is difficult to say these things lack relative reality because, well, we can interface with them mentally. Visualizations and dreams have the same reality as physical world because they both exist in the mind, and are inseparable therefrom. Dreams are just as real as the waking state. Visualizations are just as real as dreams. Ultimately, everything is relatively real. This is the "trick" to these practices. If I generate a visualization field in front of myself that includes all those beings, and I interact with them, this is the same as if I was actually doing it because my mind's experience is the key point here. It does not matter that nobody else in the room sees it, because I likewise do not see the world the same way they do. So when I visualize myself as a deity, and everyone else as a deity, that becomes the "relative reality" for me. If I visualize everyone as a Buddha, or as my mother, then treat them accordingly, in what way aren't they that? In actual reality, it's all emptiness anyhow, all causes and conditions spontaneously arising and falling. And if I use this to reinforce key points, such as that every being is inseparable from the Buddha, possessing a Buddha nature, and arising from Emptiness exactly like a Buddha, then that is a great learning, a great attainment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Buddhist's can't even agree if birth or death are real, much less what on earth (or off earth) might or might not happen next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Actually the general consensus among buddhism is that both death and birth are illusory falsehoods. They're part of the nidanas, of samskara- There is no ego to be born, none which can die. Etc etc. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Buddhist's can't even agree if birth or death are real, much less what on earth (or off earth) might or might not happen next. Buddhism doesn't concern itself with metaphysical what-ifs. Its only focus is the Present, the Now. If there does happen to be an afterlife determined by your moral character, then it would stand to reason that Now would be the best time to prepare for it. The Buddha did not care to speculate about metaphysics because the point is not be attached to some pie-in-the-sky destination, whether that's Heaven or a Porsche, and to be as fully engaged with your present reality as possible because that's where/when all the cool poo poo happens anyways. Edged Hymn fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
That wasn't a criticism whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
And he spent a lot of time pondering metaphysics, he just refused to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 22:29
|
|