|
Oh no Paramememetic, i was reacting to this post :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. Sorry, i should have been more precise... (About "finding who you are", i did not want to use that expression to mean that you have to find out about your personality or such ; finding who you are, for me, means realizing that "who you are" is not something stable, it's always moving, it IS movement and time itself. When you realize that, attachments cease by themselves.) Those last days i have had my practice tested ; it was really difficult and interesting at the same time. I had terrible tooth ache, had to undergo surgery to remove my wisdom teeth, etc etc ; it is in those moments, not too terrible but a bit unnerving with the constant pain, the stress from the surgery, etc, that you have a chance to see where you are in the practice. Well, all i can say is that i am far from being calm, wise, and cool when things go wrong. I was desperate, i tried to use practice to get better, i wanted to cry, i bothered everyone around me, ahaha, it was quite a mess ; but at the same time, i did keep practicing, and it helped me a lot ; but when it helped me the most is when i did not try to do anything at all. It is "easy" (not really) when everything is ok ; but when everything hurts, it's a whole different experience, it becomes very hard to not want things to be different. Finally i think that i came to the point that Kodo Sawaki often mentions : "zazen is good for nothing" ; you cannot practice zazen for yourself or for something else, you practice zazen for zazen.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
What's the general consensus on Shambhala? I have a friend who started attending a center a couple years ago, and it literally has saved his life (he was struggling with alcoholism and meditation has really improved his outlook on life). There's a center down the road from me, and I've been tempted to try it. I bought The Way of Shambhala, and it really speaks to me. I'm just nervous because I've read things that make it sound like it definitely has a bit of a cult-vibe, and certain areas of it (the paramilitary stuff) are definitely bizarre. On the positive side, though, I really like that they have such a focus on outreach and education. There's a zen center nearby, too, but they only seem to have a one-time intro class before service. I'd really like a bit more guidance than that. I'd really like to try one of those out, I just don't know which.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Oh no Paramememetic, i was reacting to this post : I'm surprised to see the reference to Kodo Sawaki - are you in the Southern U.S. by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Shambhala is legit if a bit unorthodox Tibetan Buddhism. The lineage is solid but their methods are not the conventional methods as Trungpa Rinpoche was keen on Western culture and using Western ideas to convey Buddhism. However, their unorthodox nature does cause controversy and consternation in some. Chogyam Trungpa is recognized as having possessed "crazy wisdom" and a lot of his methods are unorthodox. The Shambhala thing itself is, to my understanding, based on his belief that sufficient numbers of enlightened beings or beings on the path can actualize in relative reality (this physical world) a sort of pure land or enlightened society. So it's not "stay away" but it's not representational of "orthodox" Tibetan Buddhism. It's debatable whether or not a system developed primarily for dissemination in the West is more or less effective. Even more orthodox lineages have adapted their teachings to the West because the Buddha taught that Dharma must be practiced relative to the ways of the culture in which one finds oneself. So for example in Drikung Kagyu monks can hold mundane jobs in the West, because there is no system in place for patronage and support of monastics otherwise as there is in the East. There are also teachings about how probably doing a 3 year retreat is not feasible for most Westerners, so there are alternative methods of practicing things like Mahamudra. In that light, Shambhala is simply another alternative method of practice aimed towards Westerners, so the criticisms of its unorthodoxy ought to be tempered in that light. Regarding the Zen center, I suspect having only one teaching before service, and not much guidance past that, is because my understanding of Zen is that there is a strong emphasis on teacher to student relations, such that it's probably expected that your actual learning is being done with your teacher in private. You may want to look into that further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I was raised as a Shambhala buddhist; both my parents were students of Trungpa's. Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche is dead- his son is now the head of Shambhala. He is more traditionally Tibetan and less crazy-wisdom than his dad. Some of that is good, some is bad, depending on your outlook. Shambhala in general seems a lot more tame than it was in the 70's (as everything is, for the most part). I have never gotten any cult vibes (or pressure to join) from any Shambhala person I have ever met (which has been a lot). For reference, I'm an aging punk anarchist type, so I'm pretty critical of crazy woo-woo stuff. There are certainly crazy people in Shambhala, as in any Western Buddhist group really, so your milage may vary depending on where you live. It's also Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism, so there is certainly some pretty out-there stuff once you stick around for a while, but that's all part of the practice/ not really real/ visualizations/ etc. I can guarantee you though, that if you go to a Shambhala group you can get basic, no-pressure, non-religious meditation instruction and decide how you feel from there. Edit to say that I'm currently part of the Shambhala group near me, and while I think there is some bureaucratic nonsense going on with the international group, it's all the same kind of bureaucratic nonsense you get with any large organization that relies on donations only and has centers all over the world. The people in my group are really lovely, the senior teacher is sharp and intellectual and no-nonsense and incredibly logical, and I've gotten a lot out of being part of the community. Plus_Infinity fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Folderol posted:I'm surprised to see the reference to Kodo Sawaki - are you in the Southern U.S. by any chance? Hello Folderol ! No, i'm in France. Here, the most famous teacher was Taisen Deshimaru ; he established most of the zen centers in the country during the 70s and 80s, and his teachings are the most well known. However, there are also a few teachers (including mine) who are from Nishijima's lineage (same as Brad Warner) ; and Nishijima is from Kodo Sawaki's lineage, so we know about Kodo Sawaki... But anyway, i think by now i have read most of the 20th century zen master's books and teachings, i guess ; and i just love Kodo Sawaki, even if there is no book from him, the current antaiji abbot gathered his teachings on his site, here is my favourite, "To you" : http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/kodo-sawaki-to-you.shtml There are also a few very good and moving texts about Sawaki and his friends / disciples in the book "Living and Dying in zazen". The stories of the japanese zen masters are incredible ; from the guy who spent his life practicing zazen in a park and playing the flute, to the man who practiced 9 hours a day for years and years and basically did nothing else, it's quite crazy and beautiful. It's a book i would recommend to anyone interested in zazen !
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Hello Folderol ! Very interesting! There was a student of Taisen Deshimaru's in Paris who later founded a group of Zen centers in the Southern U.S., and it was through them that I became familiar with Taisen Deshimaru (I have a copy of The Way of True Zen sitting around here somewhere) and Kodo Sawaki. I also happen to have met Brad Warner's teacher not long ago (he still practices at Kent State), but I didn't realize he was under Kodo Sawaki's lineage as well. Anyway, this is the first time I've heard Kodo Sawaki's name referenced in nearly ten years. Many thanks for the information, and for the link and book reference - I'll have to check those out!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
My pleasure ! I'm sure you will love that book, it tells the story of a guy from the US who travels all the way to Japan during the 60s or 70s, to meet all the zen masters of the country. It's easy to read, full of wonderful stories, and really moving too. It's really interesting, too, to see how each teacher has his own style. Of course all zen masters have things in common, but Deshimaru's approach is not the same as Nishijima's (for example Deshimaru focuses on the breathe above all, while Nishijima does not) ; but at the same time, they both studied with Kodo Sawaki... Ugrok fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:It's really interesting, too, to see how each teacher has his own style. Of course all zen masters have things in common, but Deshimaru's approach is not the same as Nishijima's (for example Deshimaru focuses on the breathe above all, while Nishijima does not) ; but at the same time, they both studied with Kodo Sawaki... from Transmission of the Lamp posted:Master, You conduct a memorial service for the late Master Yun-yen. Are you in accordance with his teaching? Half accord, half not, replied the Master (Tung-Shan). Why not complete accord? If I were entirely in accordance, I would have been ungrateful to him. from Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism posted:The Transmission of the Lamp tells us that when the young postulant, Huang Po, first came to see the Zen master Pai-chang, the teacher said to him: "If your 'awakening' is identical to that of your teacher, your power will be merely half of his. Only when you are capable of 'going beyond' your teacher will you have truly received the transmission." If we accept this understanding of the matter, then Pai-chang's "transmission of mind" to Huang Po will have been effective and complete only at the point that Huang Po has transcended Pai-Chang's "mind" in the act of creatively "going beyond" it. If each "enlightened mind" goes beyond its predecessor, then each would be more than the replication of a pre-given identity." Generally within the Zen tradition, to just copy and attempt to emulate one's teacher is not enough, and often a tell-tale sign of a lack of understanding and insight, by just aping what one has seen the Master do without any insight into why. You really wouldn't expect two different masters from the same lineage to go about things the exact same way, even if they received teisho from the same master. WIthin the tradition, its important to take the teachings of one's master and other figures from within the tradition, combined with one's own insight in order to craft one's own zen identity and way. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Question for the Zen folks: The term "Zen Master" is almost genericized in the US, and my understanding is there's no specific thing that makes one a "Zen master." But is the term generally understood to mean someone who has achieved liberation? Or is it just a term for someone who "gets" Zen? I should think the very nature of Zen being so individualized, a person who "gets" it should, well, have achieved liberation. I also get the impression that Zen masters teach, and I should figure one should have gained some degree of enlightenment to teach. So, what really does it mean here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Well here, it means that someone has received "dharma transmission" from a master. For example, if Nishijima gives you transmission, then you are a "zen master". It's as simple as that ! You can then picture whole lineages of teaching ; my teacher, for example, received transmission from Nishijima, who received it from Sawaki, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Interesting. Is the nature of a dharma transmission in Zen similar to that in Dzogchen's heart transmission or Kagyu's oral transmission?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Question for the Zen folks: One who has been recognized to have achieved meaningful mastery of (usually of/within one of the traditions of) Zen. It is implied that the recognition came from some people who were themselves recognized as people of some tangible mastery. It is amorphous in some ways, but I would be wary of someone who would claim to be a Zen Master and isn't able to speak of where they trained or who they trained with or who recognized them as well as what lineage that was all a part of. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
This Zen master thing confuses a Zen beginner like me  . Apparently, when I was looking into it right now, I saw this interesting blurb on Wikipedia about Thich Naht Hanh, my teacherquote:Thich Nhat Hanh has created a ritual known as "Lamp Transmission", making a teacher a Dharmacharya—an individual with "limited teaching authority."[75] According to author James Ishmael Ford, I definitely believe that he said that. They do lamp transmissions and I know a few people who have gotten them, but I'm not sure I'd call them my "master" or "teacher". The leader of the youth group I go to was a monastic but she's just a regular sangha go-er to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
No doubt it is worth clarifying what mastery is and what it looks like. And of course, what zen is and what mastery of the things usually included under the umbrella of zen would look like as well. And if I've butchered anything in the last two posts, please jump in and clarify anything, any zen people who may or may not be in this thread. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:For example, if Nishijima gives you transmission, then you are a "zen master". It's as simple as that ! Debatable. (This being said without knowing or passing judgement on Nishijima in particular, but rather to point out that in Zen's history and especially in Zen's present this is not necessarily so cut and dry, and that some scrutiny is in order to check against credulity) Paramemetic posted:Question for the Zen folks: So, the catechism of Zen enlightenment and teaching is that it is "A transmission from mind to mind, separate from the teachings" or floating above/resting underneath the official, linguistic, scriptural dharma and sutras. The transmission is supposed to originate with an interaction between Sakyamuni Buddha and his senior disciple Mahakasyapa. Upon being asked the meaning of nirvana, Buddha holds up a lotus flower and Mahakasyapa has his Ah Ha! moment. From Mahakasyapa you have 28 dharma transmissions until you get to Bodhidharma, the first patriarch in the East. Most of the Zen lineages of today try to trace back to the 6th Ch'an patriarch, Hui Neng, and from there the understanding is that they have a link back to the Buddha himself. The idea is that each link in the chain is representing a continuation of the Buddha's actual, lived nirvana experience. As if its the same flame being passed from lamp to lamp. Inherent in this sort of tradition is a kind of criticism of other parts of the Buddhist tradition, that in the process of scripturalizing and codifying the dharma, that the actual lived enlightened experience has become lost or obscured, unnecessarily. In certain parts of the tradition this (and arguably very much so in the present time) has been interpreted as a sort of anti-textualism or anti-intellectualism ( i.e. just sit, only sit, only dhyana!), but thats not it either. Rather there is an understanding that understanding itself, of texts, teachings and concepts is couched in the context of certain times and periods from which they originate and are depended on, and that these contexts and hence their discursive understandings are impermanent. This is seen as a weakness in some of the formal teachings, which while not making them disposable, none-the-less places their importance beneath this direct mind-to-mind transmission which Zen emphasizes. In some ways, while there is certainly a strain of individualism within the tradition itself, the degree to which practice and enlightenment is ruggedly individualistic has been played up to some extent by the popularizers of Zen Buddhism in the west, often choosing their zen stories and anecdotes which tend to resonate best with American westerners (often times including the popularizers themselves), and this more often than not being those stories and figures which emphasize individualism. This creates a sort of confirmation bias where Americans can easily slip into overinterpretation, and telling themselves "Oh, Zen says and believes what I've been saying and believing, No Work Left To Do" which is often not the case. There is a little bit of paradox at play, but a lot of Zen Individualism was only extant within a highly non-individualistic, self-effacing, intercontextual world. So, ideally, what is a Zen Master? Ostensibly it is one who is sort of "In on the joke" to use one phrase. Someone who, living in and understanding this liberated, enlightened experience is able to then recognize and affirm it in others. Within the greater zen tradition, this requires a sort of lineage, seeing as authenticity was such an important feature to practitioners living in a context from which their religious tradition did not originate. This is part of why you see all of the effort of Zen Buddhists in Japan to trace their lineage back to Ch'an Buddhists in China, and from there presumably back to India. Now, in practice, to assume that there is a true unbroken chain of enlightenment all the way back does stretch credulity, which is why I said earlier I think its debatable that being a Zen Master is as simple of a matter as saying "So and so certified such and such's enlightenment, ergo, he is a master". Even as far back as the 9th century (and almost certainly earlier), you had Masters criticizing the extent and veracity of each others enlightenment. "From Blofeld's [i posted:Huang Po[/i]"]Another day, our Master, Huang Po, was seated in the tea-room when Nan Ch'uan came down and asked him: "What is meant by 'A clear insight into the Buddha-Nature results from the study of dhyana (mind control) and prajna (wisdom)'?" Our Master replied: "It means that, from morning till night, we should never rely on a single thing." "But isn't that just Your Reverence's own concept of its meaning?" "How could I be so presumptuous?" "Well, Your Reverence, some people might pay out cash for rice-water, but whom could you ask to give anything for a pair of home-made straw sandals like that?" At this time our Master remained silent. For hundreds of years, one of the way master's would judge and verify other Zen Master's authentic enlightenment would be to gauge their poetry, of which Masters would pen verses upon experiencing enlightenment and then again right before their deaths. This practice no longer exists. And even by the 1500's the systems in place for establishing authenticity and validating one Master's receiving of the Dharma from his own Master (typically with a practice of Dharma emblems, certificates, or officiating commentaries on the aspirants enlightenment poetry) was full of abuses and critics from within the tradition itself. Ikkyu, a famous rinzai master, eventually became so disgusted and doubtful of the institution he tore his dharma certification in half, much to his students dismay. Since his legitimacy was their legitimacy, they attempted to repair it and glue it back together, at which point Ikkyu burned it to ashes. So, what being a Zen Master is, is complicated by a great many issues. I think there is plenty of room to argue about the validity of the institution as its survived into today, and the fixation on lineages and formal Teisho while at the same time using a facile scrutiny of whether, in practice, a Master seems to be a Master in their actions, views and in their consistency with the greater tradition itself. Like Ikkyu, I wonder if these token emblems of Mastery, and whether merely being able to anchor one's name on a hazily defined family tree is enough. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
Well, of course, Yiggy is right, it is a very problematic matter. But it is simply solved in my opinion ; if a zen master gives to someone dharma transmission, then this person is able to teach. It means that person practiced a lot and knows the teachings very well. At the same time, of course, anyone claiming he is a zen master is potentially dangerous and should be looked at carefully. People have to look for themeselves ; for example, when i "chose" to begin studying with my teacher, i carefully researched about him, who taught to him, etc etc ; i read everything he wrote, i read everything his own teacher wrote, and i tried to decide very carefully if i was ok or not with it. For soto zen, there are a few criterias (of course these are not absolute rules, it's just my opinion on the matter, feel free to disagree / correct things), i think, that can help you determining if a "zen master" is an alright guy or not. Someone who asks for money should be avoided. Someone who tries to seduce you or manipulate you in any way (not flirting, but promising you that you will become a better person with him, etc) should be avoided. Someone who makes promises about enlightenment or things like that should be avoided. Someone who makes you feel too comfortable should be, in my opinion, avoided. Someone who accepts to play "daddy" for you should be avoided. The few certified teachers i talked to have a point in common : they don't care at all about what you feel, or think, etc ; they are really nice people, they can listen very well and they feel very open, but at the same time very very solid, they just say what they have to say and that's it. It's not that they are not empathic, i don't know how to describe it correctly, but you will know if you meet one...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
I have recently taken an interest in Buddhism, finding that the philosophy (or "tenets" at least) seems to work well with me. My religious background is screwy, having a Jewish father, a devout Catholic mother, and I was raised reform-Jewish and had a Bar Mitzvah, even though in the eyes of Judaism I don't and never counted as a Jew due to my mother's religion. Truthfully, I was always an agnostic, never coming out and saying that there is definitively no "higher power," but firmly holding the belief that I have no reason to trust that there is one until some type of empirical evidence points me in that direction. Working in medicine and always having my critical thinking cap on, once superstition and rituals that are unfounded in science come into the picture, I pretty much shut down. This has led me to be a bit jaded, and being as I come from a field that is very money motivated and materialistic (although my work obviously provides more help and directly alleviates the suffering of people, which I take great pride in, than pretty much most jobs out there) it's funny, and I guess true to what the Buddha (and Biggie Smalls, for that matter said) said: "Mo' money, mo' problems." Anyway, I recently attended a Sunday morning sangha at a local Zen center (White Plum lineage). It was my first sangha, and of course I did the baptism by fire by doing a three-plus hour zazen with some walking meditation thrown in (I've only meditated twice before for about 10-20 minutes for the two sittings). It seemed to be very conservative and done in a formal way. I found it to be very "simple" in how it was. I never got the chance to speak with the Sensei or abbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enkyo_Pat_O%27Hara), so I never got the chance to really discuss what everything is about, and what to expect if I were to move forward and follow that lineage. Now, here's the question and where I was headed with this wall of text: I was invited to attend a sangha at a Chenrezig Tibetan Center this Sunday that occurs at the same time as the the Zen sangha. I've been trying to research the differences between the two and the Zen side seems to be a simpler "figure it out on your own" kind of path, and I'm not sure how much they invoke or involve other entities out side of the Buddha himself (nothing was said during any of the prayers or the following talk), while from all of the reading I've been doing regarding Vajrayana, it sounds like the Tibetans have taken what seems to me a path like Catholicism did: Take the teachings of the Buddha (Jesus as a parallel) and then start throwing all sorts of complex rituals and other supernatural beings into the mix, much like how Catholics have veneration for saints (and their powers of intercessions) and other things that they later invented (or were divinely inspired to create) like creating and praying the rosary, wearing of scapulars, Stations of the Cross, etc. All things not found in the Bible and then created on the back end. Where I'm going with this is "is going to the Tibetan center going to be a waste for me?" The OP intimated that Vajrayana is pretty far out there, and it seems that in order to progress down that path, it requires prayer to and asking for the favors of various deities, demons, etc. Is this as convoluted (or more so) than what I've seen with Catholicism? Are they distorting the teachings of the Buddha by throwing in unnecessary or unfounded rituals/beliefs? I ask this because I have very limited time in my life due to work and other factors to I dare say "waste" by following or starting to follow a path that is overrun with the supernatural, which I am going to be very hard pressed to take seriously. I would have just as hard a time as praying to Green Tara and expecting some tangible result as I would praying to St. Anthony to help me find my car keys. Sorry for the wall of text, but there are so many approaches to Buddhism that, as I'm sure you're all well aware, it is really confusing to the layperson. Obviously, the best choice would be to try them all out and see what clicks, but with a limited amount of free time, especially because I often travel for work and my schedule is erratic, I was hoping some of you may be able to perhaps help me weed some branches of Buddhism out of my search. My choices as far as ability to attend and learn are of these three as far as places with sanghas: White Plum Zen Chenrezig Tibetan New Kadampa Tradition – International Kadampa Buddhist Union (which has lots of meetings and sittings, but seems to be more of a "how meditation will calm you down" and doesn't (from what I can tell based on their courses and schedule) seem to really delve into the teachings of the Buddha too much). All they talk about is meditation making your life better, and the website just seems to smack of a bit of new-age-y stuff to me. Nalandabohi - This is apparently some kind of Tibetan Buddhism with lots of locations in the US and Canada and it has a trademarked name (that seems a little off-putting, no?) http://nalandabodhi.org/ Any thoughts/advice is greatly appreciated! Count Freebasie fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:My choices as far as ability to attend and learn are of these three as far as places with sanghas: You've seen the Zen center and it sounds good. Your ideas about Chenrezig Tibetan are not far off probably, but I would point out that a direct comparison to Catholicism in terms of deity yoga and such isn't really appropriate. One of the reasons Vajrayana is sometimes considered "secret" is not because there are any secrets, but because it's pretty much impossible to describe it without writing huge gigantic treatises, and even those inevitably lose details. Also, the Tibetans didn't add that stuff onto a Buddhist substrate, rather, that stuff existed in Tibet in the form of Bon shamanism, and when Buddhism arrived in Tibet it merged into a syncretistic practice, as the Buddha has taught that Dharma should be practiced in accordance and harmony with the cultural practices of the region. New Kadampa is an apostate sect of Tibetan Buddhism with a lot of out there ideas, and no legitimate lineage. Their leader styles himself Geshe but has been kicked out of numerous monasteries in the Tibetan tradition, seemingly mainly over a spat with His Holiness the Dalai Lama about Dorje Shugden worship, which just makes the whole thing seem weird. I'd stay away from NKT if only because one of their primary tenets is that once you've done NKT you should not practice or even study anything else at all. While it's generally taught in Tibetan Buddhism that it's best to follow one tradition, this is generally done after one finds a guru who is just right and perfect, and most Tibetan lamas are at least passingly familiar with other traditions (my guru for example practices Mahamudra in Drikung Kagyu, but has completed Dzogchen training in the Nyingma tradition). Chenrezig Tibetan Center appears to be a Gelug tradition school with a lineage that checks out, so it will have a legitimate lineage and so on. The thing about Tibetan Buddhism is that even my guru has talked about how sometimes it can look like a "drama stage" in the shrine room, and there's seemingly a lot of stuff going on, but fundamentally it's very simple. The "point" to so much ritual and such is that Vajrayana is very much a system for mainlining attainment, almost "gaming the system" so to speak by engaging in practices very specifically intending to attain liberation very quickly, but with the absolutely critical requirement of doing so out of a pure motivation to benefit all sentient beings. Bodhicitta, the excellent and precious mind of enlightenment and altruistic motivation, is at the core, and practicing Vajrayana requires developing that because engaging in tantric practices without such a motivation can lead to one's spiritual ruin. So if you want to check out Chenrezig Tibetan Center you should perhaps do that, but if you are hesitant to miss your own practice at the Zen Center, you can probably contact someone from Chenrezig Center to show you around, give you a teaching, explain some of the practices better without going to the actual practice right away. Honestly one of the things I worry about sometimes with new people coming to just random practices, like a deity yoga of some sort or smoke offerings or something, is that they will get the wrong impression and think that Vajrayana is some kind of crazy voodoo-cult or that all of the ritual [i]is[i] Vajrayana, and miss the simple ideas of Buddhism that are foundational to the practices. FWIW, my wife prefers a very simple Buddhism without all the trappings, and this is just fine. I prefer the trappings as they help me on my path. Buddha taught 84000 paths, and any path that brings one happiness, reduces suffering of sentient beings, and leads one towards liberation is valid. I don't know anything about Nalandabodhi, but from perusing their website the lineage seems intact and their fundamental ideas seem rooted in the thinking central to Vajrayana, that of the mind's natural state being already enlightened. So they could be worth checking out as well. Because they're spun out of Naropa University, which I believe is a project of Shambhala, they will have their things very much tailored toward a Western mind that is more scientific and skeptical, with less blind devotional things than one might find in a more Tibetan Tibetan Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Now, here's the question and where I was headed with this wall of text: There isn't a good simple answer for this in my opinion. In a stripped down response, Vajrayana has a bunch of extra stuff if you were to look at things from the standpoint of their being later texts and earlier texts, and then holding texts closer to the Buddha's time as more authentic etc. I and others have opinions on this, but I'd be hard pressed to say there is no room for argument on either side. Vajrayana Buddhism drew from the larger spiritual practices and orthopraxy of the Indian subcontinent, ranging from 500-1100 or so AD. Older, sravakayana/Theravada Buddhism was doing much the same thing however, just one millennium prior. While in earlier Buddhism, the influence of the later Upanishads and monistic mysticism was much stronger, you still find plenty of references to devas/"gods" and prethas/"ghosts" and other sops to more supernatural, eternalist views on rebirth (particularly in the period of Buddhisms history when the religion and its relics were spreading, not to mention the more popular and known jataka tales). Arguably you see more of this in later Vajrayana Buddhism when influence of Tantric Shaivism and ritualistic forms of Hinduism were again on the rise and blended liberally with Buddhism, but in many ways its not as simple of a matter of older Buddhism having less super natural elements, later Buddhism having more. The modes of stupa worship popular to early Buddhists already then had a lot of the "catholic" flavor. The other trap is that looking at some of these beliefs and practices at a purely "supernatural" level, absent from mystical and other hermeneutic contexts which inform and interpret then, can oft times be the most superficial reading of the situation, which won't yield any honest understanding of what the practice(s) might be about. quote:I ask this because I have very limited time in my life due to work and other factors to I dare say "waste" by following or starting to follow a path that is overrun with the supernatural, which I am going to be very hard pressed to take seriously. I would have just as hard a time as praying to Green Tara and expecting some tangible result as I would praying to St. Anthony to help me find my car keys. Well first I'd like to suggest to you not to hurry things. Relax, you have lots of time. The other side of all of this is no place special. Next, given your aversion to even seemingly supernatural aspects, before diving in too deep you should probably meditate a little on the meaning and understanding of birth and rebirth, what you think that means and what you think Buddhism thinks that means. Particularly with regards to what eternalism implies, annihilationism implies, and what neither of these things being true might look/feel like in your understanding. Even the less ritualistic forms of Buddhism will approach this at some point and you can't run from it. It's also confounded by certain branches within the tradition, sometimes the on the ground beliefs of many lay practitioners will veer towards one side or the other, and so its important to think about for yourself before basing your input solely on others and their opinions. Overtime you may find a specific Buddhist orientation you like the most, or you might find a comparative approach more beneficial. Don't rush into any one thing though as if these are final, determinative religious affiliations and allegiances. quote:White Plum Zen Kadampa is apparently cult like, based on some of the responses in this and the previous thread. Tibetan Buddhism is by nature going to involve more rituals, visualized meditations of mandalas with bodhisattvas and other deity figures inside their realms, incantations of mantras etc. Based on what you've told us, for now at least, you're likely going to be so resistant to certain aspects of this that it creates attachments and aversions. Zen, especially in western contexts, tends to emphasize a lot of meditation and dhyana, as well as the lived experience of dharma day to day, but in some ways this is not so different from other forms of non-Zen Buddhism popularized in the west. The difference with Zen is often a large though un/understated Taoist undercurrent and influence, and so whether or not if that sort of thing resonates with you may influence your decision. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
I appreciate both of you providing your input. The OP did say that Vajryana was more suited towards "literal wizards or sadhu-aspirants," so I guess that kind of sent the alarm bells ringing in my head. I'm glad to know that the foundations are not lost under the "trappings" that are the first thing that is often noticed. I am well aware that in Buddhism our empirical reality and the "supernatural" must intersect and this is not something that I am ignoring or will refuse to acknowledge. I just wanted to make sure that message was not lost in the medium, if you will. Part of my question was to check the "legitimacy" of the places that I listed, and I thank you for your answers. The only think I knew before was to pretty much avoid SGI. If I'm going to learn and study this (and I am a voracious reader, so the texts and canon are something that will mean a lot to me), I want to make sure that I am not being led down a path where the teacher may be disingenuous, especially since I am not all that familiar with the different branches, and I know some branches are more solid than others. Perhaps I'll give Chenrezig and Nalandabodhi a shot. At the very least I'll come away learning a little more about an area of Buddhism from a first-person perspective. And anyone else who would like to offer their thoughts or opinions, please chime in as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Any thoughts/advice is greatly appreciated! What branch of Buddhism we choose matters little compared to how we live life day-to-day and moment-to-moment. With that said, most people seem to find that Zen neither requires nor demands any beliefs beyond an interest in not harming anyone in the room. Probably because of that, you're likely to run into as wide of a variety of religious backgrounds at a zen sitting group as really anywhere. As to Vajrayana, I'm not a practioner, so I can only speak as someone who has bumped into it a bit and found some of their understandings of sleep and dreaming helpful as I continue to learn to live with narcolepsy. I've gotten the impression that many of the more 'supernatural'/religious/shamanic elements are there because it comes from an area and culture(s) where people would have experiences that would fall into one or more those categories, whatever the causes may be/have been. Since some of those experiences could be profoundly troubling or profoundly uplifting (or both, or neither, too), its understandable that they'd be interested in how to integrate such experiences into the fabric of life, as well as how to include people who experience the world radically different, whether due to religion, or mental health, or disability, etc. Taken at face value, it would likely be a lot to get used to and learn for anyone who doesn't already enjoy learning about what other faiths and cultures believe, both what's easy to grasp from a western perspective and things that sometimes appear to really clash with western perspectives. Only way to really know is to try it out. If it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel right. There's an extraordinary amount that Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism see eye-to-eye on, and many people seem to have found that they can be quite complimentary, as well. Just as a brief aside: Buddha apparently said, "Scrutinize spiritual teachers like a gold merchant scrutinizes gold." Talk to em, engage em, get a sense of who they are and what's important. Not everyone in robes is in them for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Just as a brief aside: Buddha apparently said, "Scrutinize spiritual teachers like a gold merchant scrutinizes gold." Talk to em, engage em, get a sense of who they are and what's important. Not everyone in robes is in them for the same reason. As someone who has learned this lesson the hard way, I can tell you that it is excellent advice. Caveat emptor (unfortunately).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Hello everyone, I was wanting to get some peoples perspectives and maybe some advice if possible. When I was younger I was quite a troubled person in some ways but over the last few (4-5) years I have really put a lot thought and reflection into who I am and the way thought and emotional processes work and just life in general. Over the last maybe 6-9 months I have been discovering that a lot of the attitudes and concepts that I seek to embody are also Buddhist principles, impermanence, non-attachment, being present and in the moment, trust of self etc. It has been really great to discover these things have names and have been discussed and reflected upon for thousands of years, although I really am someone who must re-invent the wheel - I have to earn my truths or they just don't mean anything to me. I guess its probably time to get to the questions... I have no real understanding of spirituality or religion other than that intrinsic or innate to my self, do you think that Buddhist texts and thoughts are able to be properly understood without having a lens of spiritual practice? Are there any books or lectures you could recommend that would help me to understand the place that Buddhism comes from? (I guess the mental framework of Buddhism in general not just the mindfulness aspects) I am not against religion at all but have honestly no experience in the spiritual except for experiences personal to myself. I got a lecture called Mindfulness and the Brain by Jack Kornfield and Daniel Siegel which was absolutely fantastic, and it really spoke to me but I would like to know about placing that in a context and just more about Buddhism proper. How do you (personally) distinguish between your own (internal) truths, universal truths, and falsehood or misunderstanding? Do you have any advice for distinguishing the voice of clarity from your ego/mind/emotions/self-concept-preservation? I don't know the proper term but I think you will know what I mean, I guess I could say the light of the process of insight and reflection instead... My friend who studies(?) yoga suggested that learning a basic routine would help me to focus in learning meditation and that meditation is a lot less about the mind and more about the interaction between the parts of your self, what are your thoughts on this? I am probably really far off in my non-understanding of this but here goes: One of the central ideas is that it is the attachment brings suffering, how does non-attached love work in the Buddhist philosophy? Id also like to know what sexual misconduct means, which isn't actually very related to the last question surprisingly. Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, that is the opposite of my intentions. If you believe in a karmic system of reincarnation how do you distinguish between suffering that is part of your/their purpose in this reincarnation and suffering that should be alleviated when possible? I really struggle with this concept when I try and think about it... How do you parse the horrors that man can inflict, is a child born into sex-slavery simply living out there karma? How do your beliefs balance the freedoms of will(choice and intention) against the experiences that people are apportioned? How does the karmic 'butterfly-effect' work? And a final question to take the bad taste out of your mouth, when you meditate or dream have you ever met 'spirit guides' or similar archetypes? Or Bodhisattvas? Or yourself/your ego? If it's not too personal could you give a brief description of what they were like? Thanks for reading through that wall of text guys, I hope it made sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
I'll answer some of these from my perspective how I can. Some of them I'm not quite sure what to do with so I'll leave them alone.Perpetual Hiatus posted:It has been really great to discover these things have names and have been discussed and reflected upon for thousands of years, although I really am someone who must re-invent the wheel - I have to earn my truths or they just don't mean anything to me. I guess its probably time to get to the questions... One thing that you might appreciate then in Buddhism is that Buddhism is big on contemplative learning. That is, no matter how much you read, until you have experienced a thing for yourself it is accepted that it won't "click in." Different traditions have different perspectives on learning things ahead of one's contemplative and experiential learning. quote:I have no real understanding of spirituality or religion other than that intrinsic or innate to my self, do you think that Buddhist texts and thoughts are able to be properly understood without having a lens of spiritual practice? If you read the Dhammapada or some other Buddhist text, you will find it meaningful even outside a spiritual practice. If you read it in the course of developing a spiritual practice, it will maybe be more or differently meaningful. If you read it in the course of practicing a spiritual practice, you will find it maybe more or differently meaningful. Part of that whole thing about contemplative understanding is that perspective is crucial, lived experience is critical. You might read something a hundred times, but that hundredth time it may have a meaning to you that is extremely profound and which you'd never considered because up until that point, your mind was not ready to understand that thing, it wasn't ripe yet. quote:How do you (personally) distinguish between your own (internal) truths, universal truths, and falsehood or misunderstanding? Do you have any advice for distinguishing the voice of clarity from your ego/mind/emotions/self-concept-preservation? I don't know the proper term but I think you will know what I mean, I guess I could say the light of the process of insight and reflection instead... Answering this personally: Agreement with teachers and scripture is what I use to distinguish right view from wrong view. As for internal truths from universal truths . . . what is the point? What even is truth, that it can be distinguished. Is there an intrinsic truth other than the emptiness and interdependence of all things? If I believe that the sun shines green, and that disagrees with the external reality, what does it matter? Getting hung up on what is true or false is, to me, a false dilemma. Further, it depends on what truth, what reality we're talking about. Relative reality, this physical world we live in, possesses relative truth which can be useful in functioning within the same relative reality, but the most important part of it to realize is the absolute truth, that while relative reality possesses relative truth, it is all fundamentally empty. Thus the relative reality, the relative truth of, say, a wall existing only matters relatively. Why this is important is framing. Some people might go "oh, but that wall exists so who cares if it doesn't exist absolutely, it is there" and they are correct. Some people might say "oh, but that wall only exists temporarily, a momentary arrangement of elements that will all return to nothing soon enough" and those people are correct. So quibbling over "who is right, what is reality" isn't that important. When you're asleep, and you're dreaming, and there is a wall, that wall is real in the relative context of that dream. The same can be said of anything in the physical world. In a more abstract sense; internal truths and universal truths are in agreement. If they aren't, they need to be tested. Falsehood and misunderstanding needs to be purified by having a good teacher and access to good information, such as scripture, which we can use to test a thing. If a thing corresponds with what is written, it's probably safe to use it. If it doesn't correspond, maybe it is time to reframe or reconsider or look at it differently. quote:My friend who studies(?) yoga suggested that learning a basic routine would help me to focus in learning meditation and that meditation is a lot less about the mind and more about the interaction between the parts of your self, what are your thoughts on this? Meditation is a process, not a goal, and to say that it's this or that is troublesome. There are different types of meditation, of course. Hatha yoga is likely useful for a lot of meditation practice. quote:I am probably really far off in my non-understanding of this but here goes: One of the central ideas is that it is the attachment brings suffering, how does non-attached love work in the Buddhist philosophy? Id also like to know what sexual misconduct means, which isn't actually very related to the last question surprisingly. Attachment leads to suffering inasmuch as any attachment inevitably ends in loss. If we predicate our happiness on an impermanent thing, then our happiness, too, is impermanent. I love my wife very much, and there is some attachment there, surely, but I am also aware of her impermanence and my own impermanence and the impermanence of situations. Perhaps tomorrow she is blown up by a falling satellite. Perhaps today I am killed in a freak grocery shopping accident. Who knows? Sometimes she goes to professional conferences for days at a time. Sometimes I'm on call or working many shifts and so I see her only asleep the entire day. To be in love without being attached means, to me, that I acknowledge the impermanence and enjoy each moment as it is. If she's killed today, or leaves me, or whatever, then that happens. I don't predicate my happiness on my relationship with her - our relationship contributes to my happiness, I'm happy with our relationship, but when it ends, which is certainly and undeniably will someday, then I will still be happy, because I am non-attached. Incidentally, this leads me to a point about renunciation, which is that renunciation can be a mental process. You do not have to literally give up every single thing to be a renunciate, but you do have to mentally do so. I have this computer and I like it, but someday it will break or become so obsolete as to be useless and that's okay. I am not attached. I like many things I have in this apartment, but they are not intrinsically "mine," nothing has an intrinsic nature, and their existence and my own is impermanent. If I come home from work tonight and the whole apartment is burned up, nothing remains, okay, welp. Probably there will be some pain arising, but mentally I am prepared for this, for I have already renounced all I have in my mind. I am not attached to it. I am not saying I am perfect at maintaining this point of view, it is a process, not an end, and I practice it every day. For example, a small thing, but the other day a pen I use at work was pickpocketed from me by one of the patients. I knew this as soon as I got back to the unit and reached for my pen, which I kept in my right pocket. At first, the afflicting emotion of disappointment, of grasping for this thing I don't have arose. I was annoyed a little, but swiftly I was able to realize, the pen is not intrinsically mine, it is impermanent, it is gone, and then I decided instead that rather than be angry something of mine was stolen, I should just hope that that pen brings happiness to whoever stole it the way it brought happiness to me. I sincerely hope stealing it brought them some happiness and that whoever is using it appreciates it as a fine pen for writing. As for sexual misconduct, this will depend who you ask, what tradition, and so on. Generally "don't have sex without consent, and if you're married don't have sex outside of the relationship without consent." Don't engage in sexual relations that bring suffering to yourself (through attachment, through craving for sexual gratification) or others (through cheating, through rape). quote:Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, that is the opposite of my intentions. If you believe in a karmic system of reincarnation how do you distinguish between suffering that is part of your/their purpose in this reincarnation and suffering that should be alleviated when possible? I really struggle with this concept when I try and think about it... How do you parse the horrors that man can inflict, is a child born into sex-slavery simply living out there karma? How do your beliefs balance the freedoms of will(choice and intention) against the experiences that people are apportioned? How does the karmic 'butterfly-effect' work? At a retreat I was at the other day, there was a great teacher from India who is known for the power of healing people. Someone was asking about whether or not they should ask for a healing blessing for a friend with cancer. Their concern was that this sick person's karma was to be sick, and wouldn't that be interfering? I pointed out that if this person is healed, then it is this person's karma to be healed, as well. We should do compassionate things for everyone, every time we can. If their karma is to suffer, that karma will ripen to fruition regardless. But maybe it is their karma to be healed, or for their suffering to end. Either way it does not matter. Don't forget about karma or cause and effect, but don't obsess over it either. Be aware that all your actions have repercussions going forward, and always be mindful of this. Don't worry too much about other people's karma or even the fruition of your own past karma, rather just going forward, do your best. Karma is not a force of arbitration or judgment. Karma is very simply cause and effect. Horrible things happen to sentient beings every day. Child sex-slavery, etc. These things are awful and we should do all we can to alleviate them. Probably we cannot alleviate them all, due to cause and effect. But if we can help one suffering being, then this is good. The karmic "butterfly effect" works the same way as any cause or effect. If we do a good deed, even if we just smile at one person, then they smile at another person, and on and on, then our one smile can make hundreds of people happy. If I do one thing that makes a sentient being happy, then they are happier, then they will maybe make others happier, and so on. Similarly, if I do a bad thing to someone, and cause suffering, then perhaps they are more likely to cause suffering to others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
I supppose I can offer my input as well, even though paramemetic did a bang-up job.Perpetual Hiatus posted:I have to earn my truths or they just don't mean anything to me. I guess its probably time to get to the questions... quote:I have no real understanding of spirituality or religion other than that intrinsic or innate to my self, do you think that Buddhist texts and thoughts are able to be properly understood without having a lens of spiritual practice? quote:Are there any books or lectures you could recommend that would help me to understand the place that Buddhism comes from? quote:How do you (personally) distinguish between your own (internal) truths, universal truths, and falsehood or misunderstanding? quote:Do you have any advice for distinguishing the voice of clarity from your ego/mind/emotions/self-concept-preservation? quote:My friend who studies(?) yoga suggested that learning a basic routine would help me to focus in learning meditation and that meditation is a lot less about the mind and more about the interaction between the parts of your self, what are your thoughts on this? quote:I am probably really far off in my non-understanding of this but here goes: One of the central ideas is that it is the attachment brings suffering, how does non-attached love work in the Buddhist philosophy? quote:Id also like to know what sexual misconduct means, which isn't actually very related to the last question surprisingly. quote:Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, that is the opposite of my intentions. If you believe in a karmic system of reincarnation how do you distinguish between suffering that is part of your/their purpose in this reincarnation and suffering that should be alleviated when possible? I really struggle with this concept when I try and think about it... How do you parse the horrors that man can inflict, is a child born into sex-slavery simply living out there karma? How do your beliefs balance the freedoms of will(choice and intention) against the experiences that people are apportioned? How does the karmic 'butterfly-effect' work?  quote:And a final question to take the bad taste out of your mouth, when you meditate or dream have you ever met 'spirit guides' or similar archetypes? Or Bodhisattvas? Or yourself/your ego? If it's not too personal could you give a brief description of what they were like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
A double post to let everyone know: a series of bombs have just gone off at the mahabodhi complex. A thousand fold thousand mantras for those injured  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/5-injured-in-multiple-blasts-at-Mahabodhi-temple-in-Bodh-gaya/articleshow/20951736.cms
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I would strongly caution you away from bhakti yoga. I don't mean to besmirch other religions but Bhakti would form too many attachments to be "expedient means". Even tantric deity yoga is seperate from bhakti, simply that bhakti is for Brahma and Moksha, not Nirvana or bodhicitta. I'd love to hear a more in depth explanation of why you'd strongly caution someone away from Bhakti Yoga. quote:I would be wary of such things in meditation. In the buddha's attainment of enlightenment he encounters mara thrice while meditating, and the third time is as his ego. But the buddha banishes this. We cling very strongly to an ego that is not- this causes a host of afflictions that we should watch out for. I will say that I have had personal experiences of bodhisattvas, or powerful moments during meditation however! Be wary, but still treat them respectfully. I'd suggest offering them tea, should they turn up in dreams, but whatever is your cup of tea. Or just give em a hug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
I wouldn't caution someone away in general. Bhaktiyoga is an incredible tool to forge s better person. But for a Buddhist practice, surrendering yourself to god fosters too much attachment, encourages a reification of the false views. EDIT: why would I want to become god? All things that rise, so too fall, if I am tethered to samsara, let me have the dharma. As god I will not have the means to liberate myself Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Thank you for your replies, you have given me a lot to think about. I will take a few days to think over (and re-read) what you have said and then work out my next course of action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I wouldn't caution someone away in general. Bhaktiyoga is an incredible tool to forge s better person. But for a Buddhist practice, surrendering yourself to god fosters too much attachment, encourages a reification of the false views. I'm totally confused by this. You're saying the only thing in Bhakti Yogi is 'becoming god'? I was under the impression it was about recognizing the godlike nature of love that ties the beings of the universe together. And about recognizing the divine in all things as a means of facilitating practiced non-violence and helpfulness. The little bit I know about Bhakti Yoga has overlapped so heavily with Buddhism that until someone starts speaking, I can't tell them apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Right, it teaches a recognition of the divine in all things- because it is about union with god. For hindus, god is the supreme reality, it is in everything and everyone. God, brahman, is the cosmic soul, and all beings are god- but karma ties us to samsara. It keeps us from realizing this. Bhakti is about professing a supreme love for everything, it is about sublimatng, but NOT abnegating, the ego before god. It relies on a conception of atman- inherent self. This is something that is profoundly and fundamentally unbuddhist. Further, to acknowledge the divine in all things is also fundamnetally unbuddhist. There is no brahman, no atman. These are core tenets. this is why I would most strongly guide someone who wishes to engage in a buddhist practise away from bhakti- Yes, it is great, it will make you a great person, but it is heading the wrong direction. The bhakta knows love, because as the bhagavad gita tells us: Krishna says that god is love, and love is god. The bhakta practises upon this love as a means of devotion to god, to the almighty. If you aren't being tauht that the bhakta is living for god, welp. v v
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
I genuinely know almost nothing about what Bhakti Yoga actually believes, that's why I'm curious why you're so strongly opposed to it. You just surprised me because the people I've known from both Buddhist traditions and Bhakti traditions have, without exception, had a pretty deep mutual respect. You're literally the first person I've ever run into who sees them as incompatible or at odds or something, that's why I'm so curious. Especially since the people I've known who'd run into Bhakti traditions mentioned that many of their fellows were Buddhist contemplatives and that the presence of other traditions was one of the better parts of their entire experience of Bhakti Yoga. Similarly I've run into several Buddhists who felt a very deep kinship with the practices or traditions or encouragements of Bhakti. That is, they'd clearly found Bhakti useful in their own Buddhist practice. So I guess I'm curious if you've had some experience of their incompatibility or if they're just metaphysically at odds or something? Forgive my patched together knowledge of both Buddhism and Bhakti for a moment, please My experience of the two is that they both have some meaningful responses that overlap substantially when it comes to the question of, "well how do we humans live in the world?" As to what gods or aspects of gods or awareness people realize, that seems to vary from one person to the next, regardless of tradition, so it's been my experience of contemplatives that you just kind of have to accept that they probably have their own reasons for having their own goals or gods. That said, the people I've known from the Bhakti tradition would wholeheartedly agree with your distrust of Bhakti, which is why I'm curious if you've had some experience of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Further, to acknowledge the divine in all things is also fundamnetally unbuddhist. There is no brahman, no atman. These are core tenets. This is simply untrue. A huge aspect of deity yoga involves essentially this. The difference of course is that in deity yoga, one recognizes that all sentient beings are fundamentally inseparable from Buddha, because they all possess the same Truth-Body, the same emptiness. Chenrezig and I are one and the same, because neither of us possess an intrinsic self that is "other." There may or may not be a relative reality Brahman, and if there is, we are fundamentally inseparable from him and the same as him, because both Brahman and myself are empty and devoid of intrinsic nature. Being without an intrinsic nature, but rather interdependently originated, we are both the realization of the same causes and conditions. Atman, as a concept, is misunderstood in Western discourse as referring to "self" or "soul" in a way that it simply doesn't. The concept of anatta tells us that we lack an intrinsic nature, a natural "self" that arises without cause or condition and which never changes. This is, of course, false, for there is nothing that is without cause, and nothing without cause can change, and so on. Numerous refutations of the existence of an intrinsic self have been proffered by great teachers, as you know. But the concept of self itself is relatively true at a certain level, if it is understood to be the unbroken stream of consciousness. It is, of course, changing, impermanent, and dependently originated, but it does exist in a practical sense. In a practical sense, I can talk to you, with myself as a subject and yourself as an object. In the absolute sense, of course, this is rubbish, because subject-object dualism is wrong view and there is no myself to talk to yourself, simply composite beings arisen from causes and conditions, without an enduring, permanent, intrinsic nature. Still, though, this puts us in the position of being able to say that acknowledging the divine in all things is fundamentally flawed is itself flawed. Buddha-nature can be said to be divine (though I would maybe think sublime is better), in that we go to Buddha, his teachings, and his retinue for refuge. Buddha-nature is primordial emptiness. All things possess this Buddha-nature. Thus, all things are inseparable from Buddha, possessing a Buddha nature. So while I would agree that the practice of remembering the divine nature of all things is not inherently Buddhist, it is also not fundamentally un-Buddhist. It is not wrong view to see that all things possess a divine spark, an inherent nature that is inseparable from enlightened-mind, provided that this understanding is made within the context of a greater perception. It is, of course, wrong view to say that such divinity is absolutely real, however, or that it is independently originated, or self-arising without cause. I don't suspect you'll disagree with me on the main gist here, and I know it seems a small nit to pick, but I am hesitant to call any practice "fundamentally un-Buddhist" if that practice results in virtuous living and the generation of merit, especially if that practice can be employed within a context of Buddhist practice. Rather, I'd suggest not necessarily avoiding Bhakti yoga, at least not any more than avoiding any other non-Buddhist dharma, because it's a Hindu yoga practice. Buddhism has a lot of yogas of its own, and bhakti's goal is more or less no different in its actual realization than simply practicing Buddhism. quote:this is why I would most strongly guide someone who wishes to engage in a buddhist practise away from bhakti- Yes, it is great, it will make you a great person, but it is heading the wrong direction. The bhakta knows love, because as the bhagavad gita tells us: Krishna says that god is love, and love is god. The bhakta practises upon this love as a means of devotion to god, to the almighty. If you aren't being tauht that the bhakta is living for god, welp. v Yeah if you're practicing Hinduism, or any other religion, and as a result practice virtues, abandon non-virtues, and live to reduce the suffering of others, then that is great but it isn't necessarily Buddhism. It also isn't un-Buddhist though, except inasmuch as it's taking place outside a Buddhist context. Then again, my simple test for "is it Buddhist" is "is it in accordance with Buddha's teachings" and then as a kind of secondary test "is the person doing it doing so for the motivation of Buddhist practice, and/or have they taken Refuge?" Edit: Just to be perfectly clear, bhakti yoga is not a Buddhist practice and bhakti specifically is a Hindu practice that has one taking refuge in something other than the Triple Gem, so for that reason I think it is true that it is fundamentally un-Buddhist if practiced in such a context. I was confused about the flow of conversation, and thought that it was in play somewhere and so I was simply trying to point out that it's not utterly incompatible. On its own, practicing Bhakti Yoga is not practicing Buddhadharma. I guess my quibble was on the use of the word "fundamentally." This is what happens when I write long things without first clarifying that I even understand what is being said. Forgive me. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It is, of course, wrong view to say that such divinity is absolutely real, however, or that it is independently originated, or self-arising without cause. It can be difficult to reconcile with a Buddhist path, thus I would caution against it, because the fundaments of bhakti mean adoption of wrong view. This is all I meant, to make that clear for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 01:15
|
|
Paramemetic posted:This is simply untrue. A huge aspect of deity yoga involves essentially this. The difference of course is that in deity yoga, one recognizes that all sentient beings are fundamentally inseparable from Buddha, because they all possess the same Truth-Body, the same emptiness. Chenrezig and I are one and the same, because neither of us possess an intrinsic self that is "other." Brahman and Chenrenzig are fundamentally very very different ideas.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
What is someone meaning when they talk about "killing buddhas?" I don't think it means to literally kill Buddhists. I vaguely think it's meant to prevent cult of personality or something like that. How close or far is my presumption?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
bobthedinosaur posted:What is someone meaning when they talk about "killing buddhas?" The second is probably what you're referring to: a Quote attributed to the Chan master Lin Chi is: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! This means not to dwell overmuch on the buddha, not to dwell on the scriptures. Enlightenment will be attained, but not if you attach yourself to it. A big thing in buddhism is attachment to concepts: Kill the attachment in your mind, kill the resultant suffering. So you'll hear a number of mahayana buddhists saying to kill the buddha because you are focusing too much on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
There's a zen center nearby where I live and I'm considering checking it out. Specifically they practice Zazen. After checking out their web site it looks to be very highly ritualized; bells signal the ends/beginnings of meditation periods, proper times to bow, proper ways to bow, etc, etc. Is most zen/Buddhism like this or does it vary according to the particular flavor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
Most proper zen buddhism is like that; But there are also a ton of western dharma centers that will teach you zazen or zen concepts without anything formal- though the roshi may not have qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:25
|
|