|
For zen, it really depends on the teacher, the dojo, the lineage, etc... I practiced in dojos where everything was extremely ritualized (and i hated it - it does not work with me), and i also practiced in dojos where there were only minimal rituals : a bell for the beginning and the end of the meditation. I know that, for example, Nishijima, who is an important japanese zen master, leads zazen sessions without rituals. He meditates exactly like other people in the dojo. There is a very good book about wether to practice with or without rituals, it is "Opening the hand of thought" by Uchiyama ; this zen master, who was the abbot of antai ji for a long time, invented what he calls "sesshin without toys". For him, rituals are "toys" that are here to help the meditators, they are something to cling on, to attach to ; that's why he decided to not have any. He is a bit extreme maybe (his sesshins lasted one week, but during this week people practiced 15 hours of zazen a day) but the book is really really interesting nonetheless. In the end, it's up to you : just know that if you don't like rituals, there are people who practice without any. In my opinion it is better to do without them (for me zazen is about removing things that i may attach to, not add some more), but to each his own : i know people who cannot practice without rituals, and also rituals also have a meaning, they can also be a way of practicing, so at least they deserve respect for what they are...
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Buried alive posted: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? Some are less than others, but yeah, that's pretty Zen. I like the bells, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
I only just realized I didn't thank people for their answers last time. Paramemetic 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.  Thanks for sharing. Quantumfate posted:Parroting wafflehound, deletion of the FB account was probably a requirement of social media restriction more than anything. Coincidentally, bettas are among my favorite animals, and that is kind of a facepalm moment. With female bettas it shouldn't be bad, since they're quite docile, but like you said, most pet ones are male. They are quite good at jumping and relocating themselves to find their own territories, though, so maybe some of them are able to cope with being released? I used to "rescue" bettas from sketchy vendors by buying the sickly ones or ones in the dirtiest conditions and try to nurse them back to health, or to at least give them a place to die comfortably. I bought one from a flea market that I didn't expect to last the night because it was so lethargic and a pale, unnatural grayish color. After a few weeks of care, it became a lovely pink with reddish fins/veils. I kept it in an aquarium, not a bowl, with lighting, heating, filtration, natural live plants, and a little cave it liked to sleep in. It went on to live around five more years. I loved that fish. (For the record, I lived in an area that was definitely not the natural climate for a betta, so a mass release of bettas would just result in a lot of dead bettas.) Now I have a completely different question, also not on the current Zen topic. Can anyone recommend any reading on women in (any school of) Buddhism? I'm always interested in important female figures and feminist issues in any religion. I briefly joined the Catholic church for its veneration of Mary (aaaaand left because I found it to be full of misogynists). I'd like to read some detailed perspective on women in Buddhism or biographies of prominent women Buddhists. Sorry for interrupting Zen chat. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Ugh. UGH. I hate talking about feminism and buddhism, because people just look at me like I am insane for railing about feminist issues in the context of buddhism, even though it's a dialogue strongly needed. Asia, sexist, etc. Avoid the bahudhatuka sutra, avoid it strongly. Old men bein' sexist and saying women can't be buddhas. Also buddhism has tons of misogyny too, because patriarchal asia. It is a great topic to ask about, and one which should never be apologized for bringing up. I can't think of any specific texts; because all that's coming to mind is saying that those who cling to sex and gender are doing it wrong. Perhaps I'll remember some later. But I can point you in a good direction for what to research or look at. People to check out! The Mahasattva Tara, guardian of all women. Tenzin Palmo, vowed to attain as a woman, no matter how many lifetimes. Pema Chondrup, big western buddhist writer. Dhammananda Bhikkuni, founded a nunnery in thailand, despite nunneries being illegal by royal decree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:The Mahasattva Tara, guardian of all women. I had mentioned this earlier, but I have only attended a Zen (White Plum) center, and was looking at checking out a local Tibetan center. I found it interesting that apart from Sunday morning sangha, it looks like their only other regular prayer/non-study session is every Thursday night where they do "21 Praises to Green Tara." She seems to have a very strong presence there. Again, haven't had the chance to check it out yet, but interested to see what's going on at that place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Pema Chondrup, big western buddhist writer. Do you mean Pema Chodron? Speaking of books, could anyone recommend a book that my dad and I could read together on an upcoming nine day trip? Specifically something that we could do a short reading and contemplation daily. For background, I've been engaged with Buddhist thought for several years via the Shambhala curriculum, and he has done some meditation but is a beginner when it comes to Buddhist philosophy. Thank you in advance. Edit: We'll be in Tibet, so something from one of the Tibetan schools might be nice. Leon Sumbitches fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:
To bring it back on topic  Zen Women might be what you're looking for. I haven't read yet it myself but I've heard it's very good.First Buddhist Women: Poems and Stories of Awakening might be another one to check out, it's about the first female disciples of the Buddha. Edit: I'm reading this one right now and it's really good. platedlizard fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Is it possible to gain the benefits of meditation through just trying to be awake and mindful during every day activities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:30
|
|
an skeleton posted:Is it possible to gain the benefits of meditation through just trying to be awake and mindful during every day activities? Yes and no? I'd say that a different but similar kind of benefit, but that anyone serious about meditation is probably trying to do both anyways.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for the answer. Alternately, I would be very curious on the threadmembers views on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uarCaupZBY Warning: by a sort of "pick up artist" guy. But the video is not about pickup (and I am not a fan of pickup in general, but this guy is more of a self-development guy in my opinion). I just found this video very affirming of some lifeviews that I have always had and have been somewhat fueled by my more eastern delves into philosophy, although this guys preaching of searching out life experiences (some could be perceive as hedonistic) might run counter to the maybe-stereotypical zen idea that enlightenment is insulated in one's self/ridding yourself of your ego. I'll pose a question to give this query a bit more structure: Do you think life is more about seeking out opportunity/traveling and developing one's self and learning along the way, or that you can live an equally fulfilling life locked up inside of a monastery or meditating inside of your bedroom? Do you believe in the scarcity of opportunity as described in the video or do you believe that is an illusion? Whether you agree or think the guy is a numbskull I'd like to hear your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Cool, thanks for the answer. I feel like in his scarcity of opportunity explanation he reached the point of recognizing the impermanence of life and so many of the things in it that we typically engage ourselves with, but then stopped. His take home point wrt to impermanence, it seems to me, is to therefore "get it while you can" as opposed to digging deeper and questioning what that impermanence means and implies. He seems (to me) to be saying that with such a limited time to make attachments, pursue desires and avoid immediate suffering and displeasure, so that one can thereby frontload one's life with so many sensory pleasures that one will then be dulled towards any later suffering and regret. This is in many ways indistinguishable from the Brahmanical ashrama dharma system you find in Hinduism, the idea that we have four life stages, and that it is only the last one, in the nadir of our lives, that we are to contemplate spiritual matters and live the renunciants life. That when young, you do the householder thing, enjoy sense desires, accumulate merit through good karma, make hay while the sun is shining and then later, when you're no longer able to enjoy life you then consider what the renunciant has to say. That is, if you make it to that point (and even then, still have the strength of will to leave your family and a life's worth of attachments behind, no mean feat). The worry is that you never get to the point where you allow yourself to realize what all of this impermanence means, and that in the meantime you're engendering greater ignorance and suffering in others as you go. I feel like in your question you've set up a sort of a false dichotomy vis a vis traveling/developing one's self vs locking up inside a monastery. From a buddhist POV, what is the virtue in developing a non-existent self? What are you developing? Is a monastic life fulfilling? In what terms, by what standards are we talking about something being fulfilling? I think on one level that the Buddha's hagiography speaks to this, and that the answer would be that neither are the middle way, neither severe austerities nor wantonly succumbing to sense pleasures & desires while giving into aversions of "missing out". It would seem to me that maybe he could be said to be teaching a felicity for the future, at least the very near future. One with a self-acknowledged, short half life, good for as long as you are still able to act on things. What it does not seem to me to be is a felicity of the present, weatherproof against the indignities and changes of time. He offers no advice for those past the point of no more fun, other than "sucks for you, should have picked up women and traveled while you had the juice". And a lot of this, to me, circles around to a related point, that it can be difficult for us in our modern context to understand, fully, the degree and sort of suffering that the ancient Buddhists were trying to get away from and the urgency of their plea to address it. The old cosmology acknowledged higher and lower births, up to including yakshas and devas with vast, sometimes inexhaustible resources of wealth and pleasure. One of the reasons it was argued that a human birth, objectively not the highest or best of all possible births, was the best for reaching enlightenment, is because an unending cavalcade of sense pleasures and happiness available to a deva or yaksha is blinding, and can prevent one from seeing the impermanence of all things and the suffering it inevitably causes. Likewise, I feel like for a lot of us in the developed world (especially those operating from positions of privilege like, say, a young, white, first world male with the resources to globtrot and start a business) that our long lives and relative comfort blinker us to the abyss that so many people, like the ancient Buddhists, live on the edge of, and all of the existential angst and suffering that brings. We hold it off until the end of our middle years when it starts to befall us all of the sudden and with a quickening pace. Personally I don't find his advice all that satisfying. I don't see it being relevant to most people (and maybe thats me being presumptuous). In general, I don't necessarily disagree with some of his folksy truisms like seizing opportunities that are available, and success being about a certain orientation towards the world, but beyond that I feel like a lot of what he has to say is couched in wrong view and ignorance. Sure, have your fun and see the world (if you're able). But, after that, then what? Wallow in the past in order to ignore a less fun, sexy present? Yiggy fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Nice answer and the sort of critique I think I was looking for when I asked. I introduced that false dichotomy in my language on purpose to illicit a reaction but I don't necessarily lean one way or the other ultimately, besides the fact that my cultural upbringing and circumstances have set me on a trajectory to appreciate the "globetrotting" lifestyle a bit more. I think one important thing is that his intended audience is probably the 18-35 range of people who still have a lot of youthful vigor and potential first world opportunities to leap towards, and in general I find his philosophy more enlightened than the average person's, which is obviously vague but perhaps you know what I mean. It does fail to answer that ever pervasive question of "what to do when the fun is over?," besides just saying get it while you can. Your contrasting view does make me ponder if we of the first world have some sort of responsibility towards those in more unfortunate situations, if they can be called that, and if so, what? I think we obviously do, in some sense, but I have no idea how to grasp the logistics of actually helping those people, and it does feel like a problem much bigger than myself-- there are probably an embarrassingly large number of people living in the year 2013 that are living like those ancient buddhists. How do you confront this personally? Is this something to meditate upon? Do you feel compelled to give up material possessions and move into a monastery? I don't know what to do besides keep on living in such a way that improves upon my first world, and hopefully if I am lucky enough to improve my own life and that world MAYBE some of that could spill over to others, eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
I just found the Sigalovada Sutta and it's pretty cool. It's basically Buddha's advice on how to live a successful lay life: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html What sutras do you guys enjoy? an skeleton posted:Is it possible to gain the benefits of meditation through just trying to be awake and mindful during every day activities? There are other types of meditation than just sitting meditation. For example, you could be practicing mindfulness while washing the dishes. Don't be distractedly thinking about what you're going to do after you're done with them and how boring they are, instead feel the temperature of the water, the way the sponge rubs against the dishes, etc. and remain mindful. It can improve concentration and mindfulness and bring some of the benefits of meditation but seated meditation with nothing but yourself brings its own value. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Is it possible to gain the benefits of meditation through just trying to be awake and mindful during every day activities? Meditation helps one develop the mental discipline to do this. Being present in the moment without distraction, without grasping or avoiding the things of the senses, is why we meditate. But just as one does not wake up one day and decide "today I run a marathon" or "today I perform surgery," it takes practice and training to reach the point where one possesses the clarity of mind to do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:in general I find his philosophy more enlightened than the average person's, which is obviously vague but perhaps you know what I mean. Sure, in a way it is speaking directly to a modern malaise many of us find ourselves in. However, in certain respects it seems to be doing so in a way thats treating the symptoms rather than the disease. He rightfully points out that many people seem to be complacent in their lives and unhappy because of it. But rather than question why we're unhappy beyond passing up opportunities, the prognosis is do stuff and forget about the humdrum for a bit. quote:Your contrasting view does make me ponder if we of the first world have some sort of responsibility towards those in more unfortunate situations, if they can be called that, and if so, what? I think we obviously do, in some sense, but I have no idea how to grasp the logistics of actually helping those people, and it does feel like a problem much bigger than myself-- there are probably an embarrassingly large number of people living in the year 2013 that are living like those ancient buddhists. How do you confront this personally? Is this something to meditate upon? Do you feel compelled to give up material possessions and move into a monastery? I don't know what to do besides keep on living in such a way that improves upon my first world, and hopefully if I am lucky enough to improve my own life and that world MAYBE some of that could spill over to others, eventually. Hard questions, and I certainly don't have all the answers. Personally though? I think first and foremost, that there is a sort of duty to meditate on compassion and the situations of others, at the least, and from there more concrete actions and results begin to evolve on their own. This would in part mean the material condition and suffering of others, certainly, but not only that. How one acts on that compassion can have a variety of outlets. Some of it more overt, like giving to charity, some of it less so like trying to act as a positive example for the people directly around you. To make a crude analogy, I sort of see things as similar to the scenario of an airplane losing cabin pressure: before helping others around you to secure their air masks, you need to make sure you have yours on and working to better enable you to help others. I feel like it is more difficult to extract others from their suffering, except in the most direct & material ways (and so also necessarily transient), until you've begun to recognize the sources of attachment in your own life and how to address them. For me this has meant trying to live a lot more simply. To argue with others less, to try and practice right speech and tactfully pose the gentle question when appropriate rather than relish an argument in a contest to see who is right. I think about right vocation a lot, and whether or not the work I'm doing is socially valuable. I haven't up and tried finding a monastery yet, but man I do think about it some days... A few months back I did some google research on some in the states, and only found like two that offer living accommodations, one with a wait list and a small rent requirement, and one that stated they planned to have a live in monastery, but the main facilities are still under construction. I don't know that the modern situation in the states is so conducive to a monastic setting, and I'm already neck deep in trying to learn two indic languages to want to play around with Japanese, Thai or another language in a country with established monasteries. I think it will be enough for me to strive and live as simply as I can and make a living in something considered right vocation. In any case, I don't know that I'm ready for a monastic setting anyway. Once I'm state side again I'm going to focus on finding a sangha to sit with. I think I'd also be better enabled to impact those around me positively on a more consistent basis without running off into a monastic lifestyle. And even absent that, I have found myself compelled to give up more and more material possessions. Books are my biggest problem, but I've been slowly making an effort to shed as much other stuff as I can and slowly trim down the library. Finally, since its a question about personal actions, I'll close with a statement that it doesn't always have to be "self" directed changes, and it doesn't always have to save the world all with one fell swoop. Small, charitable actions are good too. Volunteer work is good. Direct assistance selflessly given helps them and it helps you. Research charities and find one you're comfortable with in terms of hows its managed and how effective you feel it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Sure, in a way it is speaking directly to a modern malaise many of us find ourselves in. However, in certain respects it seems to be doing so in a way thats treating the symptoms rather than the disease. He rightfully points out that many people seem to be complacent in their lives and unhappy because of it. But rather than question why we're unhappy beyond passing up opportunities, the prognosis is do stuff and forget about the humdrum for a bit. Good points. "Getting what you can now." is, as was said, not the Middle way. I think that this is the exact thinking that has so many of us in the state we are in in our affluent and commercialized society. It just seems like a dead end where you are left with these "good memories and experiences" when you get older to look back on but this ends up being completely counter to the Buddha's advice that existing in the present moment is where true happiness lies. Those experiences may help you grow in some ways as a person, or at least expose you to ways of thinking that you might not have had otherwise -- that's a good thing in some cases -- but they seem to be too focused on the short term and promote craving/grasping in both the short & long term. You want to have an experience, you either enjoy it (and want more) or hate it (and want it to go away) and in both ways it is pulling you away from the here and now where the real poo poo is going down. Yiggy posted:Hard questions, and I certainly don't have all the answers. Personally though? I think first and foremost, that there is a sort of duty to meditate on compassion and the situations of others, at the least, and from there more concrete actions and results begin to evolve on their own. This would in part mean the material condition and suffering of others, certainly, but not only that. How one acts on that compassion can have a variety of outlets. Some of it more overt, like giving to charity, some of it less so like trying to act as a positive example for the people directly around you. As far as helping others and compassion, I'd agree with Yiggy here too. Concentrate on yourself, be kind to others around you and be a good example by being aware of how you act, what you do, how you treat people, what you eat, what you consume in general, etc. All of these things reduce suffering for yourself and for others in the short term and down the road, whatever your belief systems are. Doing these things will invariably lead you to more ways to help others too. Being stuck wondering what to do helps no one so its best to just take first steps and do what you can to be the best person you can be. Helping others comes with assumptions too. If a rich person decided that the best way to be compassionate for others by giving people a free car, it is an act that comes with a lot of ignorance that may not be obvious to someone who hasn't be meditating on things and being truly open, aware and compassionate. A poor person can't afford insurance, gas, parking, etc. May not live in a safe area to keep it. What the benefactor did to help ends up being a bad thing because their method of "relieving the suffering" was centered around what the rich thought was compassion and what it really did was give them a possession that makes their lives worse. This is an extreme example of how we apply our starting understanding of compassion and charity in incorrect ways but, as we meditate and contemplate on these things, real ways to be compassionate and helpful reveal themselves naturally. I think ultimately they really do start with ourselves, first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Tilopa taught that the problem is not with enjoyment, but with attachment. We do not need to flee from enjoying ourselves, from nice things, and so on. We need to guard carefully, however, against attachment. So to enjoy life, to live life is not a non-virtue. However, the advice here seems to be to seek out enjoyment with little regard for anything else because life is short and impermanent, so we should have a good time. This smacks of attachment. This path only leads to suffering when the journeys end, the parties stop, the body becomes too old and frail to go on. So, I don't think the dude is any more enlightened than any other person. He is simply teaching a form of attachment that leads to suffering later rather than sooner. an skeleton posted:Do you think life is more about seeking out opportunity/traveling and developing one's self and learning along the way, or that you can live an equally fulfilling life locked up inside of a monastery or meditating inside of your bedroom? It's not about either of those things. Amusingly, the monks I know have many of the much more interesting life experiences than the jet set youth I know. Going out of one's way to get unique or exciting experiences belies attachment to that quality of experience. Would it not be better to find enjoyment no matter what your experience? If a man finds his happiness in travel, excitement, and adventure, he will inevitably suffer when he is not traveling, not stimulated, not adventuring. Likewise, if a man finds his happiness in sitting in his house alone, he will inevitably suffer when he must attend to life's demands. However, if a man finds his happiness in simply being, without attachment or aversion to what he's doing, then he will never know the suffering of having to do things he'd rather not, or not being able to do the things he wishes he could. Edit: If you're on vacation, enjoy vacation. Have fun! If you're at work, enjoy work. Do good work and have pride in what you do. If you're at home, enjoy home. Relax. If you're in the hospital, enjoy the hospital. Get better. If you're destitute and unemployed, enjoy destitution. Look for work as you can so as not to produce a burden and suffering on others, but be happy that you can do that. If you're dying, enjoy dying. Just rest. By renouncing attachments, we do not need to predicate our happiness on impermanent things. By not having our non-suffering predicated on impermanence, we are liberated from suffering. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Nice answer and the sort of critique I think I was looking for when I asked. I introduced that false dichotomy in my language on purpose to illicit a reaction but I don't necessarily lean one way or the other ultimately, besides the fact that my cultural upbringing and circumstances have set me on a trajectory to appreciate the "globetrotting" lifestyle a bit more. I think one important thing is that his intended audience is probably the 18-35 range of people who still have a lot of youthful vigor and potential first world opportunities to leap towards, and in general I find his philosophy more enlightened than the average person's, which is obviously vague but perhaps you know what I mean. It does fail to answer that ever pervasive question of "what to do when the fun is over?," besides just saying get it while you can. Your contrasting view does make me ponder if we of the first world have some sort of responsibility towards those in more unfortunate situations, if they can be called that, and if so, what? I think we obviously do, in some sense, but I have no idea how to grasp the logistics of actually helping those people, and it does feel like a problem much bigger than myself-- there are probably an embarrassingly large number of people living in the year 2013 that are living like those ancient buddhists. How do you confront this personally? Is this something to meditate upon? Do you feel compelled to give up material possessions and move into a monastery? I don't know what to do besides keep on living in such a way that improves upon my first world, and hopefully if I am lucky enough to improve my own life and that world MAYBE some of that could spill over to others, eventually. Going out and seeking the most extraordinary or fantastically rare experiences seems frivolous as all poo poo to me while people continue to starve to death and/or die due to treatable illness, and a significant fraction of the world's children have only limited access to education. And on and on. Still, it really is wonderful when people end up with meaningful, worthwhile experiences. The idea of having to go to the other side of the planet or doing something so totally different to have a wonderful experience, seems like something to be concerned about, not something to make a lifestyle of. Yes, seeing the ways that people live with less, or in other cases, the way some people live with much, much more, is definitely eye-opening. But it's just as eye-opening in your own town/city, often much more so. Every contemplative tradition I've heard of has several big social services projects. Christians and their hospitals are probably the most visible example. By the way, while some Christian monastic traditions may involve a lifetime in monastic settings, that is less the case in Buddhism, and especially in more Western settings. Someone might sit 'locked in their room' for 20 minutes in the morning, or they may visit a monastery once a week, or never visit one, and that's great. Everyone has some combination of family, friends, pets, plants, community, goals, hobbies and/or livelihoods, etc. and generally any practice or 'training' that would get in the way of prior responsibilities would be seen as counter-productive and irresponsible at best and dangerous/neglectful at worst. Instead, recognize the opportunities already around us in our lives. No one has to go to a monastery to practice more patience with one's self and others. No one has to go to a monastery to waste less food and resources. No one has to go to a monastery to appreciate just how much (likely most of us here) already have, particularly with largely functioning bodies and full stomachs. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
I'm not gonna lie, some part of me really wants there to be a truth in just the act of traveling and learning to enjoy one's own life, but obviously that notion belies what buddhism says is the temporary nature of things. Thanks for all the words, guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
There's a deep reverence in Buddhism for wandering and travelling. As well as for taking the time to sit in one's room or to visit a center of practice. They're understood to be mutually supportive and more of a function of where someone is in their life, what they want to do, and what they are able to do, rather than some absolute one-or-the-other kind of thing. Understand that this is a response to you, not some declaration of Buddhist beliefs or whatever. You'll get different answers from Buddhists/different people. I'm just saying that if someone can learn to enjoy life while travelling, hopefully they can learn to enjoy life while at home, as well. If you turned up here saying that you love to never leave the house, I'd be rambling to you about the virtues of going outside and travelling instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Okay, a friend of mine has just sent me a text message asking for a book to help provide some clarity and peace. She asked for a book to help "achieve zen" but I believe she means in it a sort of lay-manner. Prompted for something more specific, she says "I don't even know where I begin. I just want to be relaxed and feel calm. I have a lot of anger in me that I want to release. I feel stressed all of the time and just want to learn who to roll with what I have vs flipping out or retreating into my own hole." This is a good insight for her to start with, as she realizes the source of anger/frustration/suffering is within her own control. So, my question is, what is maybe a good book to recommend to a non-Buddhist that conveys Buddhist principles in a directly applicable way? She knows I am Buddhist, that I meditate, and so on so she is open to Buddhism and Buddhist ideas or she'd have asked someone else I think, but I don't want to just haul off and be like "read the Dhammapada and the Way of the Bodhisattva and the Jewel Ornament of Liberation and . . . " and so on. I am thinking Thich Nhat Hanh, but he is quite prolific. Maybe Peace is Every Step?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Honestly, the book that opened me up to Buddhism was Pema Chodron's "When Things Fall Apart". I also really enjoyed "The Miracle of Mindfulness" by Thich Nhat Hanh. I felt it was more, maybe hefty? than Peace is Every Step. Hefty in a good way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
I got interested in Buddhist philosophy through mindfulness based stress reduction therapy. Specifically the book "The Mindful Way Through Depression". I would recommend most anything by Jon Kabat-Zinn for a more secular, self-help based take on meditative practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Audio Dharma has a ton of really nice free podcasts on a whole range of subjects, including anger. They give a good example of how people apply buddhist teachings in every day life which was really helpful for me. Tarthang Tulku's Open Consciousness is also good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
I have a question regarding dukkha. I know it means suffering, but hitting a toe against the table's leg also causes suffering and I think that's not called dukkha. Let's say a person likes some food a lot, for example chocolate. This person can go long times without chocolate, but still experiences cravings for it from time to time, thinks about it and toys around with the idea of giving in to the urge to eat it. Is this dukkha?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I have a question regarding dukkha. I know it means suffering, but hitting a toe against the table's leg also causes suffering and I think that's not called dukkha. Here's Walpola Rahula's perspective; it's not too long and may be helpful to you in sorting this out: What the Buddha taught: the First Noble Truth
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Just attended my first sangha at a Tibetan center, and I have to say, it was pretty interesting. The Lama Losang Samten, Rinpoche who is the head of the center is away on retreat in Tibet, so a student/teacher was leading the sangha (he's been practicing 37 years and started out Zen). It sure was a night and day experience from the Soto/Rinzai Zen center where I attended Sangha. There were various readings and discussions, and I didn't expect the teacher to actually use the word "poo poo" during teaching, but he was making it very accessible to the layperson. A lot of it was taking various thoughts from sutras and, I really hate to say it like this, "dumbing it down" for some of the people. All of them were very nice, but some were not what I would call "the brightest bulbs." It was so much more informal than the Zen center, and although it felt less "official/traditional" than I would have thought, they were a very friendly group of people. It seemed to a degree less "serious," but there was a really good vibe there. They invited me to attend a Green Tara Puja on Thursday night, and if I can, I may attend that. It sure was interesting discussing how lucky we are to be born as humans rather than "hungry ghosts" or being in the "god realm," where as he said, eventually after eons, you begin to slowly decay and end up in the Hungry Ghost Realm. That took me by surprise, and they are definitely wild concepts, but again, good vibes and I left with a good feeling. It was pretty funny; when I walked in, they asked my experience and I told them it was only in a Zen setting. They all started asking me questions about it like it was the most fascinating and foreign thing, and I was far from qualified to answer most of them, although I did answer the ones that I could. It was interesting as everyone was dressed in dresses or relatively colorful attire (one said he was in the colors of Medicine Buddha), and I roll in wearing all black, which the attendees there didn't realize was the apropos for Zen sangha. I guess I'm rambling at this point, but it was a good experience and I left feeling pretty stoked. That is all. Count Freebasie fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Just attended my first sangha at a Tibetan center, and I have to say, it was pretty interesting. The Lama Losang Samten, Rinpoche who is the head of the center is away on retreat in Tibet, so a student/teacher was leading the sangha (he's been practicing 37 years and started out Zen). This wasn't in PA was it? I went to a chenrezig retreat yesterday with that group but left at lunch. It was my first time there too. They were nice but I think I like the shambhala sangha more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Plus_Infinity posted:This wasn't in PA was it? I went to a chenrezig retreat yesterday with that group but left at lunch. It was my first time there too. They were nice but I think I like the shambhala sangha more. Yup; Philly on Spring Garden. Never been to the Shambhala.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
How are Buddhist holidays normally celebrated? I noticed that tomorrow is Asalha Puja from the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Yup; Philly on Spring Garden. Oh cool! I live out in Delaware county so I don't get into the city much. They had a one day retreat on Saturday ten minutes from my house so I went to that. I don't really go to the Philadelphia shambhala center- we have a little shambhala group in West Chester which just started out this year. The teacher we have, Jay Lippman, has been a student of Tibetan Buddhism for almost 40 years and was actually the teacher of Jeff, the main guy at Chenrezig in Philly. He is sooo awesome. Totally no nonsense and logical and down to earth and he knows so much. If you have a car and feel like coming out to West Chester some time, you are always welcome. It may be a good balance for you between zen and the chenrezig guys. PM me if you're interested. I've heard mixed things about the Philly shambhala center. Some people i know loooove it and some aren't big fans of some of the teachers there. I don't really have any first hand knowledge but you may want to check it out too. Shambhala in general is pretty laid back but there is an actual curriculum unlike the chenrezig people and no outright deity worship or woo-woo. I feel like shambhala personally hits a good balance for me between strict and hippy dippy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Just came back from a 3 day general stay at Blue Cliff Monastery and what an amazing experience. I am pretty sure that if I didn't have my student loan debt and my SO I'd up and become a monastic. I've learned so much in 3 days, lets hope I can keep it up. The chanting is amazing and I've totally changed my mind about it, and I still love all the bell ringing. Also, home cooked vegan Vietnamese food 3 times a day definitely helps becoming enlightened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Plus_Infinity posted:Oh cool! I live out in Delaware county so I don't get into the city much. They had a one day retreat on Saturday ten minutes from my house so I went to that. I'm in Delco, too. PM'd you. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 00:52
|
|
Shnooks posted:I am pretty sure that if I didn't have my student loan debt and my SO I'd up and become a monastic. I know there's at least four of us including you in this thread who have expressed similar ideas.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
What is it that motivates someone to become a monastic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
I have two questions about Buddhist philosophy. They're pretty big deals to me since they're the reason I'm not a Buddhist, but they might be inconsequential to you. (1) If all suffering is the result of attachment, what motivation can there be to alleviate others' suffering? I understand that suffering is an imperfect translation of dukkha, but even the mental pain experienced by someone who is injured or who sees a friend injured is arguably still a result of attachment. In the one case it's an attachment to the absence of pain, or to life, in the other it's an attachment to that friend and their well-being, or more likely to how that friend makes one feel. So how can helping the friend or curing injuries be justified except as a result of attachment? (2) Is Buddhism life-denying? I mean this in the sense that it perceives all attachment as suffering. If one surrenders all attachment, then one has no motivation to do anything. I can see the argument being made that all action is useless and achieves nothing, but this isn't satisfactory to me. It seems as if you'd have to either dedicate to wu wei or live a life of non-participation, i.e. a monastic life. Perhaps I'm too attached to my ego, but it seems to me that fighting a doomed fight for one's beliefs is superior to withdrawing from reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
Edit: I apologize for the wall of text, I am not really gifted to speak briefly. I hope that I can at least speak accurately, but where I make a mistake I hope that others might correct it before damage is done.Purple Prince posted:I have two questions about Buddhist philosophy. They're pretty big deals to me since they're the reason I'm not a Buddhist, but they might be inconsequential to you. They're in fact pretty big deals to Buddhists, too, but they are based on a kind of wrong view, which I am happy to try to dispel. I can only adequately answer them according to the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. I suspect the answers for the Theravadan traditions are similar in all but the claimed motivation. quote:(1) If all suffering is the result of attachment, what motivation can there be to alleviate others' suffering? I understand that suffering is an imperfect translation of dukkha, but even the mental pain experienced by someone who is injured or who sees a friend injured is arguably still a result of attachment. In the one case it's an attachment to the absence of pain, or to life, in the other it's an attachment to that friend and their well-being, or more likely to how that friend makes one feel. So how can helping the friend or curing injuries be justified except as a result of attachment? We are motivated to alleviate the sufferings of others out of compassion and altruistic motivation. "Attachment" is a tricky thing. There is one of my favorite parables, which deals with the concept of attachment. The story goes that one day, a discipline asked the Buddha about attachment, how anyone can ever enjoy or do anything without attachment. The Buddha taught, "every day I drink tea from my favorite tea cup. I hold it in my hands and feel the warmth, and I enjoy my mornings this way. But in my mind, the teacup is already broken." Because of impermanence, the Buddha realizes that attachment to this teacup is folly, it leads to suffering. But because of right view, because of knowing this, the Buddha does not wallow in the fact that someday he'll lose this teacup, rather, he enjoys the present moment, without attachment. The same applies to wives and friends and so on. But in this case, your concern is a kind of attachment to non-suffering. Here I would say the response is that this does not motivate me at all to relieve the suffering of beings. I've never considered it. When I see a being that is injured, I am not attached to alleviating to the absence of pain, or do life, or so on. That's a silly way to go, knowing that pain and death are inevitable! But, I also know that pain from injuries is transient, and that it is real, and that it is not good. When it is in my power, to alleviate the suffering of beings even in temporary ways is good practice. Even though I know that my friend will continue to suffer in other ways due to his attachments and aversions, and even though I know that I will continue to suffer due to mine, what point is there to going "oh, well suffering will happen, so gently caress it?" The entire motivation of Buddhist practice is the cessation of suffering. This is exactly what the Buddha sought to find in his contemplation. Sometimes, the cessation of suffering is simply. If you are sick, take medicine! Of course, the true source of the suffering of sickness is attachment to feeling health, aversion from pain, and so on, but this does not mean that we should just say "oh, I am attached to health, I should renounce this and then feel no illness." Most of us can't accomplish that right away. For that reason, take medicine, do both! If my friend becomes injured, of course I will help him with his injuries. It has nothing to do with my own desire to alleviate his pain, and everything to do with the fact that he feels pain and I should help that if I can! As an EMT, I often can. But the flipside of this is that it is not limited to my friends. If my friend is suffering or my worst enemy is suffering, I want to ease both of their sufferings. All sentient beings experience suffering, and to alleviate that for even a moment is very good. It's not because of attachment to others being happy, that's a silly thing to attach to, knowing those beings are samsaric beings who suffer. But if a person is hungry, they should be fed. We don't look at hungry people and think "oh, well they will be hungry again in 8 hours if I feed them, so better I should let them be hungry." Of course not! We feed them, because they are hungry right now. We'll deal with 8 hours in 8 hours. quote:(2) Is Buddhism life-denying? I mean this in the sense that it perceives all attachment as suffering. If one surrenders all attachment, then one has no motivation to do anything. I can see the argument being made that all action is useless and achieves nothing, but this isn't satisfactory to me. It seems as if you'd have to either dedicate to wu wei or live a life of non-participation, i.e. a monastic life. Perhaps I'm too attached to my ego, but it seems to me that fighting a doomed fight for one's beliefs is superior to withdrawing from reality. Buddhism is not life-denying in my experience, though this is a discussion that comes up on occasion. Buddhism is life-affirming, but with right view. All action is not useless, all action does not achieve nothing. That's wrong view. All action has cause and all action has effect. How can it achieve nothing if it has both immediate and karmic consequences? I watched a Russian documentary last night where they followed His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a day, and interviewed him. At one point, he said that sometimes, people have asked him if because inevitably the whole Universe will collapse and be destroyed, why should we do anything to improve it? He says this is a silly thing to think. The sun rises, it's up, and it will go down. We don't go "oh, because it will eventually be night, we shouldn't do anything during the day." Use the light while it's here to practice virtue. When the universe dies, that's impermanence, that's fine, but we'll deal with that then. Fighting a doomed fight is wrong action. Why fight at all? You are alive, live that life. But live that life unconfused by wrong view. Don't live your life because of attachment or aversion or confusion or ignorance. Live that life striving to benefit sentient beings. This is part of where an understanding of rebirth is important, because it motivates practice to help others. To me, it is important to acknowledge both things. First, I should help ease the suffering of those around me whenever I can, because I can and it brings them even momentary happiness. Secondly, I should focus to ensure that my whole life is dedicated to helping sentient beings. This way, when I'm reborn, I can continue with that altruistic motivation to alleviate sentient beings. By developing bodhicitta, that is, the mind of enlightenment, the pure compassion for all beings, then even if I'm reborn in the hell realms, I can aid the suffering of beings in the hell realms, without regard for my own suffering. And that's the crux of it. We should disregard our own suffering, because we know it is not real. We know our suffering is the result of attachment and aversion. If we renounce our attachments and aversions, then our suffering is gone. That doesn't mean we don't feel pain or loss or sorrow, but we don't suffer for it. Even the Buddha died. But we must also realize that numberless other beings do not know the truth of Dharma, do not realize the cause of their suffering. It would be cruel to let them suffer due to their ignorance, so we must try to help them just as our own mothers have helped us while we were babies. The suffering of beings is real and true, and in the Mahayana, even attaining Buddhahood is done with the motivation of helping sentient beings. We need do nothing for our own sake*, knowing the truth of our own impermanence and the reality of our own suffering, but dedicate our lives to other beings. Basically, being a monastic is a great vehicle for helping sentient beings as it aids us in accomplishing Buddhahood so we can benefit more sentient beings. But being a monastic does not in fact mean shutting off from the world entirely. Even in retreat, it is done with knowledge of the outside world. Shantideva, in the Way of the Bodhisattva, teaches that it is good to take up residence in a cave or in the woods to escape people who distract us from the path. But then he also teaches to help sentient beings, giving everything we have for them. There are times and places for both. Why a life of non-participation? That seems like a misunderstanding, or perhaps this is a Theravada thing. Without getting too deep into wisdom awareness, it is both wrong to accept this world as absolute and real and true, as well as to deny that this world is true and real. Non-participation seems to be like trying to pretend that this world isn't real and like the suffering of beings isn't real. It is possible that one might not participate in the world the same way, for example by not indulging in the attachments and aversions of others, but how can we not participate and live? And how can we benefit beings if we don't live? So I don't think Buddhism is life-denying at all. Rather, I think it is more genuinely life-affirming. It affirms life as it really is, and teaches us to embrace life as it really is, without seeking for sense pleasures or trying to grasp for things that are not or hold on fruitlessly to impermanent things that are. It is life-denying to, for example, try to travel and have experiences and adventures for the sake of fulfilling some kind of arbitrary feeling of "aliveness" which is inevitably going to end. Putting our happiness in anything is a bad practice, because everything is impermanent, including our own lives. But that doesn't mean we should deny our lives. Like the teacup, enjoy it while it is here, realizing that it is already gone. * But we should also not neglect ourselves until we have attained that level. Our bodies are excellent vehicles for the practice of Dharma and the benefit of sentient beings, so neglecting our own health or welfare, mental or physical, ultimately limits our ability to benefit sentient beings. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Those questions are pretty closely related. From what I've gathered from speaking to Buddhists about this: Attachment, as a part of the Four Noble Truths, is indeed presented as a major obstacle. The prescription presented in the FNT is the Noble Eightfold Path, or Middle Way. Buddha encouraged a middle-of-the-road approach to life and practice because he thought, at first, that suffering could be ended by extreme, life-threatening levels of renunciation and austerity. It nearly killed him and he was still suffering, probably suffering more, from his attachment to extreme practices. Apparently he realized that life and living (for one's self and others) requires a more pragmatic relationship with attachment. The middle road was born. The middle way (or whatever someone wants to call it), deals with existing in the world and communities we already are a part of, it is definitely not a guide to escaping into a catatonic, unresponsive inner realm. It was by blindly following attachments or blindly running from all fears that we drive ourselves into daydreams or obsessive distraction... or potentially damaging spiritual practice(s). If anything, it is meant as an antidote to the trance-like nature of being pulled constantly from one stimulus to the next. So it is more about opening our eyes honestly to the reality of all the suffering in the world, rather than attaching to momentary selfish gratification, or just shutting our eyes forever. So watch out for extremes and try to deepen your sense of what balance looks, feels, smells, sounds, and tastes like. Don't need a monastery to do that! And there's no reason to wait until you're within the walls of a monastery and less reason to stop upon leaving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
How do the Buddhists view afflictions that can influence one's understanding of Dharma? Many people afflicted by more serious mental illnesses are incapable of making decisions which will spare them suffering. Or, as in case of old people, they may have been able to live according to the Buddhist values, only to be hampered by neurodegeneration caused by Alzheimer's disease. As I understand, people whose brains do not function properly, still generate negative karma and affect their rebirth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Gantolandon posted:How do the Buddhists view afflictions that can influence one's understanding of Dharma? Many people afflicted by more serious mental illnesses are incapable of making decisions which will spare them suffering. Or, as in case of old people, they may have been able to live according to the Buddhist values, only to be hampered by neurodegeneration caused by Alzheimer's disease. As I understand, people whose brains do not function properly, still generate negative karma and affect their rebirth? Briefly, because I'm on my phone, one of the preliminary practices in my tradition are four thoughts that turn the mind to dharma. One of those four thoughts is the rarity and opportunity of a "precious human body." Notably, not every human birth is precious. A precious birth is one where at least one has access and ability to practice dharma. We pray that the Buddha turns the wheel of dharma in accordance with the minds and capacities of sentient beings, but not all beings have the fortune of being able to practice dharma. To this end, we alleviate their suffering when we can, teach them when we can, and dedicate our merit always to the benefit of all sentient beings. Dedication of merit is for that reason one of the most important Mahayana practices. Basically, it is very sad when a being has no ability to practice dharma, so we should do all we can to help teach them compassion and virtuous behavior and to dedicate our merit and so on to improve their chances in future rebirths, and never give up on this life for them, because even the most violent criminal or hateful psychotic has a Buddha nature. Incidentally, I work in mental health, so this question is very close to my heart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 03:32
|
|