Folderol posted:

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

Rurik posted:

Hmm, so impermanence or imperfection is just as valid translation for dukkha as suffering? I remember how we were told in comparative religion class in high school how according to Buddhism "life is suffering". I wonder what kind of image would've been left to us students if dukkha were traditionally translated to something else. I remember thinking that Buddhism's view must be pretty grim.

ashgromnies posted:

My question: what's up with the bodhisattva vow? Is it a literal vow with specific words or just the concept of dedication to the liberation of all beings from suffering? Isn't a bodhisattva supposed to keep themselves from becoming enlightened in order to help others, giving the idea oh the Mahayana "great vehicle"?

quote:

How does a bodhisattva keep themselves from reaching enlightenment?

ashgromnies posted:

My question: what's up with the bodhisattva vow? Is it a literal vow with specific words or just the concept of dedication to the liberation of all beings from suffering? Isn't a bodhisattva supposed to keep themselves from becoming enlightened in order to help others, giving the idea oh the Mahayana "great vehicle"? How does a bodhisattva keep themselves from reaching enlightenment?

ashgromnies posted:

Imperfection more so than impermanence I think. Impermanence is something else, "annica". Dukkha is more like inherent unsatisfactory nature of all things. Impermanence is that all phenomena are temporary.

Fuligin posted:

Is there a specific translation of the Dhammapada that anyone would like to recommend?

Blue Star posted:

I apologize if this is a stupid question, so here goes: are Hinduism and Buddhism at all compatible? I know that Hindus believe in the atman and Brahman and Buddhists don't, but then again Daoists believe in the Dao and Shintos believe in kami, and yet there has been some synchronization between those religions and Buddhism. But Buddhism seems to contrast itself strongly with Hinduism, and a lot of stuff I read about Buddhism heavily emphasizes how the Hindu concepts of atman and Brahman are totally wrong.

Are there any traditions or sects or whatever who try to reconcile Hinduism with Buddhism? What about Buddhism and other religions or philosophies? Can you be both a Buddhist and a Christian or Jew or Muslim?

ashgromnies posted:

Christianity also has a bit of judgmental punishment involved with the concept of "sin" -- rather than examining the karmic implications of action, the perspective is "these acts are an affront to God and you won't get into Heaven if you keep willfully sinning". As opposed to a karmic viewpoint where you might look at how the "sin" affects everything around it and what karmic impact it brings in the future, rather than projecting a specific impact onto it.

my dad posted:

Not quite. The concept of "sin" is a lot more complicated than that, and different branches of Christianity have different views on that matter. Several other things you've implied in your post are only true in some of them. You might want to check out the Liturgical Christianity thread if you're interested in the details.

The-Mole posted:

I'm aware of literally nothing in Zen that would be diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs.

Prickly Pete posted:

People who say they are Christian and Buddhist are usually either misunderstanding fundamental parts of either faith, or are simply choosing to ignore the parts of Buddhism that they don't like (rebirth and kamma, anatta, etc), while focusing on the more pleasing aspects like the paramis and the bramaviharas that are more compatible with theistic traditions.

PiratePing posted:

While I agree that picking and choosing which parts of Bhuddism you like defeats the purpose (how do you even do Buddhist practice while ignoring anatta), how essential is believing in rebirth? I was raised with the idea "It's there, but just forget about it because you're living this life now" and now that I'm leaning more towards non-belief I still feel like the issue is neither here nor there. Believing in it because that would make me a Good Buddhist without really understanding it to be true just makes it feel like a convenient idea to cling to so I let it be for now, maybe it's something I will come to understand later in life. I'm not rejecting it but I also can't find a way to accept it with integrity.

This article explains my feelings on the matter way better than I could: http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/should-i-believe-in-rebirth/

Rurik posted:

I wish to talk with you about music. Is there music that supports meditation? Is it even good to listen to music while meditating? Do you like music that can be considered meditative or "Buddhist-like"?

PiratePing posted:

While I agree that picking and choosing which parts of Bhuddism you like defeats the purpose (how do you even do Buddhist practice while ignoring anatta), how essential is believing in rebirth? I was raised with the idea "It's there, but just forget about it because you're living this life now" and now that I'm leaning more towards non-belief I still feel like the issue is neither here nor there. Believing in it because that would make me a Good Buddhist without really understanding it to be true just makes it feel like a convenient idea to cling to so I let it be for now, maybe it's something I will come to understand later in life. I'm not rejecting it but I also can't find a way to accept it with integrity.

This article explains my feelings on the matter way better than I could: http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/should-i-believe-in-rebirth/

Kunzang Pelden posted:

The length of time spent in the human world is the result of past karma. When this is exhausted, as the final moment of human consciousness ends, it creates the immediate cause [of the new life], whiel the karma that brings about birth in a hell realm, or whatever, constitutes the cooperative cause. Wherever people are subsequently born, whether in hell or elsewhere, they have at death a human body, whereas at birth, they will have the body of a hell being and so on. In other words, the previous consciousness now terminated is that of a human, whiel at the moment of the later birth, the consciousness is that of a hell being. The two are thus distinct. When the body and mind of a human come to an end, the mind and body of the following life come into being. it is not that there is a movement or transmigration of something from a former to a subsequent state. As it is said:

Like recitation, flame, and looking glass,
Or seal or lens, seed, sound, astringent taste,
The aggregates continue in their seamless course,
Yet nothing is transferred, and this the wise should know.

When, for example, one uses a lamp to light another lamp, the later flame cannot be lit without dependence on the first; but at the same time, the first flame does not pass into the second one. If the earlier entity is terminated, however, and the later one arises in such a way that the two are quite separate, it will be objected that, in that case, the effect of former actions is necessarily lost, while (in the course of the subsequent existence) karmic effects will be encountered that have not been accumulated. But this is not so. Phenomenal appearances - which arise ineluctably through the interdependence of causal conditions - cannot withstand analysis. They lie beyond the scope of both the eternalist and nihilist positions. The assertion that karmic effects are not lost is a special feature of the Buddhist teachings. it lies within the exclusive purview of an omniscient mind, and it is thus to be accepted through reliance on the word of the Conqueror.
As it is said:

What arises in dependence on another
Is not at all that thing itself -
But neither is it something else:
There is no break, there is no permanence

All we have are relatively imputed terms. While being neither identical nor different [earlier and later moments of consciousness] appear. Consciousness manifests in different ways according to karma, whether good or bad. But in itself, it consists of moments of mere knowing, clear and cognizant, arising uninterruptedly in like kind. The notions of permanence of discontinuity do not apply to it. Thus the results of karma are not lost, and one never encounters karmic effects that have not been accumulated.

If, on a more subtle level, one considers the momentary nature of phenomena, everything in the outer or inner sphere consists of point instants. The earlier moment ceases and the later one supervenes so that the one is distinct from the other. Likewise, when the karma for remaining in the human state provides the circumstances, and the final moment of consciousness [in that state] provides the cause, the following moment of consciousness comes to birth and arises in like kind. But the two moments are separate.

he1ixx posted:

This thread can be so drat good sometimes. Nice job on those last few posts, people.

Paramemetic posted:

Meditating listening to music that seems meant to induce experiences is a form of contemplative meditation, though I wonder what is the motivation for doing that? If it is to realize the illusory and transient nature of experience, how it is arbitrary and can be induced artificially, that's awesome. If it's to have a good time having an experience, that's less awesome but still okay, just be wary of grasping.

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

Does mainstream Buddhism consider the disabled as people being justly punished for misdeeds in their past life, or is that just the more extreme sects?

edited for clarity

quote:

Thus, for Shantideva, as with the Buddhist tradition in general, in the education of the mind - our own minds - fear and the dread of the consequences of evil are tools as legitimate as those of enthusiasm and encouragement. It is in this spirit of mental training that Shantideva places before us the unpalatable facts of human existence: its fragility, its impermanence, the certainty and horrible realities of death, and the possibility, if not probability, of post-mortem suffering in infernal torment. Perhaps it is because the stakes are so high that he tears away so mercilessly the pretenses and facile optimisms with which we veil the facts, trying to convince ourselves that "after all, things are not so bad." To those new to Buddhadharma, it often comes as a surprise that in a tradition which places such a high premium on love and compassion, so much attention should be given to the sufferings of the lower states: those of animals, of hungry ghosts, and of beings in hell. The scriptures and commentaries abound in detailed descriptions, and Buddhist iconography can be horrifyingly explicit. To the unprepared Westerner, the shock is often severe. And no doubt through an overhasty comparison with similar themes (rightly or wrongly understood), as these have played themselves out in the history of European and Near Eastern religious thought, the Buddhist ideas are not infrequently dismissed as being of morbid and sadistic origin.

Superficial similarity, however, masks a radical difference. According to Buddhist teaching, the definition of moral good or evil is made exclusively in terms of cause and effect. An act is considered evil, negative, nonvirtuous, or sinful not because it is a transgression of a divinely ordained principle, laid down by the creator of the universe, but because it is productive of suffering in this or future existences. Virtue, on the other hand, is that which brings about happiness and tends to spiritual development. The experiences of the infernal states are the ineluctable result of evil attitudes and actions. Whether or not the modern Westerner wishes to believe in the existence of infernal realms is in a sense beside the point. Every evil and unwholesome action simply brings forth suffering; and it hardly matter whether one conceives of this in the picturesque terms of Dante's inferno, or shares the view of Jean-Paul Sartre that "hell is other people." Nevertheless, it is important to grasp that the idea of an eternal damnation as a punishment for sin is foreign to Buddhist understanding. Suffering is a consequence of one's own action, not a retribution inflicted by an external power. Infernal torments, moreover, though they may last for aeons, belong to samara and are not exempt from the law of impermanence. And even if the notion of a divine vengeance is regarded as an approximation, in mythological terms, to the concept of karmic consequences, it is perhaps worth suggesting that the impersonal view proposed by Buddhism should have the advantage of exorcizing the paralyzing sense of guilt, or revolt, that can so often be the outcome of a too anthropomorphic theism. The doctrine of karma has only one message: the experience of states of being follows upon the perpetration of acts. We are the authors of our own destiny; and being the authors, we are ultimately, perhaps frighteningly, free.

Rurik posted:

It's because I want to get deep into the music. I think I tend to listen to the music too superficially, since I rarely take the time to just lie down and listen to it. Usually it's on the background. Sometimes I listen to it when I commute. Therefore I think I may miss something important, especially in an experimental piece such as Ebene. And if listening to it while laying down and concentrating on it is good, it follows that meditating to it is even better.

I also like the idea of relaxation that could bring, since I'm sometimes anxious and stressed. Trance also intrigues me.

I know that if I have too little time for music it means I cram my schedule too full. There's the gym five times a week, there are books to be read, I'm learning a language and on top of that I play video games or watch tv series. And all that is just on free time. I know a Buddhist would say those are all attachments. In fact I'm actually trying to kick a stupid habit partly because it's attachment and partly because it consumes time.

Mr. Mambold posted:

Just do it if it feels right. People talking about attachment are full of attachment to their own righteous opinions. There are cd's and tracks of Tibetan deep-voice chanters who can take you right into nirvana with that vibration.

Blue Star posted:

Has anyone in this thread experienced ego death through meditation? I've heard of ego death happening in sensory deprivation chambers and through the use of psychedelics, but since this is a Buddhism thread let's just stick to meditation. I've never been in deep meditation, but I've come to understand that your sense of time slows down and you lose at least some sense of individuality because you're concentrating on the present moment. Is this true, and is it possible to lose all sense of "I" while in a deep state of meditation?

Paramemetic posted: