Yet another second post reminder that the fat guy isn't Buddha. ≠ Buddha
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
Quantumfate posted:I try not to use them I'm calling bullshit, you know two of us have been telling you to lay off Sanskrit when explaining things for a while~
|
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 23:30
|
|
You should put a quarter in a jar every time you use a Sanskrit word that isn't like "Dharma" or "Karma" and in a week we'll end poverty. 
|
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 23:39
|
|
Quantumfate posted:After chatting with paramemetic, I have a question I'd like input on- Or rather an interesting sort of dilemma. I've been meditating outside a fair bit, and while doing this I observed an ant moving to what was clear to me: a spider web. As I had been making a habit of helping out animals I meet, I naturally pushed the little girl onto another direction with a gentle prod from a twig. Upon reflection though this action denied the spider a meal and may have meant starvation or suffering. You did deny the spider a meal, but you also saved the spider from the karma of killing. Wanton killing is kind of one of the bad points of being born as an animal. It's silly to try to prevent the spider from ever eating, thus killing him. It's also silly to ignore the opportunity to save a life that is right in front of you simply because ~the circle of life~
|
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 13:11
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I'm going to Tibet next month and visiting the former seats of the Kagyu and Sakya lineages as well as other cities and sites. Is there anything I should be aware of with regard to etiquette specific to monastery visits or Tibet in general? If you're traveling by any method other than road, go find a doctor before you leave and get Diamox seriously get Diamox THIS WILL NOT END WELL FOR YOU IF YOU DO NOT HAVE DIAMOX. Take it from someone who had to carry his AMS-ridden wife onto a plane and deal with mud brick hospitals, unsterilized oxygen tank nosepieces, and holy-poo poo-why-are-there-lizards-in-the-bathroom. Seriously. That was WITH Diamox too. Take it easy for at least two days after you arrive, and not "only do some light sightseeing" like "recuse yourself with a book and only get up to poop and maybe to piss." Seriously, the human body was not made to go to those altitudes at those speeds.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 19:43
|
|
qwerasdf posted:Yep. I went on a 10-day Vipassana retreat a while back, and plan on doing another one soon. Highly recommended. I've really wanted to do this for a while, mind sharing any more?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 05:13
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Without warning anyone, she deleted her FB account shortly afterward. Is that most likely a personal decision, or is there actually a social or spiritual requirement to be cut off while studying Buddhism in Tibet? I know that's probably the dumbest question, but it really surprised me because I'd been following her posts about her life in China with great interest. Still haven't heard anything from her, and this was maybe a year ago. Social media in Tibet is super heavily restricted, and there's a lot of unrest going on there right now to the point I'm surprised your friend even got in. That said, Facebook is hugely something people get attached to and I could totally see someone dedicated to practice trying to move away from large attachments.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 18:19
|
|
Paramemetic posted:mindstreams May you have the fortune of your next life being filled with right view.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 22:41
|
|
fspades posted:It would have been nice if you guys actually explained why you disagree with him. Not all of us are familiar with Buddhist disputes here. There are differing opinions on the nature of consciousness and karma in the context of rebirth. Paramemetic is Vajrayana which follows the belief of a mindstream that flows between lives, quantumfate and I are Yogacara which views this as pretty much a heresy, I'll leave it to them to write a bajillion words since I don't want to deprive them of their favourite activities. my dad posted:Also, for some reason, I am really creeped out by this. Why? 
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:21
|
|
my dad posted:I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post. I know very little about Buddhism. The context of the post probably was a bit missing, it was just a good-natured jab but more importantly Para, quamtumfate, and I are quite good friends so poo poo kind of gets flung a bit and sometimes we forget that people are dropping into the thread and not used to the smaller group of regular posters in here. I'll try to work on that.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:44
|
|
Quantumfate posted:It is an incredibly minute point to argue over and ultimately not significant in the slightest. This'd make a good thread name. e. I still have a hard time reconciling a mindstream and Anatman.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 00:37
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Mr Tastee posted:Wow. Buddhism is a lot bleaker than I imagined. Nirvana is literally impossible. Yes, nobody in the history of Buddhism has ever attained enlightenment. To a Buddhist, it's all theory. Buddha might have figured it out but he died and last I heard he was reborn as a sheep or something.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 21:52
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:That's a woolly jataka tale. Uhh... what? Shnooks posted:You can become enlightened, you just can't be a Buddha. Of course others may disagree that someone is enlightened. Tell that to Maitreya.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 23:51
|
|
Shnooks posted:I thought to be a Buddha the dharma had to disappear? Or something like that. Yes, which will eventually happen. Everything is impermanent.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 01:01
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Dharma is not a thing... You misunderstood me, knowledge of the Dharma will eventually disappear. Paramemetic posted:I think "emptiness" hangs people up a lot. I know some teachers prefer to use other terms such as "void nature" but even that doesn't work well always. It also makes it difficult because "emptiness" is the conventional term. I don't think there's a good solution because there's no one word description in English that works, and one can only say "devoid of intrinsic self-nature"so many times before it becomes tedious. All Buddhists should take like, random Sanskrit words 101, because it's easy when you can say "Sunyata" and get the point across.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 20:04
|
|
Third Murderer posted:Pardon my pulling this out of its context, but does this wording imply that it's possible to be a Buddhist while not believing in rebirth? How would that work? Isn't rebirth critical to the concept of samsara? Some people like to pretend that historical Buddhism didn't exist and that Buddhism is just a philosophy, but yeah, it's pretty hard to take refuge in the Buddha and think he was full of poo poo in the same breath, so it's pretty central, and always has been until modern time when Atheists wanted a title to identify with for some reason and decided to co-opt the name of a major world religion for some reason. That said: Prickly Pete posted:There are people who identify as Buddhist without believing in rebirth. I think the path can still be beneficial to you if you don't believe in rebirth. The path can absolutely beneficial, it's just that it's not the same path as Buddhism if you're throwing out the purpose for Buddhism. It's certainly a noble thing and everyone can benefit from Buddhist practice, but it's kind of like claiming that despite thinking God is imaginary and Christ was just a dude with some good ideas that you try to be Christ-like and are therefore Christian. It doesn't really work too well. Prickly Pete posted:I also think it is also perfectly reasonable to start down the path and withhold judgement on the issue. There are plenty of ways to benefit from meditation and the moral aspects of the eightfold path without concerning yourself with the ideas of rebirth and kamma. This is really important. Nobody expects you to believe everything the Buddha taught right away, and this is especially true considering many ideas are difficult for people from different cultural backgrounds where rebirth or the cosmology isn't a common thing. Many people confuse starting their trip down the path with becoming Buddhist, which are two different things. Becoming Buddhist means taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, and that in large part means thinking that Buddha wasn't just flat out wrong on some of the core fundamental ideas of the religion. This is why a lot of sanghas have a huge probationary period before people are even allowed to take refuge. Becoming a Buddhist is accepting a pool of beliefs about the nature of the world, not just enjoying meditating and wanting to reduce suffering, Being a good person, however, does include wanting to reduce suffering.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 22:13
|
|
Perpetual Hiatus posted:I picked up a definition of karma (from this thread I think) that it amounts to "If you do good things then there are more good things in the world", and this concept brings me a lot of joy, as I love to do things simply for the sake of the doing and this simple statement so eloquently describes that. Ehhh... I mean in a broad sense this is workable for the English usage of Karma but not for the Buddhist useasge. I'd really love quantumfate to chime in on this one, dude is like a master at explaining karma.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 18:21
|
|
Madhyamaka!  Though I think I misunderstood the direction you were going with that quote. But it's still a bit misleading with karma being an actual thing as opposed to the nebulous concept of newtonian physics applied to morality.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 18:55
|
|
Buried alive posted:Been following the thread for a while and there's a couple things I'd like to comment on in this post. First, I'm not sure why you're mentioning the background of atheists. Some people are raised in the way that you say, this is true. Others are raised in the opposite way, and come to have opposite beliefs. You can even find people in both camps who were raised one way, then later came to adopt the other camp's view. So what? I think his point is that it's different to come from a place where Heaven, God, and an afterlife exist to a place where Rebirth is a thing and there are multiple heavens and hells, than it is to try and accept that from a state of purely secular thinking. I think. Buried alive posted:The mere fact that a person got their beliefs by being raised a certain way is no reason to either support or reject those beliefs. It even seems to be in line with the idea of Karma if Karma is understood as cause and effect, as some people in this thread have mentioned. It is and it isn't though. Karma is basically cause and effect, but where people fall off the Buddhism train is where they try and claim that karma and rebirth is just the actions of your life echoing onto the world around you after you are gone, but you yourself are gone-gone. There's a really really strong textual basis against that argument in Buddhism. Religious scholars, both secular academics and clergy, are in agreement that Buddhism has never been interpreted exclusively as this way in the past. Buried alive posted:I'm not sure I buy this line that anyone who doubts the more mystical aspects of Buddhism generates a conflict between that person and Buddhism. That seems to imply that several people in this thread who call themselves Buddhists are not actually Buddhists, yet if their conflicting beliefs come from Buddhist sources, then the conflict is indeed within Buddhism itself. To be 100% blunt, some of the people who claim to be Buddhist in this thread are not Buddhist. Yes, it's a label. No, there's not some Buddhism police going around and enforcing Santa's List of Buddhists. That said, if you claim to be an Atheist yet believe in God, you probably shouldn't be surprised if people don't take your self-applied label very seriously. Similarly, the purpose of Buddhism was to find a path to escape the endless cycles of birth and death that lead to timeless suffering lifetime after lifetime. If you disbelieve that, then you're saying A: Buddha was full of poo poo and B: That annihilationism is a thing. There's been lots of discussions here (mainly in the old threads) about how this idea that Buddha was speaking down to the poor simpletons of the time and how middle class white people with no knowledge of Pali are the true people he was aiming his teachings at is incredibly offensive and harmful to Buddhists in the west who take it seriously, since it plays an active role in restricting our access to Sanghas and the wider religious community. Like with the karma thing about, historians and religious experts are in resounding agreement that the original texts and the interpretation since have referred to a literal rebirth, and the idea that Buddha was using the 'language of the time' is absurd and offensive, since he commingled with people who believed that death was the end of it and debated them in the Sutras, calling their view wrong. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 01:51
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:Wafflehound, can you help me better understand the separate realms? I see some people in the thread claiming that Buddhism can be done from a secular/atheist perspective, but I don't know how that'd be possible with the multiple realms. Buddhism can't be done through a secular/atheist lens, but Buddhist practices absolutely can. They're also skillful, though the point of Buddhism is lost on the mind a bit. At the same time, Buddhism is a religion more than a philosophy, though it is a religion strongly governed by an underlying philosophy. If that makes sense. Pepsi-Tan posted:I'm not even sure what literal rebirth is, to be honest. Actually, you seem to really have a good grasp on it: Pepsi-Tan posted:From what I understand, the Buddha denied both annihilationism and eternalism because both of those ideas are egocentric. They assume that we have an essential and unchanging identity, a true self, which exists at the core of our being and which defines who we are. But Buddhism denies that we have this: we're just a temporary combination of attributes which are always changing. This is a totally spot-on way to think about rebirth. Our karma continues on into another life, continuing "us" in a way that is totally separate from any egocentric "us". Since we are essentially entirely products of our environment and physiology, whatever iteration exists in our next birth is wholly dissimilar from ourselves as we exist now, as much as we feel attached to this life, we surely felt attached to the last one, and will to the next. Only our karma continues through. Pepsi-Tan posted:The Blue Star that is typing this post is not the same person as the Blue Star of yesterday or 10 years ago, and tomorrow this Blue Star will not exist. This is a very useful thought, and it's very accurate. But it's important to understand that this isn't the teaching on rebirth in its entirety. Rebirth historically absolutely was seen as a literal cycle of death and birth, a fact which secular historians of religion are in agreement on. I have, however, heard monks give teachings on what you brought up, and it's a very useful teaching. Often it's used as an 'introduction' to rebirth for those who aren't quite at the point of believing rebirth yet, since it explains a complicated concept in an easy to grasp way that later, with practice, can be expanded on into the more difficult-to-believe bits. Pepsi-Tan posted:I thought this was literal rebirth because I don't see how it can be any other way. It is a rebirth, but not the one Buddha spoke of. An easy way to examine this without even needing to jump back into piles of sutras is to simply think of the fact that Samsara is a cycle of death and rebirth that cannot be escaped by actual bodily death, since that would be a violation of impermanence. Pepsi-Tan posted:If we don't have an atman, what gets reborn? There's a couple of different philosophies on this, but the short story is our mindstream and/or karma. I'd really like to leave that one to a couple of the other posters in here since it's a long topic. I always explain this to people as a bit like Buddhism's version of transubstantiation, There's a big "sort of, but not" here that is the subject of some of the most complex and hard to grasp Buddhist philosophy, on which volumes and volumes have been written. There's a book, "Living Yogacara" that outlines one of the schools of thought on this (that myself and quantumfate follow) which involves what's called a "basal consciousness" and is probably one of the most gentle introductions to this philosophy, though I'll admit it's one sided and not really interested in addressing the other side at all. Razage posted:If something isn't workable for someone, but the general practice and belief system is a benefit, then I see that as a positive. I think that these people should be allowed to participate in sanghas too, because as you have pointed out, it sucks to feel excluded from things because of intolerance and I don't wish that on someone (a small cavat can be made here if they're actively disruptive or something like that) I actually agree that if it's a benefit then it's a positive. Dharma practice without belief is still better than no practice or dharma. That said, I'm going to address this specific point in light of your question regarding how it has impacted my life as a dharma practitioner, since I actually deeply disagree that people who either reject or distort the sutras (not are uncertain of them!) should be allowed to participate in Sanghas as a regular thing. I say this, because many many Sanghas feel very very strongly about this issue. In many parts of the world, there exist community-run Sanghas that are designed part as outreach and part as spiritual safe space. Shambhala does a fantastic job at this, where it ranges across spiritualities and is fairly intentionally welcoming of everyone. It's designed as a teaching space for Buddhism where people are welcome to bring whatever spiritual baggage they may have with them. Many Sanghas aren't in that business, they're into providing religious services for people who belong to a certain faith. The impact of this is that a lot of sanghas become reclusive and shut out outsiders to varying degrees, I've seen this in both ethnically oriented and non-ethnically oriented sanghas. For example, some Theravada sanghas in North America are really gunshy about having foreigners there, and you have to go through quite an ordeal to demonstrate to them that you're not basically a new age hippie or someone just tagging along for the meditation without the beliefs before you stop getting the stink eye any time you step foot there. This isn't a small problem, either, it's fairly widespread. It turns out that both monks and lay folk who support the sanghas aren't too happy with people dropping in who not only don't believe their faith but disrespect it by claiming to have some deeper understanding than thousands of years of oral and scriptural transmission. There's an important distinction here between people who are still questioning on something and people who actively disbelieve something. I've also seen Zen sanghas catering to a primarily western crowd that divide their services in two, one open to the public which is generally taught as more an introduction to meditation and Buddhism, and the other as serious Buddhist practice. The former is usually held in a community space and open to all, the latter is held in a sangha and closed to people who aren't members; and membership requires a demonstration of your understanding of the Dharma which pretty heavily excludes people who try and reinterpret what Buddha taught. Buddhism as a whole tries to be fairly welcoming, in my experience, but it's very easy for Buddhist religious communities to get overrun by secular 'buddhists' and new-age types who basically shut their ears to a huge amount of the teachings, which serves as a great source of frustration to those who take it seriously, not just in part because of how it comes across when you sit in front of someone who has dedicated their life to the Dharma and think "I know this to be a fairy tail, I am more aware of the Dharma". In the end, you just get the situation you have now, where people assume certain things converts and just shut their doors until people can demonstrate they're not just treating it like secular meditation sessions with a particularly religious-feeling setting. On a similar note, people who reinterpret Buddhism beyond what it historically has been and then present themselves as Buddhist, then the public understanding of what Buddhism is becomes influenced by this. If you pull a bunch of strangers off the street and ask them "What is Buddhism?" I think you'd get a lot more answers about meditation than you would about Dharma. Meditation is good practice, but it isn't the entirety of Buddhism. This becomes a bit of a problem when you get two strangely non-Buddhist groups representing Buddhism in the west; new agers and atheists. This is common enough that the number of people who associate Buddhism with stoners is staggering, and most people are stunned to learn that Buddhism has a prohibition on intoxicants built into the precepts. Hell, I've had people who identify as Buddhist who were shocked to find that out, and then tried to justify their way around it. I'm really a fan of not proselytizing, but the dilution of the Dharma or worse, in the case of people who say "Buddha actually meant it this way" the spreading of false Dharma is a harmful thing to Buddhism, and I wish more people could understand the impact that has on the lives of practitioners. Seriously, I know I'm not the only Buddhist in this thread who shocked people that they are Buddhist and not permanently (or ever) stoned as hell, since every other person who presents themselves as Buddhist to them is. he1ixx posted:The idea of separate realms is talked about sometimes as a metaphor for your mind; states for your mind to be in. Both correct and incorrect. This is kind of like the rebirth example Blue Star brought up, where it's accurate in some ways and a very useful thought exercise, but it is never intended as an exclusive thing to the exclusions of literal realms. I hear this one a lot, where people go "Oh, Tradition X doesn't hold them to be literal places but to be simply states of the mind" and then I dig through teachings from that tradition and find the same teacher that was giving a talk on states of the mind talking about very literal rebirth in these realms in a different teaching. These are somewhat introductory teachings, in a lot of ways. They're kind of meant to show you a door to a very complicated thing, but you're still meant to open and go through that door, not just look at it and go "That's one mighty insightful door". he1ixx posted:I think, personally, there's no need to buy the Buddhist goods whole cloth right off the bat. This is a really important thing. I've never heard of a tradition that was okay with people just coming in and blindly believing everything from day one. Buddha encouraged people to probe his findings for themselves, but at the same time there's an understanding in Buddhism that you'll come to the same view the Buddha held. If you don't, that's fine, maybe next life. Rev. Kusala of Urban Dharma puts it pretty well when he says you're better off karmically trying to be a good person in your own way in succeeding than trying to be a Buddhist and doing a bad job of it. I personally take the view that you shouldn't take Refuge until you can at least see the four noble truths, which include the impermanence of death. Without refuge you're not a Buddhist, so that's where I'm coming from on that angle. I just think it's dishonest to go "I take refuge in some things the Buddha said, select portions of the Dharma, and I'll hang out and meditate in the Sangha". he1ixx posted:Don't feel bad about not believing in rebirth or karma. Just leave them as open questions and practice the part that matters -- being a good person. I'm assuming I'm one of the people you said was being poisonous with this in the old threads, so I want to address this right here: I entirely, 100% agree with you. On the part I said above about people being able to go to the Sangha if they don't believe things, I'm not talking about people who think like this. It's perfectly reasonable from the perspective of Dharma not to accept everything right away. Maybe you'll never come to accept things. The important thing is to keep your mind open to the Dharma, not to say "This is wrong. Buddha was wrong when he said this" or worse, "Buddha wasn't speaking to those poor ignorant orientals, he was speaking to me, the monolingual white guy convert whose atheist mind is better capable of understanding the Dharma than those poor eastern ignorants who are stuck in their silly superstitious ways". Uncertainty is absolutely acceptable and healthy, but if you are certain that Buddha was wrong, or if you are willing to ignore all existing understanding of Buddha's teachings in favour of a view founded in Orientalism and Imperialism then you probably shouldn't feel that you should intrude on the religious settings of others. Again, I think there's a difference here between hanging out with Buddhists in a monastery or religious setting and learning from them and saying "I have full faith in the Buddha, and desire to take refuge in him." I also fully recognize that this is just an opinion, and that some schools are perfectly happy to accept people who are still questioning but believe what they see in Buddhism and have an open mind to the rest. My real problem is someone who takes refuge, claims to be a Buddhist, and actively refutes what the Buddha taught. he1ixx posted:People in this thread (and the old versions of this thread were downright poisonous with it) will generally tell you that you need to believe it all or you're a closed-minded simpleton. I think you're misrepresenting the argument a bit. If you believe Buddha was onto something, then you need to be willing to examine what he said. If you feel he was wrong, keep the practice that works for you, but shed the label. If you never come to an understanding, but don't believe he was wrong, then that's different. It's like talking about string theory; I'm a geologist. I don't get string theory. But because I don't understand it doesn't mean I reject it. There are people out there who have a better understanding than me and reject it. There are people out there who have a better understanding than me and accept it. I can have a general understanding of both sides of the argument and feel "Yes, I believe string theory, and that with time I will gain experience that better helps me understand it" and even without a strong, hard fast understanding of the reality or unreality of the thing can bring myself into accord with those who know more. I believe the Buddha knew more, and I believe he was onto the truth, therefore I can say "I believe rebirth, I do not fully understand it and I may never fully understand it, but I believe with practice I can increase my understanding." Does that make sense? I have no problem with and see no conflict with open questions. I see people who identify as atheist as wrapping part of their identity in a rejection of dharma, and thus it is incompatible with the rest of Buddhism. I hope that makes sense and didn't come across as too dickish. edit: Looking at the size of this post is appears I am become Paramementic/quantumfate, destroyer of brevity. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 19:15
|
|
ad infinitum posted:For example, when the Buddha was asked about how to realize a world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa, i.e. "heavenly realm"), this was his response: Later in that very sutra though... Cuulasakuludaayisutta posted:When the mind is concentrated, pure, free from minor defilements malleable workable not disturbed, he directs the mind for knowledge of the disappearing and appearing of beings. With the purified heavenly eye beyond human, he sees beings disappearing and appearing unexalted and exalted, beautiful and ugly, arising in good and bad states according to their actions. These good beings misbehaving by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, with the wrong view of actions, after death are born in loss, in decrease, in hell. As for these good beings, well behaved in body speech and mind, not blaming noble ones, with the right view of actions after death are born in heaven. I'm not really sure how you're reading that sutra as a mind state, it seems pretty clear that the point is monks asking about if they can shape their karma to be intentionally reborn in a heavenly realm. I could be misreading it though!
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 19:29
|
|
Ugrok posted:those questions about rebirth are not important at all and not really debated. Generally, I'd say, because they're taken for granted as true. Not because they're not important. Ugrok posted:So really, i don't see how can anyone be offended if some guy says that he understands rebirth better than anyone, and is an atheist, and claims he is a buddhist. So what ? Did you catch this part? WAFFLEHOUND posted:I say this, because many many Sanghas feel very very strongly about this issue. In many parts of the world, there exist community-run Sanghas that are designed part as outreach and part as spiritual safe space. Shambhala does a fantastic job at this, where it ranges across spiritualities and is fairly intentionally welcoming of everyone. It's designed as a teaching space for Buddhism where people are welcome to bring whatever spiritual baggage they may have with them. Many Sanghas aren't in that business, they're into providing religious services for people who belong to a certain faith. The impact of this is that a lot of sanghas become reclusive and shut out outsiders to varying degrees, I've seen this in both ethnically oriented and non-ethnically oriented sanghas. Ugrok posted:I really have a strong faith in sitting practice. A guy who thinks buddhism is something for stoners, or hippies, or something new agey, will change his mind if he sits regularly. But I was talking about public perception and understanding, not about an individual coming into Buddhism
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 00:27
|
|
Tubba Blubba posted:Not to poke the hornet's nest too much, but where would that leave someone such as me? I don't think that this is stirring up a hornets nest at all, though Prickley Pete has you covered, I'd say. By the way, there's a few Zendos that do webcam-based sits, depending on your timezone. Razage posted:I have seen many people say that Bhuddism is compatible with all religions, and when I look at all the concepts even I can see that that's not true. To be accepted by very serious practitioners it sounds like one wouldn't be able to believe in any other religion. I think it's less a bait and switch and more a common trend among teaching Dharma in the west. It's really common for people to start teachings with the more basic things, such as meditation and practicing being skillful. People get to this point, say "this is compatible with my pre-existing belief system" and kind of stop there, rather than realize it's a stepping stone. It's the same kind of thing you see with the "rebirths are a state of mind" teachings, they're stepping stones but people handle them as the end result. I know a few people who claim to be Buddhists Christians, and while they identify as Buddhist they don't know that impermanence explicitly expands to Gods or that Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna include "We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God." Razage posted:There's a lot here, and for some more disclosure, I am Shambhalian so probably the loosest practice you can get on Bhuddism. Speaking in that vein though, I think there is a larger issue here though. This looks a lot like close-mindedness and attachment. I hear this counterargument a fair bit, and it always blows me away. Please keep in mind I don't mean to attack you or your beliefs personally, and I'm not trying to be offensive here. There's been discussion in the past about how secular 'Buddhism' is to a degree an imperialistic construct, where people from the west with a limited understanding of the language or culture that originated Buddhism claim it as something that is their own and unilaterally declare that their way is legitimate. The thing that I have a really hard time with on the culture argument is that it's a few people who are clearly twisting the faith of millions of people, who when called on it, respond "You are doing your faith wrong, stop being so attached." Clearly non-attachment is a good thing, but I cannot think of a single other instance of Westerners taking a cultural behemoth central to the religious life of millions of people around the world, reinterpret it through a lens that is undeniably at historical odds with the teachings in the first place, and then throw it back in the face of the faithful. It is totally unfair to with one breath claim the Dharma as your own and with the other reject those with far more knowledge and expertise, using the very Dharma that has been picked and chosen from in the first place against them. You can't say "The Dharma says don't be attached to things" and then just ignore it when someone points out that the Dharma also says that believing in death without Rebirth is wrong view and, in the Buddha's words, ignorance. Razage posted:I've noticed the two sittings thing too, and I understand the reasoning behind it. Not everyone that goes is going to be a perfect bhudda and be able to react in an open hearted manner to some atheist/evangelical/stoner loudmouth in Sangha. That's the last place one would think to encounter this and in our culture such behaviour is more often rewarded then punished. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Because judgement is something I am personally working on I try to encounter these people in an open-hearted and non-judgemental way and I find it does a lot to soften them and allows them to open up a little bit. I think if they encountered this behaviour more in everyday life, these insecurities and projections of confidence would disappear. The problem is that not every religious setting should have to be a safe space for everyone of all beliefs. Buddhism in the West is a small faith, many of us are sensitive to how Buddhism is presented to the public not because we grasp some ideal label for ourselves, but because we view the Dharma as a vitally important thing to the world. Combine this with the fact that many of us (I'd wager most) have no interest in seeing Buddhism become a proselytizing faith, it's a bit horrific and watch something we hold very dear to ourselves and the entire world be reduced to nothing more than a meditative philosophy or an affectation for stoners. I think this is the huge point that "Buddhist Atheists" miss, it's not that we're attached to a label, it's that we value the Dharma dearly, and the view of Buddhism without rebirth had been resoundingly rebuke within Buddha's lifetime, so it's not only wrong view but it's actively spreading False Dharma. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 18:54
|
|
Has anyone here heard anything from any Sangha about non-alcoholic beers and the Fifth Precept? I don't quite mean stuff like O'Douls which is straight up 0%, but something that's >0.5% and pretty much not going to be noticeably bioactive. I haven't had a drink since I took the refuge vows with the Dalai Lama and while I'm not jumping to start boozin' up, I miss the taste and also discovered that Molson makes non-alcoholic beer. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 07:08
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Is the concept of Nirvana similar to the Collective Unconscious? Upon reaching it would the ego die and be consumed into the collective All or God or whatever or is my understanding deeply flawed? I think you're thinking of Hinduism/Brahmanism.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
They're pretty widely considered a cult. Is there any other group in your area?
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 16:27
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin? I actually know Rev. Kusala (who does Urban Dharma) brings this point up a ton, that the entire idea of an innately sinful state is anathema to Buddhism. Razage posted:I'm going to be contrary and say it is possible to be both Christian and Buddhist. (For reference, I am not Christian, and technically not Buddhist either, although I do practice) Basically this, since the idea of an omnipotent God falls flat on the Four Noble Truths. There's also Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna: quote:1. The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide) Which pretty solidly can't be reconciled with Christian theology. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 11:43
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:First find your own buddha nature, then surprise, surprise. The enlightened mind is neither buddhist nor christian because those are at best, belief methodologies. free means free. Mind clarifying this?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 09:41
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:This is a very good pun, bravo Not intentionally, I'm just curious about your statement since I'm not sure it lines up with Buddhist thought.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad, I actually hugely agree with you for the most part, and I probably am one of the only people in this thread besides maybe one other person I won't out that thinks saying "If you reject or re-interpret the seals beyond how they've been understood you're not a Buddhist" (since I fundamentally agree there are serious problems with westerners claiming to be Buddhists then cherry-picking Dharma) but even I've never seen a translation like you've been using and I've heard multiple very learned monks argue against emotions = bad. Attachment to emotions is bad, but emotions themselves aren't inherently attachments. I'm pretty sure Buddha felt compassion,which last I heard was an emotion, and your thesis seems to butt against Buddha Nature to me. Seriously though, I agree with you that a lot of people in this thread claiming to be Buddhist aren't, and thank you for breaking down my comment about "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist" so well.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:32
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Thanks for being reasonable. I'm going to stick with everything I've said though. I'm still convinced you're conflating emotions with attachment to those emotions, though maybe I'm wrong!
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:43
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:If they don't, I think they are not advanced enough. Ask a qualified teacher (like a Lama), not just any monk. I have personally heard two lineage heads make a distinction between emotions and attachment to emotions. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 80+ year old monks who are regarded as emanations of Avalokitesvara are "advanced enough".
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:46
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:OK, they might have had a reason for that, there is plenty of nuance to make in that distinction, and I have done something similar. I didn't start off saying they were the same thing, because we feel the difference in a real way (this is the basis of ego). Or they don't understand the distinction, which is possible (age and lineage mean nothing when it comes to self-understanding). There is not enough in that anecdote for me to go back on what I have said. I have to know the whole context of what they said. quote:What premises or grounds do we have for accepting that mental afflictions can be ultimately rooted out and eliminated from our mind? There are absolutely good emotions that are worth cultivating and nurturing, these just frequently are associated with negative emotions such as attachment or fear [of losing that positive emotion]. A Buddhist can feel happiness, joy, amusement, any of these things, as long as they are fully aware and have internalized that these are fleeting and temporary states, and that the empty nature of these states isn't a bad thing even if it is in a way the root cause of suffering. Again, Buddha was described as being infinitely emotional, as compassion is an emotion. There is absolutely a distinguishing factor between good emotions (compassion, love, etc.) and bad emotions (sadness, anger, fear) and the negative aspects you're attempting to pin to all emotions clearly arise from bad that are frequently associated with good, even if they aren't the same emotions. Also, there are only five or six lineage-head Tulkus alive, and none have a poor grasp of the Dharma by any possible definition. It's a bit unskillful to imply that these people don't understand the distinction because it butts up against your understanding. It's seriously seriously grasping and not more than a little ego-centric. If you are discussing Dharma and great and wise teachers disagree with you, it would benefit you at the very least to be willing to re-examine your certainty before claiming they are ignorant in the Dharma. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 21:10
|
|
quote:You might still be misunderstanding me, and them. What they are describing when they talk about emotions are ACTIONS that appear to others as compassionate, and not intrinsic feelings in themselves. Enlightened people only feel what others feel, if anything. They have no feelings themselves. They have become irrelevant. And they only think what is absolutely necessary. Only useful thoughts, no chatter. So therefore they do not judge others based on their own self perception. This is the ideal at least. This isn't dharma, it's nihilism. It's also an incredibly strange view I've never heard advocated (but I have heard rejected) by anyone of any tradition. Your certainty in your interpretation of the Dalai Lamas teachings despite numerous discussions by him on that exact topic that vehemently disagree with your core statement of enlightened people being emotionless outside dharma is strange, and your willingness to label contrary viewpoints as espoused by charlatans until you have had the opportunity to twist their statements into an affirmation of your worldview regardless of whether it actually agrees with you is akusala as hell. I'm not going to go to the extreme that you did when you called one of the two most knowledgeable posters in this thread (and at that one who angled his entire life trajectory with a lens of Buddhist compassion) not-Buddhist, but if you are what you claim to be then you should consider that there is a strong possibility that an understanding you hold deeply may be wrong when viewed through the eyes of someone with a better understanding of the dharma than you. The same poster you accused of being not-Buddhist recently turned me on to a teaching by a well respected Lama that essentially shook a part of the Dharma I was convinced was immutable, because I was able to see that regardless of my belief and understanding, I was directly contradicted by someone with a far more thorough understanding of the dharma than I will ever have in this lifetime. I've told you I agree with telling people they aren't Buddhist when they factually are not (lack of belief in rebirth/rejection of the four noble truths, for example), but no matter how convinced these people are of their hider standing of the Dharma, they can't come to their view without twisting meanings and teachings to fit their preconceived notions regardless of the intent of their teachings. This is exactly what you're doing, and you should really think long and hard about, frankly, how much of a dick you're being about your insistence on your interpretation despite clarifications from the very teachers you claim to be interpreting. I can't think of a single tradition that'd be okay with accusing the heads of other legitimate traditions charlatans because they disagree with you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 22:02
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Hm OK. I guess I won't be coming back to this thread then. Status quo defended successfully. Congrats. Have fun If you're just going to call those who disagree with your highly suspect interpretation charlatans or not-Buddhist while using the same argumentative tactics employed by those who erroneously try to claim Buddha didn't actually mean rebirth when he said rebirth, then good. In the meantime, I'll continue respecting the interpretations of the Dalai Lama and monks like Kusala over your insistence that Dharma is nihilism. You're not discussing, you're not engaging in any kind of educational debate, you're just insisting without basis that every actual authority is wrong/misguided or that they somehow agree with you if you read between the lines of some of the things they say and outright ignore the rest. If you believe yourself to be Buddhist then you might as well start trying to be skillful instead of paying lip service to the concept.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
Are you defending the dharma credentials of someone who, despite vows, did piles of coke, drank, and slept with his students while at the same time you're calling other well respected teacher charlatans?ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I guess I won't be coming back to this thread then. Status quo defended successfully. Congrats. Have fun Please remember the fourth precept.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 22:55
|
|