|
Blue Star posted:Can anyone explain Yogacara to me?  The quick and dirty that makes it different from other forms of buddhism is that Yogacara is one of maybe four Mahayana root schools, it's not a distinct form of Buddhism as much as it would be a subcategory of thinking within the Mahayana. It's like Hasidim within Haredi Judaism. I would break mahayana down thusly: T'ien T'ai: Schools of buddhism focused on bringing tons of different sutras and teachings together as the Dharma, focuses on practising expedient means. In the past it had a fair bit of criticism when Phenomenology-oriented Buddhism made a push, being criticized for focusing on studying the sutras and copying them rather than practising them. The legitimacy of that criticism is debateable. Pure-Land: A school of mahayana thinking which holds that life in this world is much too corrupt, because all actions create disharmonious dukkha- instead focus is to be given to prayer, devotional acts and mantra-recitation to be reborn into the heavenly realm of the pure land and study under the Buddha Amitabha. Madhyamika- A phenomenology-oriented school of buddhism that stresses emptiness above all. It holds that all objects have no valid existence because their conceptualization and/or use is ultimately based on participation with an ideal. Since there is no real, or at least experientially real, realm of forms (sorry platonists) there is therefore no true existence of objects as things-for-themselves. Yogacara- Takes the madhyamika another step further- Ultimate reality is itself false, there is no objective world because all perceptions are made through consciousness. Now to go a little deeper and handle your questions more! Firstly the academic disputes. Yogacara and Madhyamika may not have been as opposed or different from each other as some would suggest. There was a long and protracted history of dialectic between the two schools, but whether this was a friendly rivalry or just logical discourse in pursuit of collusion is up for questioning. Secondly, the extent to which some yogacarins hold mind-as-real is very contested. Most modern offshoots of yogacara, modern practitioners and scholars of the school hold that mind is not real. I have to be honest in that I agree with the aforeentioned people; I feel that Asanga and Vasubandhu especially disagreed with the concept of mind as real. This will give me some bias, so take what you will. Blue Star posted:I've been Googling it and there seems to be conflicting information as to whether its a form of metaphysical idealism No, it is not metaphysical idealism. It is emphatically not that. It's a common thing for many people to assume it is, the school is often summarized as vijnapti-matra or citta-matra (Mind-only), but much of this assumption is the result of pollution by Kantian and enlightenment thinking. You cannot apply ontology to yogacarin thought because consciousness is not an ultimate reality, but rather the ultimate problem. Karma is the chief concern because ultimately all unenlightened actions are done with intent because they are perfumed by consciousness Blue Star posted:But if that's the case with Yogacara, what makes it different from other forms of Buddhism? I thought Buddhism in general was only concerned with phenomenology, and maintained that the world we perceive is illusory since it's all ultimately in our heads. Part of the complication in scholarship regarding yogacara is the fact that very little of the treatises or discourses on sutra is translated into anything but french. I hope that helped, if you want I could outline and overview the tenets of it, go into more of what it is, but I suspect you've already got a good grasp on that.
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
All that is pretty typical, and good on you for sticking with your breathing. You can also try subvocalizing mantras. As far as your eyes go, this is kind of dumb but. . . Are your eyes closed? Try opening them a little, letting the lids hang half open. It will help your problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
There is no difference. They're seperate things and incomparable really. Samatha is something that's cultivated, and it means a sort of unifying calmness. Any meditation that focuses on unifying practise and wisdom is samatha. Vipassana is insight into the underlying non-nature of things. If you're sitting dhyanayoga you're probably doing one, or both. Though if you do both, then it's just called samatha. Vipassana meditation is when the meditation is more insight oriented than calmness oriented. Both things go hand in hand, and cultivated, not practised.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
I can't really speak on Transcendental meditation; it's more of a hindu thing, though I would hesitate to call it that. Always struck me as specious new age posturing. As for myself, I mostly do sitting meditation; you could call it vipassana, but it's more like zuochan or zazen. Just sitting and being. I also do metta meditation; which as you pointed out is very helpful to develop empathic responses. A good way to start it is to just follow the basics. Imagine yourself first, then imagine yourself happy, then imagine someone that you love, and imagine them happy, then a friend, then someone you hate or dislike, then imagine all the suffering people of the world being happy. Mantra recitation is also a very meritous thing to engage in- though not because of tranquility. Repetitive recitation of something can calm the mind, but reciting a mantra where you attach something beyond semantic meaning to the mantra can help you to form a mental link to those words. Eventually reciting the mantra engages that part of your mind in such a way that the mantra acts for you, not because of you. To say nothing of dedication of that merit to others.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:No it just means you might not be very smart. My arguments have always been logical and NEVER been based on some kind of authority. I am starting to think you're not exactly my audience. Nor WaffleHound, nor Paremetic, or some other people. Maybe Mr. M. (I get a sense of intelligence from him) and everyone who has said nothing but only read silently. Don't be so inflammatory; remember that a bodhisattva's vows include not giving distorted questions to those who ask in earnest, it includes giving teachings to those who follow a different path than you in their own honest faith to help them. Keep it civil- Remember that everyone should be your audience when it comes to dharma, their faculties are not limited- you're just not reaching them, and that's on you to correct.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Argh. I'm still fixated on how rebith is possible. Doesn't it depend on some kind of consciousness that trancends the brain? I was reading Susan Blackmore , a Zen practitioners who says that idea flies in the face of all we know in neuroscience. To help you out a little: there is no soul or intrinsic self essence (Indeed even mindstream has become misleading these days). That part really needs to be driven home more than it is in many western circles. Everything is devoid of this intrinsic essence. But for purposes of understanding, there is a self, just not one inherent to someone nor one which exists independently. The self is an illusion that arises (It is in the same way that an illusion is, semantically). In this way there is no rebirth, because there's nothing to be born. Likewise there is no death, because there's nothing to die. There just is. So what is that sutta referring to as happening? Samsarana: a migration, or transmigration. By this it means a relationship between a causal action and the result. This relationship can be seen in the same way that a mind continues along- "I" and my memories are things that arise based on individual thought-moments informed by the world around me and my prior experiences/knowledge. The relationship between two births is similar. Taken as a whole they are joined by causal relationship, experience the same karmas. Each birth is informed by the prior's experiences. Hominid, non-hominid, mundane or supernal- the idea is that Life is. Births arise and fall, but the karmic chain carries on. This is how an enlightened being knows their past births, the past and future births of others: They are able to examine the conditions of experience of another and see the chain that lead to these actions to arise. The same way you see a light turn on and see the conditions that caused that(Switch was flipped, lightbulb was plugged in, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If your quest for understanding rebirth is causing you suffering, you should probably abandon it and put your energy into something else. If you like the stuff in Buddhism about virtue and training the mind, do that and come back to rebirth later You shouldn't "abandon" it; keep it there as something to be mindful of. Absolutely look at continuing practise without rebirth at the forefront. I would highly recommend getting a stronger grasp on sunyata first. Prickly Pete posted:I think it is perfectly understandable to have the doubts you are having. I had them. I still do from time to time. Not doubts necessarily, but lingering questions I suppose. Our idea about rebirth tends to naturally first manifest as the idea of reincarnation for whatever reason, and the rebirth of the Buddha's teaching doesn't always settle in the mind as easily. There is no perpetual self to be reborn. If we can understand that, and then start investigating karma, that will point you in the right direction. I also think meditation is very important for this. I feel like I'm beating that horse to death but insight meditation, and the subsequent clarity you achieve in terms of your understanding of impermanence and no-self, are crucial. Having obtained the slightest bit of ego death through meditation helps so immensely- going through a mystic experience can cement your understanding of dharma. It's far from beating a dead horse. Another thing is that rebirth is not all that touched upon or explained for most. It tends to be a focusing on more secular aspects of the faith. I might argue that it isn't terribly helpful to not start working on the mechanisms of karma and how emptiness works right from the start, but eh.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
I'm not Nichiren; my take on it is as another quirk of theology from the same school that says all other schools of buddhism are corrupt dharma. Still, it doesn't strike as terribly misleading. The "true self" expressed in the sutra (Available here) can be rationalized as either an expression of the tathagatagarbha or the Dharmakaya. v v
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
The same way you don't attain a semblance of Nirvana upon going to sleep. Each time you sleep or lose consciousness, you die. With every new arising through or experience you die. You live your whole waking life "Solely" for some future stranger. Death of the worldly body is not death of that life. That life suffers again and again to be reborn. Why worry about getting a job when you'll cease to be the next time something new happens or you fall asleep? That's just doing it for the benefit of some future stranger, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
You don't wake up from sleep however, the you that awakes is entirely different. When you die, you enter into a new birth, with a you that is entirely different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
I'm trying to use few words here, see how that goes?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Like, the punk band Descendents? Anyways there's obviously no answer to that question, the question of evil has been raging for ages across all cultures. The buddhist resolution of that question is that poor feelings are conditioned by unskillful events coming into their fruition. These negative people are trying to tell other people what to do because of their experiences and prior information, Karma if you will. These experiences in their past resolve so as that their mind says "The response I wish to take here is to tell someone how they should live their life". So that's essentially the why, karma. How to deal with it from a buddhist perspective is to be compassionate towards those people, to everyone really, to look at calming yourself so as to not suffer about this. EDIT: Rhymenocerous, it's good to also point out that depression isn't just a skill that needs be practiced, sometimes medication is needed too. Going to throw those links in the OP though. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
The buddhist position is pretty much as you said "I'd say that the question of free will is irrelevant". You've hit the nail on the head there, with the only caveat that not even karma is set in stone. The buddha has explicated that karma is not deterministic, the fruit karma bears can be modified just as any other action can have its result modified. So in the sense of karma, the question of free will has some import- We can exercise volitional changes that could free us from karma. Outside of that you're golden.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
Uh, what? I didn't mention a viewpoint at all, let alone the manifestation of "karma" (did you mean vipaka?) as a consciousness. I'm not following where you're getting this from? Regardless: Entire may have been a tad hyperbolic, but its use was to indicate that similarities aside, the You that exists each morning when you wake up is constructed anew, not a remnant of a past-you that's continuing in a modified manner. I see out of my own eyes because these are the eyes attached to me. I experience the ripening of basal karma because this is the karma attached to my life, across births. "If a being is suffering but there is no one to "be" it and experience it, is he really suffering?" Well, naturally yes- by the wording of the question this being is suffering. Even more so if there is an affliction causing a being to distress or experience unease, that is something you might construe as suffering. From emotional pain to nociception. There is still a being, a receptacle capable of experiencing suffering, but there is no ego-differentiated self that truly suffers. Rather this ego-differentiated self manifests as a suffering being because it is an illusion that emerges from contributory inputs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
 RESPONSIBLE NOTEIf you are reading this thread and you have mental health issues, please see someone and be open about it. Psychiatric drugs are important and are not a personal failing, they do not warp you. Buddhism is not a replacement for medication. It, like many other religions, can take the place of some therapy. Many modern CBT practises have been cribbed from the dharma. Please see your roshi/lama/bhikku only alongside pursuing medical help, not in lieu of it. Anyways, Guildencrantz! You bring up a very good question, there isn't a good general conception of heresy, which has caused problems before in buddhist communities- Japan in ww2, the ikko-ikki, nichiren, thai anti-muslim animus, etc All cases where people with legitimate lineages went batshit and did awful nonbuddhist things. The way buddhism usually handles heresy is with master/student relationships. If your lineage isn't sound, it's not good for you to be saying new things. Now YMMV, tibetan buddhism has a strongly defined concept of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and has a good concept of heresy- look no further than Dorje Shugden. I don't feel comfortable getting into how vajrayana deals with excluding the crazies. I'm sorry, but I feel like I would say something and tread on someone's toes. For mahayana and theravada the process is usually to have that guy pushed out of the monastic community, though that process can take ages as the monks try and correct the "wrong view" of the person who has gone astray. Then again that's how you get crazy wisdom stories going. Now as far as how the relationships between the different sects of the dharma go- Usually there is an understanding that all are operating on the same principles. Nichiren buddhism is the exception here, with one of the tenets being that all mundane dharma is fundamentally corrupt and only Amidha Butsu in the pure land can teach you the true dharma. Vajrayana and Mahayana tend to get along pretty well. Mahayana buddhists tend to look at vajrayana and go "Those guys took syncretism too far, probably time to dial that back a little". Vajrayana tends to look at mahayana as something that works alright, but nowhere near as effectively as should be. Something Paramemetic likes to say to illustrate that is, and I'm paraphrasing him slightly here: "Mahayana is a bus, a bunch of people can get on and drive to their destination, and probably arrive safely. Vajrayana is an airplane, it can get a lot of people to their destination much faster, more effectively, but can also crash more spectacularly." Vajrayana thinks of itself as esoteric by need, there are certain practises that the uninitiated aren't ready for because it might hurt their understanding of the dharma in general. As for what those two and theravada? Therava looks at them and goes "Get back to the dharma crazy hindu people", because everything that's not pali canon is just kind of not the point. Maha/Vajra-yana looks at theravada as old, outdated and they call theravada "Hinayana". Super offensive term. Hina is supposed to mean little, or lesser, and yana is vehicle. But it carries another cultural message. Hinas were untouchable peoples,so the term is pretty offensive to theravadins because hinayana is pretty much "Religion of the poo poo-people" Dharma, ladies and gentlemen. Inclusive and open to all. 
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Sidenote: Ruddha don't stop posting. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
I'm not touching it, but you have been rather incisive in your language towards others, bordering vitriol. You faux-pas about anti-psychotics and mood stabilizers is incredibly worrisome and in poor taste here- there are tons of people who come into buddhist groups as part of their therapy, secular meditation like vipassana is hugely helpful. To encourage noncompliance with medication in a setting where someone might be in a poor place to handle that, or in genuine need, is pretty dangerous, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Neither the time, nor the place to be having this discussion. If you want to discuss buddhism in the context of cognitive behavioural therapy, or the neurology of buddhism, that's a different matter. Yes, there are people who live in piles of garbage while smiling and happy with themselves, yes there is a slight overmedication in some respects- But bringing it up like that reads as an excuse for not seeking the help needed. Like you said, takes a very honest person to admit they need to seek redress, let's not throw more on the pile keeping people from doing so? More harm than good. People will genuinely suffer regardless of material status or status of birth, you need only look at Sakyamuni to see that, he himself had every luxury and was still left horribly empty within.Mr. Mambold posted:It's a very interesting thing to me that one of the amazing things about buddhism was that it was available to the untouchable caste and offered an amazing societal release from the crushing fate of being lower than a dog in that society 25 centuries ago. It gave the poo poo-people a way out of a very rigid...lovely life. Gautama paradoxically made his dharma available to all including untouchables, after some cajoling, but in fact, I think all his disciples and closest attendants were from the well born kshatriya caste.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Your mala broke on friday the 13th, that means it took the negative karma of the day instead of you. EDIT: A page of probations and a fitting name change
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:I do sense a divide in the West between Western converts (who are overwhelmingly white) and the descendants of refugees and immigrants from Asia. Time to make the thread uncomfortable- How many of us have been guilty of using western as a code word for white people? Or who put more trust in a teacher because they're non-white?  I can assure you though, that the crazy new age people are problem you encounter no matter what. Especially the closer you are to California, and I am really close to California. The meditation thing is always interesting to me though. I think a big part of that is that there's no zealot like a convert, and there aren't many western buddhists born into it that aren't part of an ethnically buddhist community. Autumncomet posted:Vajrayana is Tibetan, right? Do you mind elaborating on why it's more "dangerous"? Autumncomet posted:Also for Bodhi Day I won a calendar in a raffle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Do ya'll think that meditation is essential to really comprehend Buddhist philosophy? Like it was mentioned earlier by Autumn that many lay people in majority Buddhist countries don't really do it and view it as "a thing for monks"; would you say they, for lack of a better phrase, doing a disservice to the dharma? The difference is that buddhism has never been a lay tradition. It's always been something for monks. The beleif for most lay people in buddhist countries is that it's a thing for monks, your average tibetan yak herder tithes lamas, sends a kid or two off to a monastery, gives wandering tulkus food and asks them to pray for them. The conception is "Oh, I'll just be born into a monk in the future" A lot of western buddhists have taken the protestant reformation and ran with it, looking for a buddhism that suits being a householder yogin. So yes, I think meditation is important to really grasp it- There's just plenty of lifetimes to do that. EDIT: also the thing about a wrathful deity eating you was a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
There's something beautiful about the fact that your link takes me to "404, page not found". I think I was just enlightened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Seriously dude, please can we not keep doing this? No one is saying all problems can be traced to chemical imbalances but that is a thing, one that is dangerous to counter because these are people who cannot trust their own mind. As well clomipramine is not an MAOI, it's a TCA. To add: Something interesting from the political maps thread 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
If you wish to talk about how the dharma can be a useful tool as therapy, by all means start orienting your discussion that way. I have links in the OP specifically to help people who may be wondering that. However, someone whose own mind tells them, with their full control, that hey, what if they just stepped into that oncoming traffic? They aren't going to be helped when that same mind is saying "Come on, you don't need these medications, americans are over-medicated and your problem probably isn't a chemical imbalance, it's all in your head. Just stop taking them and get yourself on track, you can trust yourself!" That's the danger of that. If you want to have a discussion about prescripotion culture in the US, by all means open up a thread in D&D or trot over to the goon doctor. But there's a reason this stuff doesn't crop up in the liturgical christianity or muslim threads, because buddhism has this image associated with it of being an alternative to western schema. So people coming here are looking for excuses. Most buddhist teachers will agree that medication can be useful in treating chemical imbalances in the brain (And there ARE chemical imbalances, sometimes behaviour can get the brain to right itself chemically). There is also a difference between say, a minor depressive episode where someone is using medication as a tool to help them overcome that, and saw someone with bipolar who needs medication to operate on the same level as others. However, your comments verge on the vitriolic usually (and I thank you for that post being much calmer than usual, honestly) and you encourage a dissolution of faith in trained authorities (That would by nature include the sangha, you know) or suggesting that someone in a precarious position can trust their own mind? That's dangerous, and there's many sutras which show that you cannot trust a mind, because it is a constructed thing full of poisons, full of aggregate thoughts that pervert the world. There are also lessons in the dharma about making sure the sick seek out proper redress of their ailments, which sure, can include miraculous manifestations of compassion on behalf of a celestial being. But most of us do not have those celestial beings giving us dharma lectures these days. Just, ease off that point, maybe edit it out for safety's sake. And if it's something you truly want to discuss here, with buddhists, please do so in the context of the buddhadharma. Discuss it from that point of view, cite sources for your points, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have the question asking monopolized. Would something like catch and release fishing be considered wrong? It doesn't kill but it does create suffering. You might indeed have it monopolized: Yes, catch and release would be unskillful. It creates suffering, or condoning of suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
PiratePing posted:How about as a social lubricant? Not along the lines of "I'm kind of shy, I'm going to have a drink to loosen up", but like when you want to have an honest conversation with a friend who has trouble opening up to you. A few well-aimed glasses of alcohol can facilitate that kind of communication very well and might be the most 'helpful' way to approach certain types of people, at least in terms of creating a safe and friendly environment where they can feel free to talk. The buddhadharma is about awakening to see the world clearly; alcohol is a step that is purposefully away from that path. It is incompatible totally. One who undertakes the vehicle of the Bodhisattva should neither sell, encourage one to or induce one to alcohol. When you take the precepts, you should abstain from all intoxication. If you cannot do this, if it causes too great a suffering for whatever reason, then one must step back and consider the reason it causes this suffering. That will need to be addressed before you can undertake the training vows of the precepts. In your example: Why is it you are incapable of creating a safe-space for a friend without alcohol? Is it not deceitful to intoxicate someone that they are induced to speak to me when they would otherwise prefer not to? Is it unright to offer that as a way to resolve that situation, will they not then on a basal level associate this drug with resolution of dis-ease? ShadowMoo posted:I'm kinda curious about this. What does Buddhism say about sex and that kind of stuff? I always figured Buddhism required you to stay celibate. It depends on your school. Some schools suggest that you need to be celibate to attain enlightenment because the only path to enlightenment is via monasticism. Other schools (mostly mahayana) hold that even householders can attain enlightenment because it doesn't matter whether they have done these fleshly actions, everything is empty anyways. And then you have a number of esoteric schools which can hold that fleshly union can itself be a path to nirvana, under the right circumstances. The biggest determinant is whether you feel you can attain liberation without participation in the vinaya. Certainly celibacy is always preferable to the alternative; but unless one is a monk it is unimportant. The life of a householder will include carnal pursuits, the dharma is there to help with the resultant fallout. ShadowMoo posted:Hypothetically, if the president of the US was a practicing Buddhist what do you think would be the goals of their time in office? (Basically asking that if a Buddhist was given political power, what would be their goals) I'm assuming for your first question you mean someone who would govern according to their religion? Likely you would see a large increase in social welfare programs and a reduction in meat subsidies and arms production. A revision of agricultural subsidy programs would take a lot of unskillful karma away from taxpayers who don't wish to neglect their brother/sister-beings without outright punishing those who wish to continue to eat for the taste. I imagine limiting arms production for both sale to extra-national entities and cutting military spending would also be steps to eliminate unskillful karma. Social and animal welfare would probably be paramount goals- Nationalized healthcare, education, housing, etc. For the second part of your question, there is no difference between intent and result. When you undertake an action, your intention is itself a result. It is a result of your aggregate experiences and conditions in life guiding you to do what you have judged to be. It's been said many times, but karma is not an arbiter, it's a form of causality. There is a difference between telling someone something out of compassion where it turns out poorly and telling someone something out of malice. But this is divorced from intention because each is a separate action. So, intent matters, but only insofar as it perfumes an action. Someone's own reaction to a precedent event is also a fruition of their own karma, perfumed by the precipitant event's fruiting karma PrinceRandom posted:Is there a substantive philosophical difference between Chan, Seon and Zen? Or is it mostly culture? Yes. They're all the same school, all mahayana. However they are each reflective of the unique culture they emerged from and despite their similarities there are differences in the teachings and sutras of each. This is mostly because of what was available for translation and what has been written since they were founded. Where it's important, they're all the same, the philosophical differences are more minor. Compare it to the various oriental autocephalous orthodoxies. And on a final note, I know this can be an awkward time of the year for everyone. Celebrate what you will, go to mass if it avoids causing distress, do not worry as long as you have the triratna to turn to for refuge. Pray for those suffering beings, and have compassion for them, offer apologies to the plentitude host that will be served on dinner tables. quote:Pray tell me, Bhagavan, . . . regarding the merit of not eating meat, and the vice of meat-eating; thereby I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of the present and future may teach the Dharma to make those beings abandon their greed for meat, who, under the influence of the habit-energy belonging to the carnivorous existence, strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment, and, regarding all beings with love as if they were an only child, will cherish great compassion towards them. Cherishing [great compassion], they will discipline themselves at the stages of Bodhisattvahood and will quickly be awakened in supreme enlightenment; or staying a while at the stage of Sravakahood and Pratyekabuddhahood, they will finally reach the highest stage of Tathagatahood
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
I was responding to another poster, didn't mean to brush off you with that! I'm not going to touch on the enthogenic use of alcohol in some buddhist sects; Even I feel enthogenic use is something better left to the schools themselves. My first question would be: What feasible situation is there where refusing to do intoxicants with them causes severe upset? After-all, you can still order a cranberry juice, or a tonic- perhaps discuss things over a cup of tea or coffee if the discussion occurs in the domestic? Realistically in these situations I would imagine that being there for them, talking to them, sharing the experience with them would do far more to relive the suffering than drinking alcohol. But to suppose your hypothetical, because there is a story wherein a monk drinks alcohol to avoid comitting any other unskillful acts, and commits them anyways because he was drunk. If it objectively causes less unskillful karma (which is near impossible to determine) than maintaining the bodhisattva vows and the precepts and preventing someone from undergoing an unskillful action? Whichever eases the suffering most would be best. The big caveat here is whether social drinking would relive suffering and false conceptions, or whether it will reinforce them, reinforce negative habits dealing with things, etc. I would argue it's more important to address why you need to break a precept than to break it, mindfulness and all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:
This is a good way of putting it- While the precepts aren't commandments they are something that really ought be considered carefully. If you're in the place where you can undertake practicing something, then do so. If you falter, it's not the end of the world, but it's important to recognize why that failing occurred. If you're in a position where you repeatedly fail the precepts, or you are causing or are caused sufferng, it might be worth avoiding the negative karma of not taking the preceps seriously enough- Step back from re-taking them until you sort things out. EDIT: TheRamblingSoul posted:On this note, am I out of line in saying Buddhism, especially in these respects, seems to make a lot more sense than Christianity? It is human to err and stray, why not acknowledge that as a reality in your religion? Buddhism actually has quite a bti in common with liturgical christianity- it's not out of line to say at all. It differs in the fact that buddhism doesn't focus on a god, and in what the exact details of enlightenment are. But attaining the kingdom of god and living in the person of christ are both mystical attainments. Naturally you're going to have quite a bit of overlap with any religious mysticism and buddhism. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
If you're not the same sex as the temple officiants, hand everything to a lay member of the same sex first/recieve things similarly. Don't point. Other than that I wouldnt really know. It's not the lunar new year for another month.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I may be overly paranoid, but this sounds a bit cult-ish. Hi! Let's start with the following: Neither's a cult. Kwan Um is chill, and Diamond Way appears cult-y as hell. But that's just vajrayana for you, first you do ngondro yogas, and then you do guru yogas, then drink-the-flavour-ade-yogas.:v So first: Diamond Way is probably better for you, and also worse. Your first problem with confronting anything buddhism is that you're coming into it from a pretty solidly abrahamic mindset (Most atheists still cling to abrahamic mindsets, just reframed in a non-theistic way). It's all going to seem bizzare and because of your materialist way of thinking it's all going to seem like a horrific cult. Zen or Vipassana are the best way to ease into it without feeling overwhelmed. But that being overwhelmed is also a good thing: It could turn you off of the Dharma and that's Bad. But if you go into something more focused on "Hey let's just meditate and deal with dharma talks later" Then you misconstrue the faith as a philosophy. Kwan Um is good here because they particularly have a strong relationship with getting people into the sangha: Really solid Master-Disciple stuff. The whole communal living thing will be more pushing you to do retreats and uposatha observances. It's not "HEy give us your money and come live in a van" It's more "Listen being a monk is what will make you a bodhisattva, pratyekabuddhahood is super hard." It's been talked about before: Buddhism's biggest flaw is its' monastic orientation- that's what that's about. Diamond Way. . . It's run by a white dude, and you're all racist. Admit it; that's a big reason it seems more like a cult than shambhala (Chogyam Trungpe has WAY more controversy). It's not a cult, I promise you. But it might be heretical! So here's the run-down. In 1959 poo poo went south for tibet. Tons of leaders fled, among them the Karma Kagyu (The Dalai Lama of the Kagyupa buddhists). He taught Ole Nydahl: and what this means is that Nydahl has a pretty legitimate claim to being a Kagyupa lama. However, the Karma Kagyu died: There were two candidates and both managed to be enthroned. The one Communist China supports is the one most Kagyupa support as the legitimate heir; Others like Sharmarpa and Diamond Way support Trinley Thaye Dorje as the heir and 17th Kagyupa. So if they're backing the wrong person then they're technically heretical. Now Vajrayana is full of all kinds of crazy rituals and devotions and religious practises in general; Diamond Way (And shambhala) throw a bunch of these on the backburner to make something more approachable for westerners (Whitey). Their worry is that all the ritual and faith will set your atheist sirens off the way christianity does. Despite that, they have to break you of your mindset and get your mind thinking a certain manner: This is where a bunch of your initiate level rituals help: after doing hundreds of thousands of Yogas, suddenly approaching the more mystic yogas is something that you're able to accept without rejecting it outright as superstitious hooey. And yes, there's poo poo tons of sketchy seeming stuff. Welcome to tantrayana where you look at crazy mandalas and your buddhas wear a necklace of screaming skulls. Mull it over, carefully. Decide what the right path of dharma is for you. Can you handle something with more ritual? Are you strong enough to handle the self-education to make zen work? This is the big thing: How do you want to approach this religion, so that you can fulfill yourself and not walk away utterly hating it/converting to islam/treating it as a philosophy. I'll warn you: Diamond way is pretty much shambhala but supporting a different Kagyupa: There's going to be Tons of hippies. Kwan Um will either throw you out for being white; or wind up feeling more like a meditation class unless you can commit yourself. That's how it breaks down! Guildencrantz posted:Like, I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure "the path to enlightenment is my dick" is not a legitimate Buddhist teaching Drukpa Kunley proves you're just flat-out wrong.  http://imgur.com/tjyyG6C
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Really, taking the eight precepts on uposatha is more of a theravada thing. but mahayana countries will observe vesak. They'll observe maghala puja and maybe asalha puja. but alsa puja and pavarana are more of a theravada thing. important mahayana dates are the days of bodhisattvas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Thanks! It's a lot more to consider than I thought. I do not practise Vajrayana; so take this with that in mind. You'll have to cope with things like offering money or food or water or incense to deities or the equivalent (Celestial beings like bodhisattvas that aren't gods), you'll be encouraged to participate with stuff monks will do like prayer wheels or fire pujas. You'll start yogas with chanting for long life of the guru, it'll be very master-student oriented. A lot of your novitiate practises will be done more for your getting into the habit of rituals than to teach you anything. The purpose will be to break your mindset so that when you get into the higher tantric practises you can accept them as lessons. It's less blind faith to deities (though for your average tibetan. . .) but that's still ritual you'll have to become used to. It's less superstitious than it'd first seem. I promise you that. Buddhism in all its flavours is very empirically oriented. You just have to break some core concepts like "I am a thing, my soul is a thing" or "This is a philosophy". And that will be hard to do with any zen practise; which for many people is just a class to meditate. EDIT: Shakyamuni's birthday on the 8th, new year starts on the 30th. Going to throw up a new set of dates in the OP, try to be inclusive for everyone. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What exactly is meant by "abrahamic mindset"? It that another way of stating the "I have a soul/I am me" way of thinking? Yes. The whole ego-differentiated self, the great chain of being, the conception of divinity as father and not the mystic. Most atheists I run into online or in person, even though they deny the concept of a soul or of god- they've still been enculturated into thinking of a reified ego that stands apart from the world. Still lack the idea of the mystic experience- abnegation of the ego.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I USE TOO MANY WORDS I love you Paramemetic, this is exactly what I am trying to say, and trying to avoid saying with tons of words. Please just marry me you filthy pagan. On a different note: How's the Red Pine commentary and translation on the Lankavatara compare to DT Suzuki's? Is there another english translation/commentary of the sanskrit? Rotten Punk posted:is looking at lolcats breaking the 7th precept? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Lordboots posted:Does this sort of thing work, or is it a kind of incredibly subtle metaphor? Ultimately everything is a subtle metaphor. There is no Cundi beyond what is attributed; there is just compassion. There is no vajrapani, there is just protection, resolution. Both are empty of any real essence- The Hridaya Prajnaparamit reaffirms as much. If you recite the mantra 100,000 times, each time the full dharani, each time visualizing compassionate cundi, you will have auspicious dreams. If you are having the vipaka of worse karmas then you should do it a further 200,000. If you still have those vipakas bearing fruit and clouding your auspiscious dreams, recite a further 700,000 times. Each time the full dharani, each time the visualization. Find a bhikku to help you with this. I guarantee no one in this thread is at a point where they can answer you appropriately.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Because the different schools all have different philosophies. Not always as clear-cut between vajrayana and mahayana. But hugely different between mahayana and theravada. The sutras for one, the different treatment of people who aren't monks. In mahayana it's considered possible to reach enlightenment no matter who or what you're born as. One of the important early figures in a sutra is vimalakirti, who argues with manjushri about the buddhadharma. Mahayana also looks less at attaining enlightment, more helping every other being come to that situation and position in their life.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
You are not misunderstanding; I am trying to be very carwful saying this because part of the bodhisattva vows is not to cast aspersions upon the practicing of the dharma. However, you are right about pure land, some sects such as nichiren take it further and say there is no longer any truth to dharma outside of the pure lands. As for the schools, they do, not between say, zen, chan and theon. But between Theravada and mahayana? Hugely. Theravada is a later attempt to return to Sravakayana style buddhism, thus the name. Theravada is a corruption of Sthaiviravada. Mahayana sees that as more selfish, backwards, outmoded. There's less cohesion between different mahayana sects than within theravada schools. Mahayana is in general all about three fundamental concepts: Attainment of Dharma outside the pali canon (And even in some cases non-reliance upon texts!). Acceptance of Bodhisattvas: Beings who have pledged to be born again and assist all others in attainment. Tathagatagarbha, which is the inherent buddha qualities of all beings. Conversely many Theravadins see Mahayana as a corruption, as heterodoxy. This is all without even touching vajrayana.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
You're using hinayana unironically again. Also pure lands are not Pure Land buddhism. Pure lands in tibetan buddhism are just the same cosmological feature as you find in a lot of mahayana. Pure Land Buddhism(tm) instead refers to Japanese Buddhism from the kamakura era (excepting soto and rinzai) and Nichiren-shu/Nichiren-Shoshu. Specifically Jodo-Shinshu, Ji-shu, Yuzu Nembutso and Jodo-shu. Basically they took the idea of the ages of dharma and ran all out with it: We live in the age of Mo Fa (I don't recall the japanese) wherin the dharma is degenerating. Because the dharma is corrupt and because our ability to process dharma is waning, we must rely on outside or other power to attain liberation. Specifically the primal vow of Amitabha, and through special devotional acts strive for rebirth in his pure land. That's pretty different from the pure land concept you're talking about. All beings CANNOT, and WILL NOT, attain liberation without reliance on Amida Butsu.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:The 8th of what? Ive always been told Shakyamuni was born, illumined, died the full moon of May. Thus come, gone. Sorry, that's my bad. I meant enlightenment day, for some reason I put birthday, because. . . Anyways, it's just a minor doctrinal thing, the auspiscious day for his enlightenment is the 8th day of the 12th lunar month. The one on the full moon in may is Vesak, which is a day to commemorate shakyamuni's birth, nirvana and parinirvana. eh, differences. Gantolandon posted:So... if dharma is waning from the world and pretty much all enligtened beings get reborn in Amitabha's realm which is isolated from the rest of the world, doesn't it mean that not everyone will be able to attain enlightenment? It seems like the end result would be everyone able to be enlightened chilling out in the Pure Land and plenty of beings trapped outside, not even knowing their only way to salvation. Bear with me, I am having a bad day with my hands; writing things is super difficult for me to do right now. So, to ramble a bit more about Jodo Bukkyo and give some insight into the theological constructs here (Again understand I mean neither to disparage this flavour of Mahayana, nor do I practise it.) Yes, it does mean that not everyone will be able to attain enlightenment this kalpa. This finds its theological roots in things like the fa-xian translation of the mahaparinivana sutra which holds that an icchantika is so utterly severed from buddhadharma that, despite being posessors of it, their karmas will manifest so as to keep them from realizing tathagatagarbha. From this they arrived at (Because we are in the Ma Fo) all beings having become icchantikas. The only way then, to attain liberation is not through any capacity of individual karmic agency- But instead to realize the union with Amida Butsu that emanates from his Primal Vow that created sukhavati. Through participating in the concept of the Nembutsu (Namu Amida Butsu)we are capable of hearing the Name and attaining the pure land instantaneously. At the same time being reborn in the pure land and having set our karma in line to be nonexistent, for the true dharma will be spread only at Amitabha's feet. Until Maitreya is born. Paramemetic posted:Stuff
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
It's easy to be mindful if you're sitting quietly in a room with a shrine and candles and whatever have you, you're calm, had a good day, the temperature is nice. But it is important as well, to be mindful of other things: When you're angry, sad, when something distracts you. As well, regarding pets: They don't know how to practise buddhadharma as much as we would like to help them. It's good then, to practise with your pets in some regard, so as to give them the chance to have skillful karma. IF you close them out, or cause them distress then you could give them the wrong idea about buddhadharma and their next birth might not be as fruitful. They've been given a pretty good one being the pet of a buddhist! There was a zen student, in the winter he went to his roshi and said he was having difficulty meditating because he was so cold. "Kill Cold." the master replied. In summer his robes caused him distress and discomfort. "Kill Hot" the master replied. So basically kill your dog.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 15:58
|
|