|
Folderol posted:I have an improved understanding of Avici as a result of this discussion. Gotta be honest, goatman was a turning word. I have understood void and am now tathagata.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Getting up before others is a very good idea, but while practical for cumshot in the dark, I know the kind of awkwardness shnooks is talking about- The dharma should not be a chore. It should be something that we can turn to as a refuge when things get tough. I know through other conversations that a sangha is not feasible for you. In these cases it might be best to rely upon an affirmation of refuge in the triple gem. Just live life until such time as your practise can reap more fruit. Some things I would strongly recommend for people in this situation is to keep some sort of shrine set up, a sacred space no matter how small or grandiose. It could be just as simple as a light before a small postercard of the buddha. Just some quick bowing in the morning, turning on the ligh or lighting the candle. maybe an incense offering. Counting mala is also a great and fairly innocuous thing to do. With some preparatory practise of getting comfortable with these mantras, recitation becomes both a propitiatory action and a meditation. Proclaim the hridaya prajnaparamita mantra and know emptiness and all. This is also good for when you are on vacation. Plus malas not only serve as an outward reminder and signifier of faith, they can look totally ballin'. Example of a dirt-basic shrine anyone can set up.  Vladimir Poutine posted:Paramemetic, your posts in this thread have been really great. EDIT: If the buddhadharma forbade caffeine, and by extension tea, many monks would explode. It is good that beginner meditators not rely too heavily on it, and some teachers will require a renunciation of caffeine for novitiates because it can lead to over-dependence. If you are drinking it to such excess that it is causing problems- it likely needs to be addressed, but for other reasons. Tobacco, as an example, can make someone feel woozy, off their feet. Hookah bars are agood example of how it can cause heedlessness. Caffeine intoxication just makes someone feel like crap, though they are still heedful. Caffeine can be useful in the practise of dharma, it can be enjoyable- it is not essential, nor is it inherently harmful. It is a vehicle and expedient means perhaps. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 23:40 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
That's a new age lady who makes and sells jewelry is what kind of buddhism it is.  Specifically, mantras are powerful things. They are given to us as recitations to trick ourselves into enlightenment. Usnisasitapatra and the White Dzambhala are deities usually associated with tibetan vajrayana- very popular in new age circles. The concept of spending money to adorn the dharma is a well-grounded one. If we must make shows of wealth and fashion, certainly the dharma is the best avenue for that! But, y'know. Probably better to just support a monastery or nunnery.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Sithsaber posted:His prestige is illusionary. The Dalai Lama never traditionally wielded the power to declare associated lamaseries straight up heretical First: The ban was suggested by the ganden tripa- the head of tibetan gelugpa buddhism and not the dalai lama. HHDL, following the advice of the ganden tripa, who at the time was his tantric master, helped suggest that other gelugpa practitioners not engage in this dangerous practise. Second: You really want to be careful when talking about the "traditional" power of the dalai lama- Given that, y'know, historically the dalai lama was not only the major religious power of central asian buddhist society. . .But y'know the supreme power of the cho-sid-nyi (Paramemetic is that the correct pinyin?), supreme enough that the most powerful civil authority in tibet was abolished by the whim of the seventh dalai lama. You know the dalai lama, in his "illusory" position of prestige and the kowtowing of westerners excommunicated an entire school of tibetan buddhism? Third: Actually traditionally? The fifth dalai lama (Note we're on number fourteen) is the one who banned Dorje Shugden practise when he consolidated supreme authority under the oirat/dzunghar mongols. Maybe you don't consider it traditionally though, it did happen just five hundred years ago Fourth: Kelsang Gyatso never completed his geshe degree, he flunked out. He's not just a heretic, he's an unqualified one, and if you'd watched the video he is deliberately schismatic (an action which prompts a birth in the greatest of the hell realms) but promotes his own worship as a living buddha Shugden isn't some pre-buddhist figure he's cracking down on. While the roots certanly extend to prebuddhist times (Mahakala being similar, as an appropriation of then-developing shaivist yoga) the figure of dorje shugden which causes controversy is one that is entirely buddhist in its conception. Sithsaber posted:Apparently these guys figured out buddha loss is dependent on linguistics, and are cheating the system by translating a poo poo ton of tibetan manuscripts. Now they should either realize that ecen the dalai lama wants to bury poo poo (djurgen shugden etc) or they should expand and wander forgotten caves in Burma and Pakistan so they can complete their impossible and slightly naive vision. I also cannot find them speaking at all about buddha loss or cheating any sort of system- What I see is them describing an earnest effort to not only attempt a preservation of classical tibetan (which is very endangered as a language), but working on translating this classical tibetan with the few remaining that understand it, just in case. Why just in case? The PRC might put a bullet in any of the old monks out in those "lamaseries" that could save it. Classical chinese is taught in secondary schools, even in lhasa. The chinese mahayana canon then, is technically accessible to the citizenry and is widely available to scholars. It's pretty strange you'd call this serious linguistic effort a naive vision- it also has gently caress all to do with other forms of buddhism, so I'm not sure why they'd have to go trumping around in caves in burma and pakistan to accomplish their goal of translating texts they have full access to in libraries. Despite what you say- this is actually a really great project and a good example of crowdfunding worthy academia. PrinceRandom posted:It's just the Chinese precursor to Zen isn't it? I would imagine it would function similarly, though I think there priest are more "conservative" than the Japanese in the sense that they are celibate and require Vegetarianism. Chan is indeed the precursor school for japanese zen. It's not totally fair to call it more conservative though, when you consider that much of japanese zen is reaching out to Chan to recover traditions and texts they'd lost. I would also argue that zen technically requires vegetarianism and celibacy for its monks- but in many of those instances the vinaya is never taken in lieu of cultivating a hereditary temple position. Decrees of the emperor of japan and all. Still, that's all aside from his question. Chan founded kung-fu. Doesn't get cooler than that. I don't have any experience with dharma drum, but I do with Chan. It's a good and solid school, well founded in mahayana thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Sithsaber posted:I want him to act like the king of Nepal. I don't even like The British monarchy The king of nepal has plans to return the office of the monarchy and will likely re-attempt to seize power. Against popular protests otherwise. Contrast this with the Dalai Lama, who went against popular wishes and spoke to his government to remove himself from political office permanently. He's not even the head of the Gelug lineage, as I pointed out earlier that's the Ganden Tripa. He's just the most-high lama of the gelugpa (and arguably tibetan buddhism in general at this point) Sithsaber posted:1. The Shugden ban had to be overturned, and the dorje shugden people "celebrate" (more like preach the futility of standing against their god ) their survival. If you'd read 84000, you'd know their goal is the translation of the kangyur and tengyur- which would make them ecumenical and not just gelugpa. It also has nothing to do with syncretism or folk religious adoption because its goal is the translation and preservation of canon. Now- let's talk sects. the Phagmodrupa, Rinpungpa and Tsangpa. These were brutal warlords and absolute monarchs that held their power in concentrated fortresses and slave plantations enfeoffed by their supplication to the yuan imperial mandate. Tibet's appointed religious heads were the sakyapa, one of your sects. The Sakyapa head is drawn from the male members of a dynasty- they are arguably a theocratic monarchy. With the collapse of the Yuan imperial mandate backing the phagmodrupa, the Kagyu and Nyingma schools rose to a brief prominence further shattering tibet from the control of the phagmodrupa dynasty. Meanwhile, the recent gelug school's influence over central asian horde polities allowed them a chance to force an ecumenism and peace among warlords. Fifth Dalai Lama, with the backing of Gushi Khan reuinted tibet under mongolian politics. The Desi was the chief secular authority acting in behalf of the mongols. Seventh Dalai lama found this position was fast approaching too much power and abolished it, declaring the kashag. Let's talk the dorje shugden ban- Dolgyal was banned in the fifteen hundreds by the dalai lama. Dolgyal is not bonpo, Dolgyal is purely buddhist. Purely Gelug. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it was reinstituted by a hugely popular monk, Pabongka. This monk declared that Bon practitioners could not be buddhists. He cracked down on an ecumenical movement because he felt it violated gelug supremacy. He was not the head of the gelug, he was not the dalai lama. He threw out the teachings of the founder regarding tutelary gyalpos and deities of the gelugpa to promote the tutelary properties of a violent anti-ecumenical spirit. To give you some perspective on the "tradition" and "history" of the dalai lama's position? The prime minister of italy is an illusory position of prestige by your definition. Historically the prime minister of italy hasn't had legislative power! It wasn't until the 1860s when the risorgimento- a violent invasion of a minority of military troops backed by foreign powers imposed their will against the wishes of the italian polities. Of course we recognize the italian state as legitimate and recognize the authority of the italian government over its own people. You come a Sithsaber posted:Come on, I probably got that spelling from a old book. (Or the animal) I spelled it wrong, who gives a poo poo. And I'm actually going to call bullshit on this. Lamaseries as a word describing the monastic system of tibet reeks of orientalist bunk, especially lhamasseries. I can't help but feel you're arguing out of your rear end just for the sake of arguing given how over the place you are. Points for being spot-on with the cutting edge of uninformed westerner views though EDIT: mcustic posted:Paramemetic, you are a lineage holder? Can you tell us more about that? It means he's a member of a chuch, essentially. He's a follower of Kagyu tibetan buddhism. By lineage holder it means that his teacher is the student of a student of a student of a student of a student of a student etc. . . of the kagyu founders. Lineage of scholastic succession is usually the primary method of hierarchy within buddhism. Comparable examples in western religious history would be something like the succession of cluniac benedictine christianity in france until the the rival succession of the bernardine/cistercian orders. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Sithsaber posted:Lhamasary is a "monastery" of lamas. We also use the word temple and sanctuary in ways that are technically incorrect.k Nothing else to remark, eh? As well, it's not an issue of technical correction or pedantry, it's an issue of using orientalist terminology. Like Mohammedan to mean Muslim. mcustic posted:Oh, I thought that was a very rare thing, like in Zen. There are only a few dozen living Rinzai lineage holders in the entire Japan, and in Soto Zen it's needed for the entry level of priesthood. It's actually common for buddhism in general! In vajrayana, where even tantras are technically accessible to laity there's no real qualms about saying that the laity possesses the capacity to hold the lineage. Chan for example traces lineage through the twenty eight indian patriarchs and then the six chinese patriarchs- following that it's a division of differing schools. I believe sri lankan theravada has similar monastic succession in terms of schools and tradition. You might suggest that the patriarchates of Myanmar and Thailand are a means of organizing monastic succession outside of lineage in technicality. But in practise it works like a more state ordained lineage. Certainly Mahasi Sayadaw and Forest Traditions for Myanmar and Thailand respectively represent this tradition of scholastic succession as subsects. With regards to Japanese zen it's more representative of Mahayana in general. Technically laity could be said to be holders of a lineage, but it's pointless to call them that, as only monks have the capacity to propagate that lineage further.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Alright, I'm going to jump in here because you both are wrong and confused about theravada and hinayana. Theravada IS "Hinayana", insofar as the term is being used. Hinayana is an antiquated and derogatory term used by Mahayanists and Vajrayanists to discuss a group of Schismatics. However, what the term means is those buddhists that reject the turnings of the wheel of dharma and reject the bodhisattva ideal. It refers to Sravakayana paths. Both Theravada and the Mahayana/Vajrayana recognize the path of the Pratyekabuddha as a thing. There is an argument made by Theravadins that they are not "hinayana" because it is argued that "hinayana" refers to the sthaviravada, sautrantrika and sarvastivada (among other lesser, similar schools). All of which are now defunct and dead. This argument does not work- While mahayanists found major doctrinal defuncts among these schools (perhaps contributing to calling them lesser vehicle) the accusation of lesser-vehicle hood is levied in practise against the foundational aspects of mahayana which essentially constitutes what Theravadins would call orthodox buddhism. Discipleship, or Sravakayana. "Hearing" the buddha's dharma. Meaning to focus on attainment through study of the pali canon and resultant drive to Arahatship. Theravada does have Bodhisattas, but these are distinct from mahayana. They might be folk figures or leftover from when these countries were mahayana and incorporated into the folk practises. But mostly a Theravada usage of bodhisatta is for one that will become a buddha. Someone about to attain Paccekabuddhahood would be a Paccekabodhisatta. Prior to his birth as Gautama, Shakyamuni was a bodhisatta. It has naught to do with the bodhisatta ideal really. Theravada also descends from the Sthaviravadins, which were one of the schools denigrated as "Hinayana". Further, ven. Xuanzhang even called them as much when he'd made his trip to sri lanka. Theravada is not a suitable stand-in for "hinayana". Hinayana is an awful term to use for Sravakayana. Theravadins are fine calling mahaynists heretics and practitioners of adharma, just do likewise with Theravada if you insist on being petty and schismatic. Theravada does have progressions that are reserved for later and more practised students- It is not esoteric mystical wizard practises like you find in Vajrayana. It does feature a teacher student relationship- but this is more akin to discipleship than a guru relationship. These are just things that are in every buddhism, Finally, to say this- None of this is meant to disparage Theravada or Sravakayana. Even the most Hinayana-sing Vajrayanist would call it a foundational thing that you're meant to build upon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
ickbar posted:Words Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
I would be more concerned that those yogins demonstrating the Rddhi would be doing so duplicitiously, or in violation of vows. It is very possibly an emanation of mara, or one of the asuras. Still, please do share your experiences.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
ickbar posted:Dogs Those are not the siddhis. "Low-level" or otherwise, those sound strongly of the low arts practised by wrongly guided brahmins and recluses warned against in the Brahamajala Sutta's Mahasila discourse. The casting out or dealing with spirits in earth houses, the telling of fortunes or reading of predictions are the debased arts that the Buddha avoided. Also- it is not common for the pretas to manifest in such a way? Insofar as I'm aware. Are you sure it wasn't just the dogs or monks having fun?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Maya is much more a hindu term, and is itself relatively rarely used in the Mahayana canon. Where it is more frequently used is in sanskrit word compounds. It is also a little dangerous to see buddhism as hinging on reality itself being illusory. It's more apt to say that there is an objective reality, an objective truthness (The tathagatagarbha) that is masked by illusion. It still matters not whether reality is perceived as illusory- as the end goal is the cessation of suffering. It with this obliteration of suffering that the Yogin would be attained by an ultimate reality- without illusory thoughts. For those of us not so developed, that realm is hard enough to even conceptualize. Here:Akasagarbhasutra posted:We see that this great being
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Blurred posted:So far as I understand it, in some Buddhist traditions the answer is simply that the dhamma is the sum total of what the Buddha taught: is that correct? In these traditions, is it assumed that the Buddha was the originator of the dhamma or merely that he was the first to properly understand and express it? Did Buddha's enlightenment grant him the unique wisdom to create a (the?) dhamma, or did it just give him the ability to discern what was already a fact of the universe? The first thing to do, which I think would clear up a lot of your questions is to address the different meanings of "Dharma". Simply, it means law, but practically that changes on context. It can be used to refer to phenomenal occurances- objects, abstract conceptualizations, words, anything which has cognition imposed upon it can be called a dharma. Things which might be lawlike as well, such as old age or death. This usage is also found pluralized into Dharmas. Dharma also refers to the fundamental truth of the universe, the absolute truth at the core of buddhism. Building off of this, dharma is also a shorthand for Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma is the formalization and expounding of that fundamental truth- the Dharma of the Dharma. The line blurs here in usage, because the only expression of the dharma or the only formalization is that buddhadharma, so it is often used interchangeably. Addressing the questions with that- The Dharma is an absolute fact of the universe, the Buddha attained to this. When this attainment occured, the Buddha expounded a way, a path to know this absolute fact. Since it can't really be expressed otherwise, this path is called the Dharma out of practicality, as it is just as true. Technically the Buddha was not the first to express it, he is the twenty eighth buddha by traditional reckoning, but the only buddha of our current age, the only one to give us our dharmas. Buddha's enlightenment both granted him the wisdom to discern the fact of the universe, and create the dharma to express that. Blurred posted:In most religious traditions, moral behaviour can generally be assumed to come from one of two sources: explicit divine commandment or divine "inspiration" (e.g. "grace" in Christianity). I'm having trouble placing Buddhism in either of these two categories, or even somewhere between. I understand that moral behaviour within Buddhism is meant to come from adherence to the dhamma, but I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how dhamma is conceived in Buddhist thought or what exactly its source is assumed to be. Buddhism takes a strongly teleological approach to ethics. The merit of actions is judged by whether or not such actions are conducive to the attainment of liberation. A good deed is only good if the cultivation of an enlightened mind is a result. The source of this moral impetus is the mind itself, or more appropriately the capacity for beings to attain enlightenment. Within the two sources you suggest Divine Command theory is inapplicable to buddhism because froma buddhist standpoint, to be morally good is to strive towards nirvana. Certainly you could say that because of the organized traditions of the Buddhadharma that the vinaya and religious duties to discipline imposed on followers constitutes a command from the incarnation of transcendent wisdom. However, the recognition of Dharma as absolute law of the universe overrides the authority of the teachings or words of the buddha. Indeed buddhist religious tradition holds the concept of Pratyekabuddhas. Beings that attain to nirvana without having heard the dharma and in isolation. Samyaksambuddhas, those that are like the buddha, attain without prior "commandments" either! You could suggest inspirational sources for the ethical compulsion in a buddhist sense. Or rather, a mahayanist sense- The tathagatagarbha, or buddha-seed within people might drive them to ethical actions. But this is not a proper understanding- tathagatagarbha lacks agency, and even semantically it can't be said to be the reason these ethical constructs are true. It describes a potentiality, a tendancy, for enlightenment within beings. It operates in the way the capacity for a wheel to roll does. The wheel's capacity to roll is not the source of the rolling, it is not the law of motion which keeps it rolling. This is where it becomes tempting to apply a deontological ethic to buddhism. We cannot perfectly know the results of actions. Some actions might be easy to deduce the outcomes of, but even then a perfect knowledge of that action is going to be nigh-impossible because of the mental and cognitive conditions imposed upon the discrimination of that action. Those who have attained to the dharma however have that capacity to discriminate without mental conditioning and may then know actions perfectly. The words then of these beings, their disciplines and the duty they implore us to can be said to be examples of morality. The ultimate source of this being "human" capacity, perfectly human. Done through reasoned observation and study- honed by discipline, known by freedom. Blurred posted:These passages seem to indicate that dhamma is a facet of reality, that can only be approached individually, through religious praxis. If so, where does this leave the status of Buddha's teachings? Are they mere guides on this view, or do they still carry a great deal of authoritative weight? Is the assumption similarly that the closer one gets to an understanding of dhamma, the more "ethical" they are likely to be? Or does dhamma in such traditions carry a less ethical, more phenomenological meaning? I would be especially interested if someone can comment on the link between dhamma and logos just mentioned there? You are correct in that only individual approach to Dharma is valid. However, calling the words or teachings of the buddha "mere" guides is a little wrong. They are a guide, but a strongly authoritative one. If enlightenment is being able to swim, the buddha is an olympic swimmer. His teachings are lessons on how to swim and be a good swimmer. Incredibly valueable! But if you've read and read and studied and reasoned and logiced the actions of swimming it will not mean anything when you are thrown into the water. Hopefully they give you an understanding of what to do, but it's practise that teaches swimming and by extension enlightenment. A being that has a more developed understanding of Dharma is more likely to be ethical, yes. To touch on the link between dharmakaya and logos- Dharmakaya is understood as one of the modes of expression of enlightened beings (and to an extent all beings). It is the expression of beings as co-union with dharma. In the Theravada tradition, the Dharmakaya of the buddhas is the corpus of dharma and practise left behind. In mahayana traditions it is more related to the logos- The Dharmakaya is a transcendental and perfect wisdom that is the being of buddhas from which their bodies, and our experiences of them emerges. It is them as utter perfections of the Dharma. In vajrayana buddhism the Dharmakaya is the closest to the logos. More than just the utter perfection of the dharma it is the total absolute of all reality, the total dharma and truth uncreated. It is without conceptual elaboration and without duality. It is the body of reality itself without delimited form, without inherent existence and without inherent nonexistence. ickbar posted:It was a true story but you're right it has absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a safe probe to see what kind of reaction I'd get from the thread. Some of the hostility doesn't really suprise me, what does suprise me though is the reaction of somebody whom I'd respected and helped in the past, who suddenly turned against me. Disappointing but nothing new I haven't experienced, I would recommend everyone here to be-careful with whom you make friends with. It's easy to fall for flattery, but when the chips are down that's when you find out who is worth trusting. I think perhaps you are reading into things too much? It does not seem as though you are greeted as much hostility as you think. Although it is understandable that you would be offput by some of the snide humor and skepticism. These are important experiences, personal and intimate. Much can be attached to that and it can be wounding when it's not well recieved. I would encourage you not to be so dissuaded! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Though H.H. 14th Dalai lama had already stepped down as any sort of head of the Tibetan people, it's still a little galling to see the dissolution of any sort of traditional central asian history like this. It's as though Jigme Wangchuk were to renounce the Raven crown entirely from his nation. It is worth noting though that the Gelugspa have never been lead by the Dalai Lama- that honor has, and will still rest with the Ganden Tripa, an elected and temporary office of Throne-Holding. It's super probable that Zopa Rinpoche will occupy that office at some point in his life, the current Ganden Tripa is not only fuckoff old, but his office is due to expire in 2016 for a new holder. That's the year to watch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Nothing about the Heart Sutra is tongue in cheek. You can imagine many Buddhist teachers reciting it with kind of a knowing self-satisfaction, because they think they know what it means. They have no idea. No one has any idea. "Having an idea" in this context is suffering itself. The Heart Sutra is completely literal. The Bhagavan Sakyamuni posted:“Listen well, O companions, for bodhisattva mahāsattvas who are beginners one must explain the six perfections with a reference point, with the notion that suchness is expressible. That is to say, they must understand the nature of the great elements to be arising and perishing. Only then should they familiarize themselves with the idea that all phenomena are in essence inexpressible, non-arising, non-ceasing, not perceptible, and not in the slightest way existing." You will be very hard pressed to find a learned teacher in mahayana that assumes the heart sutra is anything short of literal: but there is still meaning in it, meaning that must be dissected, that must be understood. It is likewise the word and truth of the dharma, the very essence and heart of dharma, that there are concepts which require understanding. The essence of Dharma is incapable of being expressed in words clearly and perfectly. "Law" is fairly close, don't misunderstand me. However, so important are a host of sutras that the faith could begin and end with any of them. Teachers are hugely requisite, as is a sort of coming to terms or understanding the sutra. It is also difficult to know it very well in english, I would recommend looking at a closer derivation linguistically- at least to the sanskrit source. "Na duhkhasamudayanirodhamarga. Na jnanam, Na praptir Na-apraptih" is far more adept and accurate than it is to say it's all a profound emptiness. I cannot understate how very important it is to approach it understanding that a teacher, that traditions that have undergone centuries of inquiry and trial and composition of philosophy probably have a more apt understanding than novitiates on the internet, yourself included. I would worry that there is a fair bit of dismissal here of exactly those traditions or understandings because of personal assumptions and attachments. Keep well in mind that our own thoughts are neither trustworthy nor verifiable sources of insight without outside input. These thoughts are afflicted by all the kleshas that can mitigate personal understandings, having a sangha or a teacher is fantastically important. Even if that teacher is part of a religion. One that has mystic attachments :v
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 05:47
|
|