|
If i only had to read one book about zen, i think it would be "Zen mind, beginner's mind" ! Everything is in it. You got really simple and down to earth practice advice, but also more philosophical points of view, a lot of humor, and a very poetic and strange style. If by "difficult" you mean that sometimes you don't understand, it's totally normal and it is also what makes this book so valuable : first because it teaches you that you don't need to understand everything and that it's ok, which is something really important in zen, you don't have to "know", things don't have to "make sense", there are paradoxes everywhere ; but more importantly, you can read it multiple times, following your progress in practice, and always discover new things about practice that were in the book from the beginning but that you did not understand before. It is a book i read at least 4 times in the last year, and every time my understanding of it evolves. It truly is one great book. If you want something that makes sense and is a lot more easy to understand, you can try Nishijima's "Facing the real dragon", which gives biological and philosophical explanations of zen but also really strong practice advice. Then maybe one day try to read Nishijima's translation of Dogen's "Shobogenzo", it's wonderful, but it can take a lifetime to study it properly.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
I would be careful with those kind of statements though... Anyone talking about the "true" way, should be avoided in my humble opinion. I really don't think buddhism is about controlling your passions, denying the physical world, etc. At least i'm sure zen buddhism is not. It's more like : find out who you are. In that quest you often discover that most of the things you thought you needed are useless, and you attach less to them ; but saying "don't attach to things and leave everything material behind" makes no sense if it doesn't come naturally, from acknowledging who you are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Oh no Paramememetic, i was reacting to this post :Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. Sorry, i should have been more precise... (About "finding who you are", i did not want to use that expression to mean that you have to find out about your personality or such ; finding who you are, for me, means realizing that "who you are" is not something stable, it's always moving, it IS movement and time itself. When you realize that, attachments cease by themselves.) Those last days i have had my practice tested ; it was really difficult and interesting at the same time. I had terrible tooth ache, had to undergo surgery to remove my wisdom teeth, etc etc ; it is in those moments, not too terrible but a bit unnerving with the constant pain, the stress from the surgery, etc, that you have a chance to see where you are in the practice. Well, all i can say is that i am far from being calm, wise, and cool when things go wrong. I was desperate, i tried to use practice to get better, i wanted to cry, i bothered everyone around me, ahaha, it was quite a mess ; but at the same time, i did keep practicing, and it helped me a lot ; but when it helped me the most is when i did not try to do anything at all. It is "easy" (not really) when everything is ok ; but when everything hurts, it's a whole different experience, it becomes very hard to not want things to be different. Finally i think that i came to the point that Kodo Sawaki often mentions : "zazen is good for nothing" ; you cannot practice zazen for yourself or for something else, you practice zazen for zazen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Folderol posted:I'm surprised to see the reference to Kodo Sawaki - are you in the Southern U.S. by any chance? Hello Folderol ! No, i'm in France. Here, the most famous teacher was Taisen Deshimaru ; he established most of the zen centers in the country during the 70s and 80s, and his teachings are the most well known. However, there are also a few teachers (including mine) who are from Nishijima's lineage (same as Brad Warner) ; and Nishijima is from Kodo Sawaki's lineage, so we know about Kodo Sawaki... But anyway, i think by now i have read most of the 20th century zen master's books and teachings, i guess ; and i just love Kodo Sawaki, even if there is no book from him, the current antaiji abbot gathered his teachings on his site, here is my favourite, "To you" : http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/kodo-sawaki-to-you.shtml There are also a few very good and moving texts about Sawaki and his friends / disciples in the book "Living and Dying in zazen". The stories of the japanese zen masters are incredible ; from the guy who spent his life practicing zazen in a park and playing the flute, to the man who practiced 9 hours a day for years and years and basically did nothing else, it's quite crazy and beautiful. It's a book i would recommend to anyone interested in zazen !
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
My pleasure ! I'm sure you will love that book, it tells the story of a guy from the US who travels all the way to Japan during the 60s or 70s, to meet all the zen masters of the country. It's easy to read, full of wonderful stories, and really moving too. It's really interesting, too, to see how each teacher has his own style. Of course all zen masters have things in common, but Deshimaru's approach is not the same as Nishijima's (for example Deshimaru focuses on the breathe above all, while Nishijima does not) ; but at the same time, they both studied with Kodo Sawaki... Ugrok fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Well here, it means that someone has received "dharma transmission" from a master. For example, if Nishijima gives you transmission, then you are a "zen master". It's as simple as that ! You can then picture whole lineages of teaching ; my teacher, for example, received transmission from Nishijima, who received it from Sawaki, etc etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Well, of course, Yiggy is right, it is a very problematic matter. But it is simply solved in my opinion ; if a zen master gives to someone dharma transmission, then this person is able to teach. It means that person practiced a lot and knows the teachings very well. At the same time, of course, anyone claiming he is a zen master is potentially dangerous and should be looked at carefully. People have to look for themeselves ; for example, when i "chose" to begin studying with my teacher, i carefully researched about him, who taught to him, etc etc ; i read everything he wrote, i read everything his own teacher wrote, and i tried to decide very carefully if i was ok or not with it. For soto zen, there are a few criterias (of course these are not absolute rules, it's just my opinion on the matter, feel free to disagree / correct things), i think, that can help you determining if a "zen master" is an alright guy or not. Someone who asks for money should be avoided. Someone who tries to seduce you or manipulate you in any way (not flirting, but promising you that you will become a better person with him, etc) should be avoided. Someone who makes promises about enlightenment or things like that should be avoided. Someone who makes you feel too comfortable should be, in my opinion, avoided. Someone who accepts to play "daddy" for you should be avoided. The few certified teachers i talked to have a point in common : they don't care at all about what you feel, or think, etc ; they are really nice people, they can listen very well and they feel very open, but at the same time very very solid, they just say what they have to say and that's it. It's not that they are not empathic, i don't know how to describe it correctly, but you will know if you meet one...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
For zen, it really depends on the teacher, the dojo, the lineage, etc... I practiced in dojos where everything was extremely ritualized (and i hated it - it does not work with me), and i also practiced in dojos where there were only minimal rituals : a bell for the beginning and the end of the meditation. I know that, for example, Nishijima, who is an important japanese zen master, leads zazen sessions without rituals. He meditates exactly like other people in the dojo. There is a very good book about wether to practice with or without rituals, it is "Opening the hand of thought" by Uchiyama ; this zen master, who was the abbot of antai ji for a long time, invented what he calls "sesshin without toys". For him, rituals are "toys" that are here to help the meditators, they are something to cling on, to attach to ; that's why he decided to not have any. He is a bit extreme maybe (his sesshins lasted one week, but during this week people practiced 15 hours of zazen a day) but the book is really really interesting nonetheless. In the end, it's up to you : just know that if you don't like rituals, there are people who practice without any. In my opinion it is better to do without them (for me zazen is about removing things that i may attach to, not add some more), but to each his own : i know people who cannot practice without rituals, and also rituals also have a meaning, they can also be a way of practicing, so at least they deserve respect for what they are...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
In zen (i don't know about other practices), meditation is about leaving, losing ; it's about stopping to attach to things and thoughts, whatever they are. It seems to me that it is contradictory to listen to music in that context : it's just something more to cling to, and believe me, you have enough things to cling to already with your own mind and body alone, no need to add more, especially during a practice that aims to lessen those attachments ! If i were you (and luckily for you i'm not, ahah), i would just listen to music when i want to listen to music, and meditate when i want to meditate. You don't have to get things mixed up. Of course you can use concentration techniques to listen to music, that's not a problem at all ; but i would not call that meditation anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:I also have a posture related question. I've read cautionary tales about sitting full lotus only if your flexible enough to do so, but nothing seems to ever go into what is flexible enough. I can sit full lotus but to get into position I normally lift my foot onto my leg with my hands. I can stay full lotus comfortably for quite a while, I tend to meditate for 20 minutes at a time and have noticed that my legs have fallen asleep by the time I'm done, but I don't experience any real discomfort, am I safe to carry on like this? Also I've listened to a Gil Fronsdale talk about meditation and he says there are benefits to sitting full lotus over half lotus and Burmese style, but doesn't go into those benefits, can anybody tell me what they could be? First of all, i think the main rule is to not hurt yourself and take things really slowly. If youre comfortable in lotus during 20 minutes, it's great, and if you want to meditate longer, just add a minute every few months. At first my legs went asleep in 15 minutes (theres is absolutely no danger with "sleeping legs" by the way), now it is 30. So yes i think you are safe. Pain is the indicator here ; if you don't feel pain other that something that lasts a few minutes after you stop, then you're ok. Some teachers advise that you change your legs position in full lotus every session. It's really interesting when you meditated only in one leg position for a long period of time, to try to change for the first time. You feel completeley different and you realize how one sided you were, it's a whole new world ; then you get used to it pretty fast. I sit morning and evening ; in the morning i put my right leg on top first, in the evening i put the left leg on top. Change your hands position accordingly if you are practicing zazen (even if dogen advises to always put the right hand on the left hand, in the end it can lead to shoulder balance issues, especially if you change legs). The rule that Muho, abbey of antaiji, gives, is the following : If you put your right leg on top of your left thigh first, then you put your right hand on your left hand. If you put your left leg on top of your right thigh first, then you put your left hand on your right hand. About the advantage of the lotus position, well, really, try all the other leg positions for a while, then go back to full lotus, and you will feel it. It's incredibly stable, balanced, powerful ; Suzuki also says that it makes your body a kind of whole block where left and right are mixed, because your legs are firmly crossed and you sort of dont know which one is right or left anymore. All other postures tend to be a bit unbalanced, be it on the front / back axis or the left / right axis. But try them all and find what you prefer !
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
For zen guys, here is the first article of a long serie (maybe 15) of articles about the zazen posture, written by Muho, abbot of antaiji, who learned with Uchiyama : http://antaiji.dogen-zen.de/eng/adult35.shtml
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Yes, The Mole is spot on. Fear, especially irrational, purely psychological fear (meaning i'm not talking here about the fear of a fierce tiger in front of you, which is totally "normal" and a survival reaction), is always linked to other strong emotions. Sadness, anger, may cause fear. And often, when you work on fear or on irrational anxiety symptoms, for example in therapy - but you also discover this in meditation sometimes, you discover than some fears may disappear after you have found, and expressed, the emotion that was behind it. An example : a child who was never authorized to cry, or whose father always told, for example, that crying is good for pussies and real men should not be sad, thus implying that if the child cries, his father may not love him anymore, may develop fear whenever he encounters sadness in his adult life. Sadness is automatically replaced by fear. A breakup, or the loss of a close person, may trigger panic attacks instead of grief and sadness, or strong anxiety symptoms, or even physical symptoms, and this guy wont be able to see why, because he is automatically disconnected from the original feeling that causes it. The way to free this man from those fears would be to allow him to uncover and live the emotion that is behind. This is no small task. Meditation may uncover those feelings, but it is really hard because in meditation, you are on your own with your own system of defense, so it's really difficult to bypass this defense, since it's yours. That's why if you experience irrational fears and anxiety a good therapist would be really helpful : he sees right through your defenses and can help you uncover things more easily. In meditation, the way to uncover what is behind your fears is to focus on your bodily sensations, and stop thinking about them. Focus in the tightness in your chest, etc. Experience fear in the body. Sometimes, this way, the fear suddendly disappears, and the emotion that is behind appears. You may cry, of feel the need to break everything around you, or you may even feel a profound love, or sexual desire, etc. But since you're in meditation posture, focused and all, these are easier to manage than when you are wandering in your everyday life. I experienced it a few times. Staying with your body, with your sensation, may deactivate your psychological defenses. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I know where my irrational fears come from, at least most of them: when I was very small, my mother would sometimes leave me without warning. When I was 5, she'd disappear for weeks and I'd stay with my aunt whom I constantly harassed by asking "when will mom return? Is she still alive?" What I remember especially well is when I was 9 and she went out to buy cigarettes in the morning. She said she'd be gone for 5 minutes. She was gone for 12 hours, since she went into a bar with her friends. She also drank a lot from time to time and I had to take care of her, try to cheer her up and assure her I loved her. Later when we moved to another country she had my little brother but pretty soon my stepdad left us. When I was 13, I had to take care of alcoholic, depressed mom and a little baby. A few times mother tried suicide and threatened to kill my brother and stepdad. It's great that you already know what's behind all this. I think it's a necessary first step. But as you feel already, knowing does not solve anxiety issues ; as you say, i think that now you need to allow yourself to live the difficult, terrible emotions that lie behind your anxiety. Meditation can really help with this since it allows you to deal with whatever comes. I really think you are doing the right things by having a meditation practice and seeing a therapist. Don't be discouraged, as it's a really long process and sometimes feels like three steps forward, two steps back, but be assured that at one point you will feel more at ease with yourself and others. I wish you the best !
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
At one time i sat in zazen, suffering, hurting, and i don't know why, suddendly the first noble truth came to my mind and i felt it sink in me really deep : suffering is a part of life, suffering is something life is made of, suffering IS life itself. I was suffering, and for the first time, i could accept that. I was suffering, and what that meant was that i was alive, i was a human, and i was living a human life as anyone who is human does. Everyone in the world suffers, one way or another, and this is part of the beauty of being human. Sorry, i cannot put it into words very well. This is not a masochistic point of view, "oh it's great that i suffer" ; it's just that when there is suffering, it means everything is normal and you are connected with everything, just as when you are not suffering. From this moment on, everything in the noble truths made sense. This did not stop me from suffering, not at all, but it changed things a lot. I saw and understood that the worst in my suffering was that i did not want this to happen. I did not want to suffer at all. I wanted to be perfectly at peace, perfectly sane, perfectly joyful. In fact, the answer is the total opposite of this attitude : you have to embrace it all, be it suffering or joy. There is nothing extraordinary in suffering, in anxiety, in death, in breakups, in losses, in gains, in joy, in disease, in questions about taking anxiety meds or not. It's life. For the first time, I did not have to be well, i did not have to "not suffer" anymore. Life is what it is, sometimes you suffer more, and that is no big deal. It is what life is. If you meditate every day, and keep on practicing, whatever happens in your life, i'm sure you will feel this. It's really a feeling, a profound acceptance, and not just words ; everyone understands the noble truths, they make sense, but meditation will give you the experience of the noble truths, especially when meditation seems completely impossible. Just sit with it all, stay with your breath and your body, and add nothing to the experience. I found out that despair is great for meditation. When i sit in total despair (it happens from time to time), i have nothing to lose, i sit as if it's "sit or die". And i let everything go because nothing matters anymore. In the midst of this total mess, sometimes i feel a deep happiness ! When you don't hope for a perfect you, for a perfect life, when you abandon all hope of being someone different that the one you are right now, you have the possibility to discover the present moment, the present you, and it's a great present indeed !
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
Thanks for this discussion, it is really interesting. It's funny because in most zen literature (even if Dogen's Shobogenzo really gives a strong perspective on life, death, time, etc), those questions about rebirth are not important at all and not really debated. It's more about living your life here and now, and not asking questions that add weight to your life instead of making you feel lighter. And i can't help but feel that really, asking myself if i'm a buddhist, if i believe in this or that, is just unnecessary weight. That said, of course, reading about buddhas teaching and studying buddhism is really incredibly interesting, and more often than not, practice allows to feel deeply the truth of some teachings. It's great and rewarding, and it makes me happy to read the posts above in which you say that what is important is to study with an open mind, without blindly rejecting or blindly accepting what is said ; this way, you give yourself a really good chance of understanding things deeply. But i would always keep in mind that in the end, it's just me, sitting there and having to live my life. No one else can do it for me. Maybe it's a bit naive, but i think that what matters is what you do, it's your life, it's not the set of beliefs you have about it. 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 ? If i am okay with myself this should not bother me ; i think there is a problem if it does, because it would mean that "buddhism" then is just another strong identity i would cling to. 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. And anyone who thinks he understands everything about karma, rebirth, buddhas teachings, or string theory, etc, if he sits regularly, will also change his mind. For me (maybe i'm being naive again though, but it has been my experience so far), you can't go wrong if you sit "seriously" (meaning having a regular sitting practice). You can't go right, either, ahah ! About atheism etc, Brad Warner's last book, "There is no god and he is always with you", is really interesting, giving a good general zen buddhism perspective on atheism and "god".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer and the article ! I still don't understand why some communities would, as you describe, have two sets of practice, one for "real buddhist who believe in all that they should believe in", and one for "people who think they know better than everyone else" (sorry for the caricature). I'm not from the US so maybe it's different there. But where i live, anyone can come to the zendo and sit as long as they follow a few simple rules. That's all there is, so there is no room for philosophical arguments. If, as you say, quote: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. I think these monks and sanghas have a problem. In my mind (maybe i'm wrong, as some obviously disagree), a zen buddhist (i don't know about other schools) will sit with anyone, even with someone who disrepects him or does not believe in anything. I imagine if someone would come to our zendo and claim he knows everything better than everyone, he would just be asked to sit quietly as everyone else, and i don't see how this could cause a problem. Then if it does, he just won't come back. A buddhist monk "should" (in an ideal world, of course ; i totally understand the disturbance, i would be disturbed too - but it's one thing to be disturbed, taking it to an institutional level where you exclude practicioners based on this disturbance is another thing) not be disturbed by what others say about his practice. Disrespect is only possible if you attach a lot of importance to thoughts, ideas, identities, etc ; and for me, practice (i don't use "buddhism" here as i'm not clear about what is buddhism) is about getting rid of all this, not about enforcing them and feeling threatened when anyone says something else that what i'm supposed to believe in. Rejecting someone who is arrogant and claims he knows better is just enforcing both his arrogance and my frustration, it just builds more and more defenses when the point is to be totally defenseless. Frankly, if someone thinks he understands the dharma or anything better than me or better than my teacher or whatever, what is the problem ? Good for him, maybe i can learn from this situation one way or another ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Oct 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 11:49
|
|
|
A lot of teachers, in soto zen, proceed as follows : First, count your breathes. My teacher would tell me to only count the outbreathes, following the outbreathe with your counting : oooooooooooooooooone, twoooooooooooo, etc. When you reach 10 you go back to one. Only counting the outbreathe is already difficult, because during the inbreathe you have to drop your thoughts and stop counting. Do that for a few months, if not more, until you can sit 25 - 30 minutes without losing count and without too much thought interrupting the counting (more often than not you will notice that you are counting AND thinking at the same time). Just go back to one when your mind wanders. Then, just consciously stay with your breathe. You just breathe and don't count anything, but you stay with your breathe. Again, there is no rush, practice like this a lot, for a few months if not more. Finally, you can try not to focus on anything. Just sit in the right posture and let everything go. In fact at this point you are unconsciously focusing on the breathe, more often than not, and you are able to stay with it without paying much attention to anything. Of course this is not fixed once and for all ; when zazen is difficult and you are agitated, you can count your outbreathes again, or focus on the breathe, and when you feel perfectly relaxed, it is easier to let go of focusing. In the end it's only you sitting on a cushion, so you have to deal with yourself as best as you can. Anyway, it all sorts itself somehow and whatever you do, you can't really go wrong. The important thing is not to harm yourself, but also not to quit whenever it is difficult. It's hard to find the balance sometimes... At first, counting the outbreathes was really really frustrating for me, it was a struggle with myself ("drat, i counted the inbreathe again, DON'T DO THIS, argh, the more i try not to count it, the more i count it !" etc etc). Then it evolves and you just do it without thinking about it. Now i really understand how great an introduction to zazen it is. Note that there are also teachers who want to have nothing to do with breathe counting. I think that breathe counting is really great to get the body used to stay in the right posture for long periods of time ; but zazen should really be without any idea of gain or of anything, and the point is really not to make zazen a breathing exercise or a competition against yourself. It's really "just sitting". I found it very helpful to count the outbreathes (because at the same time you have something that helps you staying focused in the beginning, AND you have to totally let go on the inbreathe - so it gets you used to shift between focusing and not focusing), as i discover nowadays that i am able to just sit for longer moments without doing anything, focusing on anything, or thinking anything, when, in the beginning, it was totally impossible for me. Of course in the end, good old mind is going to plan your next meal again, or to think about that beautiful girl you just met, etc, but it is what it is... As Uchiyama said : "sit silently for ten years, then for ten more years, and then for another ten years." Ugrok fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
The Dark Wind posted:When you notice that you are counting AND thinking (and now I guess noticing as well) do you usually go back to one, or do you keep counting? I'll give counting on the out breaths a shot, so far I've been counting on both in and out breaths. Well, my teacher told me to go back to one whenever i was thinking AND counting at the same time. But i cheated a lot, ahahahah... Ideally you go back to one, yes, because the purpose is really to count and only count, and do nothing else ; you have, somehow, to become your counting, to become the outbreathe. So when you count and think at the same time, you are not really counting but just running an automatic "counting routine" in the back of your consciousness. But usually, with a little training, when you notice you are thinking and counting at the same time, you can just return fully to the counting without going back to one. I found it more comfortable that way. In the end you have to experiment with what is comfortable for you. If you stick with it, you'll see, it becomes really comfortable ; and you will notice that the moment you sit, you start counting, but you will also notice after a while that you can easily drop the counting and just stay with the breathe, which is the "next step".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
When i begun meditating a few years ago i tried metta for a while. I think it is a practice that should be done with a really high awareness of what you are doing. For me, it was disappointing in the end, as i found out that more often than not i tried to force the feeling of compassion, to force myself to feel good for me and for others. And obviously what happened was that i got the opposite result : i was frustrated, not feeling good with myself, because sometimes i could not force the feeling ; and worse, in my everyday life, i begun to feel bad as soon as i got angry at other people, and i was repressing my own emotions. It makes sense if you consider that cultivating a particular state of mind also cultivates its opposite. Try to be joyful and you also open the door to despair. Try to be relaxed and you end up tense. Try to love everyone and you end up hating the whole planet. Etc etc. In zen there are no such things (that i know of - maybe more experienced practicioners may correct me here, but i never read or heard a teacher promoting this kind of practice) as metta or cultivating any particular state of mind. The idea behind zazen is that by taking the posture, by simply sitting still for a period of time without changing a thing to whatever happens inside or outside yourself, you are manifesting compassion, equanimity, and total openness, whether you are aware of it or not. The posture has it. There is no need to chase after a special state of mind, there is no need to do anything : when you sit properly and stop all your activities, it is enough. A while ago, i was practicing zazen, and sometimes i felt really good, i felt like i loved everything and everyone, and after a while i begun, more or less consciously, to try to reproduce this feeling each time i sat. I read in Dogen's Shobogenzo that the qualities of zazen were equanimity, compassion, openness, so i was trying to feel that during zazen. When i told my teacher, he told me to stop : there is no need to do anything, really. Sitting is enough. Still, it does not mean that metta is not a right or good practice, that's not what i meant ; i think it helps to have more than one perspective on it, though. I know that other schools really put an emphasis on metta. I think, though, that this is really the kind of practice that should be discussed regularly with an experienced teacher, because it is easy to fall in the trap of repressing your emotions in the name of "total love and compassion", especially when you feel so good about the practice. I think the buddhist compassion is something really more subtle that a simple good feeling about others. It's not about just feeling good about the others, it's not about "love" in the common sense. This misunderstanding often gives birth to a buddhism that feels like a "happiness dictatorship" : just force yourself to love everyone and you will be happy ! Follow these rules and happiness is guaranteed ! I don't think this works. For me, buddhist compassion is also feeling how terrible and violent and a filthy piece of suffering garbage you are, and everyone with you, and be ok with that, and feel the beauty, even if sometimes tragic, of it all. Compassion is not just about love and good feelings : it's about taking with you the whole human package, and not everything is pretty. Maybe other practicioners have a more detailed view on buddhist compassion, i would be really interested in reading about it. In Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen mind, beginners mind", he says that having too much pleasure practicing, as well as being totally discouraged with the practice, should both be warning signs that our practice is not well balanced. Of course we encounter this from time to time, it's no big deal, but i really think he is right. He speaks about zazen, of course, but i think it would apply to metta as well. I would really be cautious with myself if i begun thinking "wow this practice really is powerful". I don't mean it is bad or good to feel this ; it's great to have pleasure practicing, of course ; but still, i would ask myself it this is not hiding a strong attachment or a strong desire to achieve something or to be different from who/what i am. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Oct 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Following earlier discussions, here is a great article by DT Suzuki, in which he links transmigration to compassion via the concept of "trisna" (fundamental thirst or desire). Food for thought ! http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb07.htm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:so good job on the depression. Ahahah, i love this ! This quote from Mr Mambold is really what makes me love buddhism. If everything seems to be wrong, then everything is perfectly alright. It reminds me of a fellow zen practicioner, who also did shiatsu sessions (it's the traditional "zen" massage therapy, you know, where the practicioner presses special spots on the body etc. - i'm not really into this kind of thing but i tried it once, it was fun): he always said when pressing a spot : "does it hurt ?" and when i answered "no", he then went "Oh. Too bad" with a real disappointment in his voice, it was hilarious. I think it really answers the question rurik asks, too. As others said, if animal suffering makes you suffer, you just have to investigate the suffering. Good job on suffering ! It is dukkha, the first noble law, that puts every one of us on the path. I agree with others who said that compassion is not about adding your own suffering to an already existing suffering. Compassion is just doing what is right. Suffering about animals being mistreated does no good. Acting may. The compassionate way of being, i guess, would be to progress along your path so that your emotions and own suffering are not obstacles to your actions anymore. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Don't worry about "over meditating". Think that in certain retreats, they meditate for 9 hours a day ! Usually, in zen at least, teachers recommend to have two 40 minutes zazen session per day, either one after the other or one in the morning and one in the evening. Brad Warner, who is a serious zen practicioner and teacher, says in his books that he puts in one hour a day : 40 minutes in the morning, 20 minutes before going to bed. So don't worry, two sessions of 20 minutes per day is far from over meditating. If i were you, i would do one first thing in the morning as i wake up, and before going to bed or after coming back from work. It really gives you space in your day. Finally, just try it, and you will see if you like it or not. There is no problem in meditating for short amounts of time. When i begun i was meditating 12 minutes a day, and nowadays i tend to practice 25 minutes in the morning, and 25 in the evening. But if i don't feel like it, i may shorten the whole thing. Don't try to think too much about this, it's really not that important. Meditation should not be a pressure !
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
My teacher always said to me that any suffering i encountered during meditation was just something *I* brought, not the meditation. Meditation does not hurt or cause suffering. It's just sitting. If you feel bad during or after meditation, it's because of what YOU bring to the meditation. Even physical pain is something you can choose to experience as suffering, or not. By practicing you will slowly learn to bring less and less to the meditation, and to just let things be as they are. It's no easy task because we are so attached to what we think we are, even our very suffering has a meaning for us that is hard to let go. Great about the positive feelings ! Be careful not to get over attached to them, though. Positive feelings and negative feelings are the same thing in the end : just feelings. If you attach to the good feelings, whenever your life seems to turn lovely (as it happens to all of us, of course, from time to time), you will feel completely let down and may be disgusted in your practice. Practice is not about feeling good, or bad. It's just sitting with what is there, with no judgement. Of course, if you feel great, enjoy !
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Hello guys and girls ! Sorry to derail, but could anyone post the link to one of the first buddhism discussion here on SA, the one created by Shadowstar ? (And incidentally, does anyone have news from that nice guy ?) I cannot find it anymore... Thanks a lot !
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
My two cats, when i start meditating, are always funny and try to distract me. They sit on me, they want to be petted, etc. I just sit there and after a few moments they calm down and stay with me, it's quite relaxing ! At first it was annoying but now i love to let them do their stuff while i meditate, sometimes they even climb on me. As long as they dont inflict pain, it is okay !
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:That's a really interesting take on it, especially considering that Theravada is (from within a pan-traditional view) the slowest path to Enlightenment. That said, I read through a bit of that and flicked through some more and, uhh, wow it's a terrible introduction to Buddhism. He literally calls Tantra "Magick" and makes some incredibly questionable claims about the nature and speed with which one can achieve enlightenment which usually it takes a literal Arahat to be able to say. He even talks about Enlightenment as the elimination of Self. And on page 279 he literally re-writes a core Theravada teaching to fit his worldview. I read it and thought exactly the same thing. Plus I found it full of craving ("increase the meditation dose and you will attain stage 1 ; increase dose further and you wil attain stage 2" - in the zen school meditation is not at all about attaining anything) and pre conceived truths about everything, pre-made concepts about everything ("those things are like THIS and those things are like THAT"), with no compassion, no joy and no openness. I would not recommend this book.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to develop your views. The following are just my impressions and what i felt reading MCTB, i am by no means a buddhist scholar or a meditation expert. I practice zazen since 2011, and most of the things i read are from the soto zen tradition. I did not mean that there are no attainments or that you don't change through practice. I meant that the foundation of practice, in the soto zen school at least (i don't know other schools as well), is "mushotoku", "no goal". And reading MCTB (btw, even the title is full of grasping : "mastering the core teachings of the buddha", it sounds like a very ego centered way of seeing the path to me - but i might be wrong as the title might be a little provocative on purpose), i thought i, as a reader, was treated like some sort of machine : inject this and you will obtain that. Do this and you will obtain that. It's just about goal and means to attain this goal, which is the opposite of zazen, at least in the soto school where the sitting practice is the beginning and end of it all (Uchiyama : "Practice 10 years, then practice 10 more years, then practice 10 more years"). Maybe there are stages, maybe there are experiences, maybe there is change (of course there is), but so what ? In the end you just live your life as best as you can, you take shits and eat and do stuff, and you continue sitting. I understand that this "goal driven" approach can be really interesting for some, and maybe reassuring as well, just as knowing that eating those pills will produce this effect. But i really think that nobody can describe accurately what goes on when you meditate. Of course everyone is the same, but everyone is also very different, and i felt, in this book, that this was denied. For me it is the opposite. The more i sit with goals the less i can be at ease. Practice is about losing, slowly unburdening, not striving to gain stage 3 after defeating the end boss or destroying anything. For me, it's not a fight to win "buddahood" or whatever ; it's just discovering and being who i am, making peace with that, even in the darkest and most frightening aspects, and this is done by quietly, simply sitting with an open mind. I did not find compassion in the book because, even if what you say is right (i think it really comes from a good intention to show how the path and the practice may work), it's just one way of seeing things, and it's pretending to be THE way. Maybe i'm a bit overdramatic here, if so i apologize, but by reading the book i felt as if i had to struggle against myself to become what Ingram tells us to become, and i did not found this compassionate. I also understand that "sometimes you have to be harsh on people to make them understand", but there is a difference between that compassionate harshness, that you can feel in most zen books or teachings i read (Kodo Sawaki, for example, is really really harsh), and this way of presenting things as if it was god talking to ants or something (again maybe i'm a bit over the top here ahahah). Of course this is highly subjective, and so is meditation i think, but there was no sense of beauty and love while i was reading this book. When you read Suzuki, or Trungpa, or even Brad Warner, you feel this immense love for what we are, even if we are flawed, even if we suck, even if we fail at everything. And you also feel a great sense of humor about all this. When I read Ingram, i felt like an untermensch who had to go "total war" with himself to gain access to a "better" humanity. Anyway, it's only a book, and i only describe what i felt reading it, maybe in a few years i will understand it differently. At least i'm glad that it exists because it allows us to discuss about great, interesting things. To be honest, I found something really interesting in the book, it was all the part about what sensations and senses in general are and how they shape our reality. I found it really well written and explained, and it lead me to view things a bit differently. PS : hope this does not sound too critical. Of course, if that means anything, i have a ton of respect for anyone who, like Ingram did, had the balls to write a book about his experience and worked a lot on himself and tried to share it with others. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:
I'm interested by this as this is something that sometimes scares me. Am I totally alone in my reality ? Is reality just me in my own world of sensations, perceptions ? This would mean that we are totally alone and would lead to the conclusion that there is only one suffering, and it's my suffering. I don't think it is so, though, and i would like to submit hypothesis on this (it's only my - probably wrong - thoughts about it), and be corrected maybe. So, when i think about it, i don't think it really works this way. The way you perceive, for example other's suffering, does not only depend on you ; your experience, your personality, how you perceive things, all of this does not come from you but from the infinitely complex contacts between you and the world - and these contacts are shaped by tons of interdependent relations. We have sensations and perceptions just because there is a contact between the world and our senses/mind/body/whatever. And this contact, that you cannot completely describe or understand (because in the end it is not external nor internal, not you nor "not not you"), finally, is what we are. So to perceive someone's suffering, well, the clues of his suffering must be perceived, and if they are perceived, they exist. Suffering is never only "my" suffering. I can only have an idea of suffering because there are others that i can perceive, who suffer. If there weren't others, or external things to create sensation of suffering, i would totally not be able to see suffering or recognize suffering. A good example is the famous experiment with children that were totally denied communication with other people from their births and were quite isolated from sensory inputs ; you could burn them with a flame and they would not react at all. They did not "know" what suffering was. This shows that suffering and all the range of our emotions and even perceptions and sensations are not limited to "us", but on the contrary, they are built, interdependent, constantly changing, and so depend completely on others and what is "not us". Maybe that is also the meaning of the sutra where the buddha says that perceptions are not self, sensations are not self, etc... ? So i really think that other's suffering should be acknowledged as their suffering, and of course it's ours too, distinct and not distinct at the same time. Because there cannot be suffering if there is no "other".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Ahahah that sounds more masochistic than buddhist to me. Desire is a part of life (some, like Nishijima, say that it is life itself) and it's beautiful. As long as you try your best to not make others suffer, i see no reason why you should not fall in love, have sex, and enjoy the whole process. The more i practice, the more i think that buddhism is just about falling in love, constantly, with life, and being happy. That includes other people. There is nothing harmful in sex and desire if it comes from true love and not from needs / clinging / trying to solve your own issues with other people. Of course things are not as easily done than said... Seeing buddhism as a path of extinction of all desire is just ONE interpretation of the noble truths. There are others. For example you can read Nishijima's "To meet the real dragon" for a very interesting point of view on the noble truths and desire. In fact things are really simple but we always make it complicated... Ugrok fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
I think the only question is : "does sex make you and others happy or not ?". Everyone has to find the answers, the causes, the consequences for himself, and they are necessarily different for everyone. Saying more than that is just blindly applying a rule. Maybe we also have to put buddhas teachings in perspective ; what he said is 2500 years old, we don't live in the same society anymore and we do not have the same knowledge and relationship to sex as he did, obviously. If you look at what the teachings are about, it's really simple : just act so that you and others are happy. That's about it. Of course the means to achieve this are not easily found and the point is that everyone has to find them for himself, considering his own determinations, his own experience, etc... Nishijima's interpretation of the four noble truths is as follows. The "classical" interpretation is that first truth is suffering, the second truth is that suffering has a cause : desire, the third truth is that to solve suffering you have to eradicate desire, and the fourth truth is the way to do this. This is what Nishijima writes about this interpretation : quote:When I was young, this traditional interpretation of the four noble truths became a real stumbling block for me. Even when i first encountered it, there seemed to be something wrong. To begin with, i could not accept the original premise. Of course there was suffering in the world, but was life only suffering ? Was there no happiness or satisfaction, no simple joy in living ? And the there was the attitude toward desire. Was desire really an evil element in human beings, something to be suppressed or eliminated ? Personally, i could not conceive life without desire ; they seemed so tightly intertwined as to be indivisble. To me, life and desire were simply two sides of the same coin. If Gautama Buddha really urged us to get rid of desire, it seemed that he was asking us to do the impossible. And finally there was the fourth truth, the ultimate way of the Buddhas. By this I understood the noble eightfold path of right view, right thinking, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, righet effort, right mind and right body. Here, the problem was not in the idea or theory itself but in the relationship to the other three three truths. I simply could not see any connection between them. I could not believe that this dogmatic, pessimistic and illogical theory was in any way related to the ultimate realization of the founder of the Buddhist religion. (Nishijima, To Meet the Real Dragon) Nishijima studied master Dogen's Shobogenzo during his whole life, and he adopted the way that Dogen sees Buddhism ; it always works from four points of view. Idealism, then materialism, then buddhist realism, and then the idea of a truth that is ineffable and beyond ideas or philosophy : reality itself. He applied this to the four noble truths, and it works quite well. The first noble truth according to Nishijima is about idealism : there is a basic suffering linked to human nature, and it is because people usually see the world in a very idealistic way, thinking that what they dream should be true. The fact that it is not is suffering. The second stage, the second truth, is the discovery of the materialistic rule of cause and effect. Things are chained, in a really concrete way, from cause to effect. This is in total conflict with the first truth of idealism, because if you base your view of the world on the law of cause and effects, and on the facts that things can always be decomposed in smaller parts, this leaves no room for mind or dreams. So the third truth, for Nishijima again, is about buddhist realism. To solve the conflict between idealism and materialism, you have to recognize the place where those two worlds meet : Here, and Now. Here and now is the place of action. "In action, the one real world appears". Suffering and conflict can be solved by acting. This is Nishijima's third truth interpretation. "A negation of the extreme in favor of a synthesis of the two". The fourth truth is about how to live this resolution of conflict. Real life is not about explanation or understanding. It is ineffable. You can't name it or describe it or tell truths about it. The fourth truth is about the way to discover, to experience, this ineffable reality that only manifests in action, thus resolving suffering : zazen, the act of sitting - pure action. This is why, i think, Zen masters always say to act and to become the action itself. In fact it is not limited to sitting, but i think if you learn to just sit, you have the purest and simplest form of action, and you can then act purely and simply in your whole life, becoming what you are : a process, an endlessly ongoing action. Sorry if this is a bit unclear or badly written ; if you are interested, read the book, it is much more detailed and well explained than the summary i just wrote ! This makes buddhism something that is not at all about metaphysics but on the contrary, that is all about acting. Action solves suffering. Always act to be happy and to make others happy. When asked what the meaning of life was, the Dalai Lama said : "Be happy". I think in the end it is the only buddhist message. It is really, really simple, but really, really hard, ahah ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think saying "Be happy" is fine, but I think it is also an overly broad generalization, and doesn't really do much to tell people how to be happy, which is by understanding the nature of suffering and attachment. That takes time, meditation, and study. It can't be done simply in intellectual terms. Yes, exactly, it's my point of view as well. What i meant is that the answer to "how to be happy" cannot be found in simple rules or even in the precepts. One has to find it for him/herself, and it's a lot of work. But saying "abstaining from sex will make you happy" is just as wrong as saying "having sex will make you happy". Things i said about sex were just an answer to the idea that desire is a thing to eradicate or "cure". It's really fascinating to see what we make of the teachings and the sayings. Somehow we always understand them the way we want. It's the same with a lot of the suttas, for example, the sutta where buddha says that the body is not self, the sensations are not self, etc etc is often interpretated as "there is no self". You read this A LOT. But Buddha never said that and refused to answer questions like "is there a self or no self". That's why, as you said, nothing can replace practice, experience, and finding our own truth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
(Great and interesting discussion, btw !) Paramemetic : well, i guess if you get interested in Buddhism in the first place, it's because you experienced that sex, drugs and rock'n roll do not work ! Life should be trusted, mistakes should be trusted, so called "wrong" things should be trusted. There is a saying in zen, something like "a zen master's life is a continuous series of mistakes". It's a joke, but i really think it is important to allow people to live their lives and see what makes them suffer or not. If buddhism is just about "a set of rules to follow to become happy", it's just another moral prison. What is interesting in buddhism for me is that it's a path where you must explore things, you must discover what works, there are tools and suggestions, but in the end it's about you and what you do with this life. As someone else said before in the discussion, when you say "be happy", it is, of course, not that simple. When you begin to really search what is to be happy, you necessarily discover that it is a lot of work, that immediate pleasure doesn't satisfy, that craving is a suffering, etc etc. That's why i think "be happy" is a good buddhist motto, albeit maybe a bit simplistic. It forces you to begin to search about yourself, and it also pushes you to experience things. And at the same time, it sounds reassuring and simple, and not forced : there is nothing wrong in enjoying a simple moment, just be happy, man ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I think interpreting those teachings as no-self is accurate. We consist of the 5 aggregates, and if all 5 aggregates are without self, which the Buddha claims repeatedly, then we are naturally going to conclude there is no permanent self, as all conditioned phenomenon are impermanent. The Buddha's reluctance to make declarations about the self or lack thereof have more to do with his warnings about being attached to views, in my opinion. The idea of the self is to eventually be abandoned as a view entirely, which happens when one achieves stream-entry. I don't know about "stream-entry", but i don't think that just because none of the 5 aggregates is self, means that there is no self. It just means that : none of the aggregates, taken separately, is self. A wheel is not a car. It does not mean the car does not exist, and it does not mean the car exists without the wheel. It's just not the point ! I think it is accurate as you say : the idea of the existence of a self, or of the non existence of a self, is to be abandoned if one wants to be happy, because however you answer the question of there being a self or not, the answer causes suffering. Which is not the same as saying that there is or there is no self. It's just not a relevant question for someone who wants to suffer less. I found this very good and clear article on the subject, where the author discusses "no self" vs "not self" : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html Ugrok fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Thanks paramemetic ! I don't know if "I", "Self", and "Ego" should be viewed as equivalent terms. Any of this terms is incredibly difficult to define anyway. Really, i think this question should just be put aside ; because when you think about ego, you already are lost. If you follow what "I" says, you reinforce it ; if you don't follow what "I" says, you reinforce it as well. Answering this question is a lose/lose situation ! So "just let it be and live your life as best as you can" is the best thing i found yet. "I" is part of everyone's life and should just be treated as any part of one's life, i guess. With care, with love, without getting attached to it, without rejecting it or attempting to destroy it. I agree that happiness cannot come from trying to fulfill what "I" wants to do. It still can be very fun to try, though. It also can be more suffering... In zen, i think happiness is just true, balanced action, which means pure action, without an idea or care about who is doing what. Like when you're totally absorbed in what you do ; this would be a great way of living if one could always be in that state. There is in taoism this concept of "wei wu wei", "doing not doing" or something like that. When your life lives itself, you are happy... Letting things flow as they are, even if things contain an "I", maybe is the answer. "I" am still far from living it everyday though ! I have the exact same stance on the precepts as the one you described. Lived the same thing with alcohol ! But i'm not rigid with that. Sometimes, a good fresh beer is just great. I pay the price, alright ! Ugrok fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Is it really the goal of buddhism to experience the world without subjectivity ? Where does this idea come from ? Because we have examples of human beings who do just that : newborn babies, and it doesn't look like a ton of fun. In everything i read (always coming from a zen background), buddhism has nothing to do with the destruction of the subject or the subjectivity ; it has to do only with this very life, and how to not suffer in it. I once asked my teacher if the personality or subjectivity disappears with enlightenment, whatever that is ; he just said "no, personality does not disappear. It just gets brighter". Ahaha, i don't know if this was a joke or not but it was fun anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer Quantumfate !
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Straight up, it isn't Buddhism. If it helps you out then it's worth looking into, but Buddhism is a religion and it absolutely has supernatural elements. If you want to not challenge your belief system, then great, look into Buddhist texts and take out of it what you think makes you a better person, but people representing themselves as Buddhists who ignore the basic parts of the faith cause a huge amount of friction in access to Sanghas for Buddhists. Hello ! Could you name buddha's teachings that speak about supernatural stuff ? For example in the pali canon ? I never read one, would be curious to do it ! I mean, of course in the end it's all about interpretations. For example, when he speaks about demons that visit him, you can choose to believe there were real demons who came and paid him a visit, or you can choose to believe that he faced his own demons, fear, suffering, in a metaphorical way. But this choice, as buddha taught, should be based on our own experience of reality, and usually, except when on heavy drugs, we don't see demons paying us a visit. I know that in soto zen there is absolutely nothing (that i read) about any supernatural elements. But i don't think you can put soto zen out of buddhism. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Totally seconding this. I would add that we don't control much in our lives, really. The only thing we can really do is act here and now. So trying to manipulate our reactions, trying to get rid of them, or considering that they are not "skillfull" or, on the contrary, very "skillfull", is just adding to your suffering. If you are happy, then great. If not, then not. Time to act to change this. But discussing with yourself about your reactions won't lead you to happiness. Reactions happen ; they are what they are. Just let go and do the next cool thing you have to do. If you can't let go, then don't let go, and do the next cool thing you have to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Hello Popcornicus ! I think the purpose of Brad is not really to deny that meditation changes things, but to question the need to name attainments and to make maps of attainments and so on. I think his point of view is that doing so only leads to categorizing experiences and creates needless concepts, and has only contrary effects concerning what meditation is about : getting free from categories, from goals, etc. Saying that he knows nothing about buddhism is a bit severe and sad ; maybe i'm wrong, but you come out as angry to have your ideas about what buddhism should or should not be challenged, and i don't think it serves your argumentation : it shows that clinging to those attainments is not a good thing. Would you stop practicing if someone proved to you, a + b, that there are no attainments at all ? If the answer is yes, then you have a goal oriented practice, and it's a good thing to be conscious of it i think, which i hope you are - because i think that the purpose of meditation is "less goals", not "more goals" ! Does enlightenment go away or not ? Who cares, really. And who's to say. PS : As helix, never did i read about attainments or fetters or anything like that in the "contemporary masters" buddhist books (outside zen in which there is absolutely nothing about this stuff, as helix correctly said) i read - mainly Trungpa and Chodron, who are from the same lineage. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
I totally agree. I think discussing on forums should be a tool for us to soften our fixed views on things... It's not easy, though...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 15:22
|
|