|
Seems likely that is meant in terms of the distinction between 'dharmic' and 'non-dharmic' activity breaking down until all that is left is genuine dharmic activity. I.e. a person leaving behind all destructive behaviors, thoughts, and activities. To be extra clear, that is meant differently from just calling everything 'dharmic.' How possible/realistic that is an equally contentious topic, as well. Enlightenment and Buddhahood (ugh, just using those words, yuck) seem practically irrelevant to nearly all practical Buddhist practice.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
D. T. Suzuki: Noted defender of how killing people is not killing people. Take him with a big grain of salt. Take all Buddhists with a grain of salt, but him particularly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
It's a wonderful time to be carried in breath. Every Buddhist tradition I've looked into specifically has encouragements about minding the breath in the final hours/minutes/moments of wakefulness each evening. Out of curiosity, have you noticed any increase in dreaming or dreams recalled?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Fear is something every human can understand and relate to. It is one of the natural ways our body has of keeping us out of danger. It's very effective, to a point, though when it gets out of proportion, it can become disabling or disruptive. It can be worthwhile to try to understand specifically what we're afraid of. This is not always the same thing as what circumstances bring about the emotional experience of fear. Just taking the time to get to know our fears and our reactions to our different fears seems to help reduce our reactivity to fears. Voicing them aloud (with people you trust/are close to) helps in a variety of ways and seems to make it a little easier to figure out which fears we really shouldn't ignore and which fears we could safely stand up to a little bit more. Everyone experiences these things in their own way, of course. Fear works like a messenger from our brain telling us that there might be something to watch out for. Often the experience of being overwhelmed in fear comes when we don't know what exactly we are scared of, nor what would help. Simply appreciating fears when they turn up and trying to scrutinize them with a little more distance and a little less reactivity can help a lot in understanding how we should respond. Appreciating fear (and even thanking our brains for pointing out what to watch out for) no doubt sounds like a strange suggestion, but fighting fear and trying to suppress fear just seem to give still more power to fear. Basically, listen to fear, appreciate it, do what you can to address it meaningfully, talk about it. Then once you can't think of anything else to do, make bad jokes about it. As a small tip, if you have any mild phobias, learning to deal with those is good practice that often seems to shed a lot of light on how all the mechanisms of fear work within us. Learning about the things we are afraid of will usually teach us how to deal with them, especially if we talk to others who have dealt with them before.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I think I experienced too much fear as a child and thus accustomed to it. At least now that I've recognized it I can change my attitude and way of thinking. Fear and anger and sadness are understood to be deeply connected. None of those can really be meaningfully managed without eventually learning about the others. As humans, we are kinda hardwired to fear the things that make us sad, and to respond with anger (as well as sadness) if they get too close. Anger without a fear of "if I don't do this right now, everything is going to get even worse" will often dissipate pretty naturally. It seems to be fear that causes anger or avoidance to really spill over, for most people. Aversion is pretty close to a synonym for fear, in the Buddhist lexicon, though a little broader. Fear is talked about, and while working with our fear is fairly central to what Buddhism seems to essentially teach, it seems to be generally treated rather delicately. After all, a lot of people are literally still here because they had the good sense, at times, to listen to their fear and get the hell out of dodge. Of course, someone who panics in a forest at night is liable to sprint into a tree at full speed. So it usually seems to be talked about in a sort of, "bring a little more of that mindfulness stuff to it and try to figure out which fears are just our brain being on high-alert, which fears we really will get burned if we ignore, and which one's are still a bit unclear?" Talking to others, both for perspective, and asking for suggestions with how to deal with different fears is the most effective thing I've seen for both preserving our important, healthy aversions (towards fire, sharp sticks to the eye, freezing to death, starving to death, that kinda stuff) while helping to wind down some of the fears that might not be as needed now as they were when we were younger. Also, the more you can learn about what causes you fear, the more you can learn about how to see it coming and how to head it off even sooner and before anyone gets hurt or explodes at those around them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
That sorta stuff is in every big mystical tradition, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Islamic, Sikh. Often it seems to be in there more as an acknowledgment of the local experiences and beliefs than a prescriptive path or something. It's also a standard part of what is accorded to Christian (or Islamic, or Hindu) saints, and it seems to have been a troublesome part of life in each case. Interestingly enough, what they found helpful were the same sort of thing that us people with no abilities more magical than that of making GBS threads out fertilizer on a daily basis: taking good care of ourselves, looking out for those around us, love, compassion, honesty, generosity, and some measure of level-headedness or grounding, etc.. Also there was a pretty good quote from a long-dead Buddhist woman (lightly paraphrased), "Why are you so sure that blessings come from gods and curses from demons? Isn't it the other way around? How often do our gifts delay us from doing what is important, while in our struggles we learn who we are and what we are capable of."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Watch out for cars.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
There's a definite reason they say that a person's efforts are best spent learning about and following a single path, tradition, or practice. At least for the first couple of decades. Get one down good and take all the 'support practice' seriously. That support stuff generally comes down to: take good care of (and in the process, get to know) yourself and others, physically and mentally; be honest and stand up for whatever you believe is worth standing up for; try to let the virtuous qualities that comprise that eightfold path be a little more present in how you go about life, day to day. If you're unwilling to give up things that cause harm, at least let yourself be guided by the spirit of harm reduction, though it only puts off the inevitable. Try not to assume too much and examine old assumptions whenever one comes to our attention. And to close with the Buddha's own words, "Scrutinize spiritual teachers the way a gold merchant examines gold before buying it." Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
If you don't do the physical practice, at least be mindful of your breath as much/often as possible. Personally I find just before going to bed and before falling asleep to be the two times I basically can't avoid fitting at least a little bit of something vaguely mindful in. As to staying consistent, dunno. Find something interesting, or intriguing to learn about in your practice. That generally leads to some enthusiasm, and having a bit of sustainable enthusiasm is about the simplest way of sticking with something for a while. That is one of the reasons why asking questions is considered a really fundamental part of Buddhist practice: it keeps us engaged and learning. Of course, you can also just find a small aspect of ritual that you find meaningful and try to do that more regularly. Some people like putting out little bowls of fresh water as an offering, or burning just 1/10th of a stick of incense, or whatever bit of symbolism you might personally find meaningful. Doing something relatively in plain sight (though still in the privacy of one's own dwelling) can leave a lasting visual reminder. Mostly though, just don't worry too much about it. Start back up with whatever you feel like starting back up with. It is totally normal to feel initial bursts of enthusiasm and then to find oneself at the 'end' of an impromptu break.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Rurik posted:Do you know the source for this quote? I'd like to read more about her and her thoughts. It's a quote from Machig Labdron.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
If any of y'all are woodcarvers: trying to say one prayer or whatever you prefer per piece of wood removed has been a really interesting practice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Rhymenocerous post reminds me; was it mentioned earlier that there was some kind of formal, institutionalized debate in some schools of Buddhism? Or did I make that up? Asking questions is an absolutely fundamental part of the teacher-student relationship in Buddhism. Each tradition has its own form and protocols around it. Some are very formal others very informal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
"Relating to Spiritual Teachers" (available online at http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1305527811.html ) is a good book about the ways the relationships between student and teacher in (I believe Tibetan Buddhism) are understood to optimally work. I'd be curious to hear some of y'alls perspectives on it, since what I read of it seemed to do a good job delineating the difference between asking meaningful, useful questions (that both help one's self, and others, as well as stimulate the memory of the asked).Razage posted:I'm a bit confused on the Tibetan debate thing. I understand that the particular form of debate is an exercise for learning the religion. Do these monks ever practice having their views actually challenged so the can experience that? Because once anyone leaves the monastery it's probably going to happen a lot. I'm absolutely not a scholar on Tibetan Buddhism, so take what I say with a helping of salt: Tibetan Buddhism isn't really a 'go get trained in a monastery and then leave and go out and preach to the masses with the goal of converting them to your right way of thinking.' Among vow holders/takers, there's a serious expectation of respecting the secrecy (for lack of a better word) of certain practices. Outside of a fellow practitioner, one probably isn't going to talk about some practices more than once or twice a year, if even that often. So a practice place is more of a place one goes specifically to run into fellow practitioners who could even make sense out of what is being talked about. To put it in a somewhat different way: many people seem to imagine that Tibetan Buddhist path are much like the Christian path: go to seminary or divinity school, get ordained, shepherd a congregation, conduct weddings, visit the sick, oversee a bit of charitable stuff. All that is great, don't get me wrong, but the emphasis and expectation of needing always more quantity of students/members of a congregation etc. is not absent in Tibetan Buddhism, but not nearly as primary. Once one is talking about the Yogic traditions, the emphasis is pretty solidly on developing the quality of one's practice and not on simply filling a lot of robes with warm bodies. The reason for this focus that apparently is a little counter-intuitive to our good ol' western sensibilities is that the actual 'activity' that 'fully trained' Tibetan Buddhists generally engage in (I put those in semi-quotes because you'll likely never hear those words from them) are almost specifically intended to be, by and large, passive. Speaking of the role of questions, by the way, someone once asked, "how do the thousand [transformative, helpful] arms of Avalokitesvara work?" The reply was, "Just as a sleeping person adjusts a pillow without waking." The idea is that certain practices, while not done openly, combined with a person diligently following precepts will be of real, meaningful service to those around them without ever having to preach to a single congregation, ever. So extensive debate is not considered exactly necessary since being kind, patient, compassionate, honest, peaceful, and generously helpful requires no debate to develop. It is generally understood that one is better off developing those qualities than intellectually learning a bunch of stuff that will never be put into practice without the support of the basic practice of being a decent human being to one's fellow man. To those dedicated to being of service to humanity, there is much room for debate about how best to accomplish that goal and what all to watch out for. Does that make sense? Again, I'm no scholar, anyone who is more familiar with Tibetan branches of Buddhism is utterly welcome to jump in and correct all the things I probably got wrong in that. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Ask me about my past lives as slime mold and gut bacteria and staphylococcus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Nevermind, dunno how to put that in a way that couldn't be misused or probably dangerously misinterpreted. So instead: Guildenkratz, is there anyone you know involved in the school of Buddhism you are hypothetically referring to that you could talk to in person and voice your concerns with? Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Thanks for the answers everyone! This is really educational. Also slightly confusing, but mostly educational. I asked because that can be some seriously dangerous poo poo and if it is indeed going on, it needs to be addressed in real, tangible ways. If it is someone suffering from some dementia or going through a tough time, that can be supported in a variety of ways (such as talking to/checking in with other people in the lineage or the family and friends of the person in question). I would expect that most/all Buddhist traditions have a way of dealing with the elderly going... more dangerously downhill. [E: removed some stuff that was probably not too necessary] That is more if someone is well-intentioned and simply of less than fully sound mind. If something is actually exploitative or abusive: raise hell and be careful. People have historically gotten dangerously protective of the traditions that 'recognized them as ~~~enlightened individuals~~~' or whatever, so ya gotta be careful, but at the same time call all the relevant authorities and let them sort it out. I'd suggest learning to recognize the signs of abuse and knowing who to report abuse to. If kids are being abused, get the hell out of there and call the FBI or your country's equivalent. Over a decade ago, I had a friend who was found and rescued by the FBI from some abusive shitbag (to put it lightly) who was trying to start a cult. I'm glad your question was apparently a hypothetical, it is one that hits close to home since my father (before I was born) spent some time in a yogic tradition that he clearly got some good stuff out of, but he eventually learned the people in charge were full of poo poo, to put it bluntly. I have more horror stories of religious traditions gone wrong, but this post is already depressing me enough and most aren't really mine to share. Basically: be careful, look out for those around you. The easiest way to spot a predator is to know what the signs of abuse look like. Look at the people around someone: if they are carrying the signs of recent abuse, there is a predator on the prowl. /depressing rant Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
Sorry if my post gave that idea. I have zero opinions whatsoever about the different schools of Buddhism, I was asking out of pure curiosity.
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Something I've been trying to take to heart after this video series is this idea of a daily purification ritual, using regret which is not guilt. No purification can ever undo what is already done, so it is better to avoid stuff that would lead to the need of purification. That said, taking some time each day to learn whatever can be learned from each day's experience, and to appreciate whatever can or should be appreciated, and to see what things aren't worth repeating is about as vital to mental well-being as anything. Taking the time to journal a bit each day is a good way of keeping track of that sort of stuff. It's also nice to be able to go back to if you find yourself getting complacent in other arenas of life.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:A lot of people mistake honesty for harsh speech when talking about Watts. Not that I'm flawless here, far from it. A Shiite Muslim was explaining to me a while back that there are branches of Islam (both extinct and extant) that believe, essentially, in a long, multi-life progression of the soul/being/whatever you want to call it complete with rebirth and everything? I.e. that beings are reborn again and again until they may eventually shed their shortcomings or whatever. Since ya reminded me of that...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
He was referring to Alawites specifically, I believe. The beliefs of now-defunct branches of Islam is about as broad as the now extinct branches of Buddhism, for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Really, there's no rush at all. It's always better to deal with life than escape into a bunch of religious/spiritual stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Karma is mostly emphasized as a means of getting people to understand the results of actions so that they'll reconsider how they behave. If a person is willing to not do wildly destructive stuff without needing a huge explanation of why being violent is bad, more power to 'em.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
What good is a perfect understanding of something if it isn't acted upon? Better to act decently than to understand perfectly. That's not to say that understanding isn't important, just secondary to how one chooses to act. Also, there are a lot of different views on rebirth out there. Both within individual traditions and from tradition to tradition. Some really do treat it as just an inspirational metaphor or as a vehicle for communicating the workings of cause and effect/causes and conditions/karma, others treat it as literally, "I was xxx in a past life and there are weird memories that don't make any sense." Historically, it isn't talked about much because it is really divisive and, not infrequently, dangerous as well. Some people get really into, "Oh I must have been a King such-and-such" or Jesus, or Buddha, or Hitler, or whoever in a past life and just go off the deep-end in some pretty dangerous, scary ways. From what I can tell, it is a really internal part of people's experience and trying to force another's internal experience to conform to some pre-set standard leads to a lot of internal conflict or friction. Thus people are kind of allowed to come to whatever understanding of rebirth works for them. There are, no question, a lot of Buddhists who believe in literal reincarnation and a lot of Buddhists would believe reincarnation is a big pile of bullshit. The quietness about the subject seems to be largely a way of letting people have their own beliefs and experiences, versus enforcing some kind of conformity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Can you name one tradition? Also, Dogen does not treat reincarnation as particularly real. quote:Historically it was one of the primary things talked about in a lot of Buddhist scholarship and the questions around rebirth (not "is it literal") are some of the key theological discussions that have been going on for thousands of years. It's not avoided at all. I could've been clearer, I meant that it isn't talked about publicly very much. quote:Yeah, this is literally the Tulku system, from a pragmatic perspective. Even the Tulku system has some big differences in terms of what it is popularly perceived to represent and what it is actually understood to represent by the people getting Tulkud themselves. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
I thought the goal was perfect conformism to someone else's (hopefully more charismatic) interpretation of Buddhism
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
You are truly free to believe anything on earth that you want to. I cited Dogen and Nagarjuna as two people (generally accepted to be Buddhists) who both acknowledged a role of something rebirth-like, but who also notably are not talking about some sort of direct, one-to-one reincarnation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:It really is [talked about publicly, frequently] though? There are no doubt many people who are far, far more familiar with Buddhist scriptures than myself, but from what I've seen a major part of what the Buddha himself said was "don't take any beliefs up just because someone claims that they are good beliefs: instead, make sure that they match your experience and find ways of testing their validity." The subject of literal reincarnation or a looser, metaphoric interpretation of rebirth comes up in a general way, yes. But for a specific, personal experience that could lead to such a belief is treated as deeply personal and individual specific insofar as it may or may not exist. Furthermore, the more relaxed interpretation of reincarnation as sort of a continuous, moment-to-moment, day-by-day rebirth is kinda just what gets suggested when someone asks, "well how can I understand this in a practical, real-life kinda way?" Considering that many (indeed, most?) people never have any experience at all that would lead them to believe in a literal reincarnation, a more moderate understanding of rebirth is about the most that can be spoken about or attested to with the authority of experience. I mentioned Nagarjuna in regard to this subject because he repeatedly emphasized serious caution about making any kinds of absolute statements as to the specifics of what happens before/after death, both due to lack of evidence from our human perspective, and due to the implications of emptiness. Honestly, I might have been excessively swayed by his suggestion to not really argue any particular explanation. Personally, I find that question of what does or doesn't happen after the cessation of life-sustaining function to be an incredibly personal one that you pretty much just have to accept that different people believe different things about. I mean, I consider the popular Christian notion that death leads to some sort of after-life for the soul to be basically predicated upon the notion of some sort of reincarnation into some sort of heavenly (or hellish) realm. I don't personally believe in that sorta thing, but a lot of people do, apparently. I like the suggestion to just let people come to whatever belief they will come to at their own pace mostly because I think it is a sad thing that humans have spent so long fighting about that question. I tend to suspect that being dead is probably indistinguishable from the experience of having not been born yet, but I sure as hell could be wrong. quote:It's a religion. There are religious authorities. Appealing to them is totally acceptable. All religious authorities are human and fallible (two inseparable conditions, it seems). By the way, please feel free to ignore this, but if a Sangha is assuming that you're just some stereotypical white guy who understands Buddhism differently than they do, I'm inclined to think that that's the kind of group you might be lucky to not be involved in. All Buddhist groups are fallible as are all Buddhist teachers. There's a common (mis)perception in the US that foreign teachers of something must automatically be better than Western teachers, which has been pretty patently refuted again and again. All Buddhist communities end up having all kinds of scandals sooner or later, and Asian Buddhism has, if anything, just as seedy of a history as a lot of Western Buddhist practice. There do appear to be many well-intentioned communities of Buddhist practitioners in the US that seem to try pretty drat hard to practice with pretty high standards. That said, all religious communities basically anywhere on the planet need to be viewed with a bit of skepticism as they pretty much all invariably trend towards homogenous thinking and behavior on practical levels and more exploitative or corrupt behavior among leadership positions. What I'm saying in that last paragraph is that one of the biggest red flags of, "is this religious/spiritual community more on the healthy end of the spectrum or is it trying to enforce a uniformity of thought among people?" is specifically how tolerant they are of people who hold different beliefs. If you managed to find a community that both assumes anyone who looks differently than they do holds different beliefs and then threw you out because they assumed you had different beliefs, I'm seriously inclined to think that you dodged a bullet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I recall Ajahn Brahm on several occasions saying that a surefire way to tell when someone is not enlightened is when they say that they are enlightened. Having spent years reading about (and talking to people about) the various ways Buddhist communities implode, go crazy, cover up abuses and that kinda stuff, it usually starts with a bunch of people deciding "this teacher is enlightened and he can do absolutely no wrong whatsoever." If the teacher doesn't basically get corrupted by that, then usually the students in the community do. Often this cycle seems to get established because people are desperate to have someone else "~~~confirm their enlightenment~~~~" and will then proceed to overlook any criticism of the inhumanly, impossibly perfect and enlightened teacher, as well as overlook all of the crazy poo poo going on in a community. This sorta cycle also repeats itself in all of the Guru systems of practice, as well. From what I can tell, the best antidote is to read some academic stuff about Buddhism that will elucidate the role of hagiographizing teachers (both living and dead), while also emphasizing to never shut off one's critical thinking just because someone claims to be enlightened. If someone is claiming (or even not actively denying) their own enlightenment, you'd better turn the critical thinking up to 12 because some crazy poo poo, historically, is about to go down. Read about the history of abuses within each tradition because each tradition has a tendency to get misused in certain ways. The traditions that place particular emphasis on obedience to a specific teacher are particularly susceptible to exploitative relationships, and they have a very long history of precisely that. The whole, "I'll call you enlightened if you call me enlightened" thing is basically the backbone of what keeps unhealthy Buddhist communities going, though. That and a lot of people who think that Buddhism is about developing some sufficiently vacant sorta gaze and not reacting to a bunch of hosed up poo poo going on around them. It really has to be emphasized that Buddhist scripture is comparable to reading a bunch of promotional materials, it is extremely carefully put together, both in ancient times and in modern times as well. Should any of y'all decide to go to a Buddhist community, keep your eyes and ears open and do a lot of research before hand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:You had me until this sentence, mind clarifying what you mean by that? They (the 12 kinds of scripture, or whatever the precise number is) are absolutely worth reading, but they should not be mistaken as objective information about Buddhism. I.e. reading or hearing a 1000, 2000, or 2500-year-old text is not an objective reference on what you are likely to experience if you go visit Buddhist communities as they exist today, even though there will be some recognizable similarities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
The focus in Zen tends to be upon the specific experience/sensation of zazen. Anything beyond that can be understood to be basically a side-effect of zazen, but that is in no way a definitive interpretation of it. Just one way of looking at it. That approach or perspective is emphasized to help keep whatever someone experiences during zazen in perspective. I.e. it is mostly meant to discourage people getting all attached to (or too caught up in) meditative experience (which varies an awful lot, person to person).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:With the way languages are mish-mashed together like that, I would say it's just some touristy junk. Chanting in Buddhism often places more emphasis on the specific syllables than on the literal coherent meaning of the words chanted. IIRC, that system of chanting predated Buddhism by quite a bit and Buddhist chanting was then built on that framework. I.e. Buddhist chants weren't powerful because you were invoking the tathagata, but because each syllable ta tha ga was considered "powerful." Also, a lot of the "protective power" of mantras has to do with communicating to the local robbers who were planning on stabbing you to death, robbing you, and rolling your body off of a ledge to leave you alone because you're a fellow practitioner of the same religion. That's not to say that is necessarily the only way they were protective, but it was definitely one way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A celibate monk never has problems from sexual desire. Dunno where you got that idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
I would be profoundly, immensely surprised if there is even one single totally celibate Buddhist temple, monastery, or practice place anywhere on the planet. If your main source on Buddhist positions on sexuality is two thousand year old writings, uh the modern situation is a bit different. Precious few people are totally celibate (and it often isn't even encouraged in multiple traditions because it tends to lead to people getting all strange and repressed---see how that worked out for the Catholics). Yeah, chasteness is theoretically included in a lot of vows and precepts, but the reality is that that is probably the most commonly violated vow or precept of all time. Like, it is (and has always been) endemically not practiced. That has been accepted mostly because fighting biological urges is pretty much invariably going to be a losing struggle. Really, the only people who might realistically be expected to be completely celibate are literally people on long-term solo retreats (but even then people often sneak around). Honestly, it may be a vow for some, but it is kind of expected that people will do what they have to/are going to. Not to be all Debbie Downer about this, it is just a nice one to be aware of before hand rather than expecting that Buddhist practitioners are all celibate (or, for that matter, even care about celibacy). That said, if you sign up for a retreat that asks you to refrain from sexual activity or whatever, it would be respectful to make a real effort.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is obviously a really hard thing to gauge but I can't tell if you mean something that's open or someone just loving around breaking the Vinaya. I'm not sure what you mean by open, but as to the second part (and assuming that by open you basically mean that most people in practice settings haven't vowed to live by any stricter standard than abstaining from sexual misconduct, which, imo, is far more important than celibacy), yeah some amount of that happens. Mostly I was referring to a misconception about Buddhism that monks are a bunch of totally celibate people who feel no lust or desire ever, which is patently false. Basically, vows of celibacy are pretty rare, and not something a casual Buddhist is ever going to be encouraged to take. There is a lot of debate about whether or not it is even healthy to undertake something that extreme. Trying to completely resist biological drives is almost inevitably a losing battle. As to people who actually take the full Bhikku vows, even among them it is customary to simply ignore others' "indiscretions" and maybe describe the conduct as "less than skillful" at worst. Even the traditions that allow/expect priests/monastics to marry (i.e. Vajrayana, Mahayana) still have all the same problems any other comparably large group of humans would have. Not only do you have some people breaking vows, you have other teachers that are specifically sexually assaulting students (Eido Roshi, to name one, Sogyal Rinpoche, to name another). And there are other teachers that exploit the power differential of a teacher-student relationship. There are serious predators in robes, some known, others still unknown. So to put it clearly: I/you/we/people gotta be realistic and be aware. It's important to see people's qualities while not being blind to everything else about them. Anyways, I'll shut up now because I'm probably going to start really pissing a lot of people off if I keep going on about this. I will say, though, that as the kid of a former monk, I've since met quite a few other children of monks from both Buddhist and Christian/Catholic backgrounds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Well at least then you could call the power supply frying "supreme nirvana."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Hey, some new posts in the Buddhism thread E: I'm all for him continuing to post. I don't think anyone is actually going to go "Gee, time to quit taking these psychiatric meds that were really helping me because one argumentative guy on the internet said they might not be the best thing ever." I'm pretty sure people aren't actually coming to this thread for ultra-serious life-changing advice. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
You gotta be careful what you say, unless you want someone getting hurt after taking your well-intentioned but lovely advice on your conscience. I'm speaking from experience on that one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:Pray tell, who do you think is controlling you? And why would I feel scared of you? I've been around the mentally ill long enough in both a professional and personal sense to know that there isn't anything to fear, at all, from mentally ill people. This is why I'm so damned concerned about you, because you sound like someone with some kind of serious disorder, and I know from experience that even people who say they feel fine who have these problems almost never actually feel happy. Just the way you talk convinces me you aren't happy, but I'm not gonna argue about that. I dunno man, people actively in the midst of psychosis can be pretty drat dangerous. Psychopaths are pretty scary, too. Though an awful lot of mental illness is no threat as long as you just treat the person with patience and respect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Which, by the way, is why I'm really loving sketched out by his return considering how he was last time. I dunno, he sounds like he's going through a tough time, sure, but it is not possible to diagnose people over the internet. Not until they start sending you big manifestos with lots of words in CAPITAL LETTERS and [b}BOLD[/b]. If you're worried that he might be fixating on you or planning on making a lampshade out of your skin, stop replying to him or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Zen was considered to be largely degenerate even before the more recent degenerations. Going back to Chan in China there's quite a lot written about the rather alarming ratio of self-interested scoundrels to people who are serious about chan/zen itself.PrinceRandom posted:Oh, sorry. I didn't read the second sentence and thought he was alluding to the modern zen monk stereotype. Out of curiosity, what exactly is this stereotype?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Supposedly Rinzai was fond of saying that he couldn't find even one single un-enlightened person. Dogen was fond of saying that Rinzai was correct in that, but that one also can't find even one enlightened person.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 16:15
|
|