|
A lot of the Vajrayana practices are considered dangerous or unhelpful for people who are uninitiated for a variety of reasons, that's true, and beyond that "some visualizations" is probably as accurate an answer as one would want if they didn't know what was up. My Lama explains the three vehicles as such. The Theravada/Hinayana vehicle is like a good car. It is reliable, but only maybe one person can fit in there. It takes a long time to get where you're going, but you can be pretty confident you'll get there. But when you do, maybe you're the only one there. Mahayana is like a bus. It's reliable as well, but everyone else can fit on there. It's also pretty slow, but again, you can be confident you'll get there. Vajrayana is like an airplane. It might get you there really really fast, and it's pretty safe, but if you screw it up, it might crash and you'll be in some big trouble then. Or maybe you'll turn it around and go in the opposite direction. It's a lot harder to fly, but on the other hand, it'll get you there maybe even in one lifetime. When asked the capacity of the airplane, he replied "infinite." Basically Vajrayana uses a lot of techniques to help obtain liberation but some of those are potentially very harmful. For example, if I self-identify as a wrathful deity and I'm not ready for that, maybe I'll become very angry. If I start practicing wind channel bindu or other advanced yogas without having attained tummo, then maybe I'll not do anything, or maybe I'll cause illness. Even if I practice compassion through a Chenrezig sadhana, I could potentially bring about harm or distress, because when practicing compassion it is not uncommon to become extremely sad from all the suffering of sentient beings. So yeah it's not so much that it is secret because of some kind of "we have the real secrets of enlightenment  " but more because it is sincerely believed that if you're not ready it could cause some harm to be exposed to Tantric practices. It can also cause a lot of confusion because some of the practices become superficially self-contradictory, and if you haven't attained the first lesson then the next might not make sense.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Edit 2: I wrote a bunch of words here that were super goofy because I was hecka tired after a long shift. I'm sorry if they were disruptive. I'm editing them because as written I can't stand by them. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Whoa, I wrote a lot of words last night that I was way too tired to be writing and I think I wrote things that I totally didn't mean to be writing. Sorry about that. The fact that I can't remember this morning what I wrote clearly is pretty telling. That and I wrote "mahamudra" for god knows what reason. I'm sorry to the whole thread that I wrote all those words that amount to p much meaningless drivel. The very essence of idle talk. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 14:19 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
Secret Sweater posted:Thank you for the explanation of volition and karma. It took a bit, but I feel I understand it much better now. It is not unanswerable because there is no answer, it is unanswerable because the Buddha would not answer that question when asked. The generally accepted understanding here is not that the Buddha does not know the answers, but rather that any answer would become an obstacle to practice. The question of life after death, incidentally, is not unanswerable. The fourteen unanswerable questions are if the world is finite, or not, or both, or neither; if the world is everlasting, or not, or both, or neither; if the the self and the body is the same, or different; and if the Tathagata exists after his death, or not, or both, or neither. That latter question is what I'm assuming you're talking about, and we can only speculate as to why it should not have been answered, but doing so would itself be against the spirit of the thing. It is my guess that Buddha did not answer this question because it would lead to concern for this existence, grasping for continued existence, or so on. Also important is the distinction between reincarnation and rebirth. It is not believed that you yourself get incarnated again sometime after death. It is believed that a new self, a new being, is born when you die. They are sort of linearly progressing due to karmic consequence, but it's not the same "self." Quantumfate would do a better job of explaining the nitty-gritty of this process, Tibetan beliefs basically hold that the mindstream is like a stream because it is uninterrupted, but this does not imply that it is the same individual, except in the case of voluntary reincarnations which can be performed by enlightened beings who are beyond coming and going and exist outside the dualistic concept of life and death, which, getting to the meat of the matter, is the key point: life and death are dualistic illusions, a misperception of "self" as a thing that can be alive or dead rather than being a sort of nexus of rising and falling thoughts existing entirely dependent on other things and so having no intrinsic identity. Sorry that got a bit rambly, but I guess I'm not sure of the foundation of the question, since whether or not there is life after death is not one of the 14 unanswerables.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Operating Rod posted:Am I just confused, or is there some aversion to exploring Buddhist concepts (specifically Zen ones) through martial arts practices? Martial arts? Not so much. If you look at a lot of Japanese martial arts and other such things, you'll see Buddhism all up in there. Some of Japanese Buddhism in fact is built around allowing dudes to chop other dudes up in a battlefield without guilt. In general, Zen-like concepts (specifically many of those pulled from Taoism, rather than Buddhism) work well in things like archery, shooting, and so on. Actually almost especially in shooting arts, because those sports are very much dependent on a sort of harmony and no-effort and no-mind in practice. If you're shooting, the harder you try to hit the target, the less likely you will be to succeed. Rather, it's better to allow the rifle to be aimed at the target, with stance, balance, breathing, sight alignment, grip, rifle balance, and so on all working in harmony. It's about allowing the thing to happen morso than making it happen. If you think very hard or try very hard to hit the target, you will invariably miss it. I always had better success shooting by simply allowing the conditions to be met rather than trying to force them to be met. There is some aversion I think primarily in the West and specifically with shooting firearms because generally, culturally, they represent war and violence. Archery does the same, but archery has become less a thing for warfare and so has kind of fallen into the "sport/hunting" category in the minds of many people. The mainly associated concept with guns is shooting people, violence, murders, wars, and so on. So there is an aversion there overall. I think a lot of people are simply unable to divorce the concept of shooting from the concept of warfare, and so this comes about. Also, there are other ways to further your practice than shooting a gun, so they might consider that to be the better case. I personally would see a difference between shooting a performance, sport designed high powered rifle, or a .22LR, and, say, an AR15 or even a Garand or another war rifle. Sports shooting to me is no problem at all, but I don't really advocate or would not participate in something like police shooting competitions where the underlying theory of it is to simulate combat performance. So that is kind of the distinction. If you want to shoot targets on a target range and use that to further your meditative practice or to benefit your health or mental or spiritual wellbeing, then that is great. If you want to gear up like a soldier and shoot vaguely human shaped targets to demonstrate your ability to shoot people, maybe this is not so good. Edit: And to speak to martial arts more broadly, you'll see some that tend to be very conducive to Buddhist practice and some that are not so. Often the distinction is made between "soft" and "hard" or "internal" and "external." Generally if a martial art is something that advocates lots of force on force, or hitting dudes hard, or killing dudes really efficiently, or a battle of strength, so to speak, it might not be so conducive to Buddhist practice. So, Muay Thai, MMA, things like this maybe are not the best? Ba gua zhang, Tai chi chuang, and so on that involve a lot of fluid movement and such? These can be very meditative. Hell, bagua specifically employs a lot of information from the i ching, and the entire art is basically a practice of redirection of force and defeating opponents by taking them off balance, so there's that. Also circles. Bagua loves circles. Buddha loves circles. So probably it's the most Buddhist martial art 
Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Operating Rod posted:I get the first sentence here and can see validity to that suggestion, but isn't drawing linguistic distinctions between "war rifle" and "not a war rifle" kind of at odds with Zen thought, though? After a fashion, and I don't hold to be free of aversions, either. My distinction here is that high end competitive rifles are designed to be good at competitive shooting. War rifles are designed to be good at killing a dude. I used to shoot high powered rifle. I usually shot an AR15. I never once considered shooting a dude with it, and even now I wouldn't necessarily see one and be like "oh drat dude wants to shoot a dude." I know better. But I can understand the general population or other Buddhists and especially Buddhists who didn't grow up shooting not easily making that distinction. quote:Also, wouldn't kendo or judo be equally not so good as IDPA or IPSC competition (if not much, much worse)? This is where I fall down - striking or throwing someone is ok, but clearing a plate rack or shooting standardized paper silhouette targets at speed is bad? Kendo especially has a lot of that Japanese military tradition built into it, and it does a weird thing at a certain philosophical level where the samurai caste started coming to terms with killing, avoiding needless killing outside of combat for example and making justifications like "I'm not killing a dude by hitting him with this sword, rather, this body and this sword moves through that body and a life is ending" kinda thing. It definitely can be meditative though, Kendo and Judo both, and Aikido and others for sure. Part of why I think that is more culturally accepted as well for Buddhist practice is because nobody really uses Kendo or Judo to kill a dude in 2013. Whereas shooting a dude is definitely the reality we live in. Both shooting well and sparring well involve mind-body discipline and meditative focus and so on, but one of those things does not usually result in dead people and the other one is pretty much the very image of violence. Again though yeah this isn't necessarily accurate or universally a "truth." It is a cultural perception. Regarding the shooting stuff, steel plate or standard target is one thing, Jeff Cooper style shooting events based literally on shooting man sized silhouettes to practice combat is another. That's an arbitrary distinction I might make. I make a distinction between something like high powered, even military service, bullseye, field target, etc. versus IDPA, practical shooting, action shooting, and so on. One is focused on shooting targets and nothing more, the other is focused on the "practical use of firearms," but of course what is the practical use of a firearm? In practice, guns are good for sport and for killing things. If we deliberately are focusing on "practical use," it implies non-sport use, and the only real non-sport use of guns is violence. That doesn't mean that sport use is bad, but it does go a long way to explain the general tendency to shy away from shooting sports. That's also a similar arbitrary distinction I'd make with martial arts. Tae Kwon Do competition where I'm kickin' a person for points is different than boxing competition where I'm trying to make a person unconscious. Again, it's a sort of arbitrary distinction that I acknowledge is not necessarily meaningful, but that is why I might spar around with something like bagua with my old training buddies but probably would not kickbox or do certain Bando systems again. Edit: Yeah, we're chasing each other's edits. I agree with you. Shooting is very much a Zen discipline exactly because it is not about wrangling the rifle or bow into conformity with your desire, and brutishly attempting to force an arrow or bullet into a target never works. It's about allowing all those factors to arise spontaneously without force. Accurate, skillful shooting is much less "make" and much more "let," and I think that is a very beneficial concept to cultivate. Good shooting is all stance, balance, and so on. Even some of the less conventional "opposing force" methods of using firearms involve balance. So yeah, I hope I'm not creating the impression I'm against shooting, I'm just trying to propose or explain why I think some people have an aversion to it or see it as unskillful by default. I don't, but I kinda get why others do, and I do see some disciplines as unskillful (IDPA, etc.) Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:53 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:It's to show reverence for the teachers who laid the path- and also a sign of humility. Also to expand, from a Vajrayana perspective: Buddha has no physical form but is believed to exist (and not exist, and both, and neither, etc.) in the form of emptiness. Because Buddha has attained emptiness, essentially any Buddha-image and Buddha-form is the Buddha, because it's not not the Buddha. This is why Buddha images are not used for decoration in Tibet, and it is for example very rude to extend the soles of the feet towards a Buddha statue, and so on. And in the preliminary practices of many lineages, high numbers of prostrations are used to both teach humility and also to accumulate merit (prostrating anything is an act of humility, taking Refuge is often accompanied by prostrations, and both activities generate merit, so in that wonderfully low-magic sort of way, banging out 100k prostrations accumulates lots of merit, which can serve to assist in attaining Buddhahood).
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:What does Korean Buddhism fall under? My first time in a Korean Buddhist temple a lay practitioner described the prostrating to me as something to bring good favor. Her English was limited though, so I couldn't get more than a basic answer. Merit and good favor could be more or less the same given poor English command. I believe Korean Buddhism tends to be Zen or Vajrayana, but I am not able to look it up right now. There is if I recall a pretty robust Wikipedia entry about Korean Buddhism though that I remember reading once. I don't see any problem in taking part in prostration even without understanding all the reasons. Generally meritorious actions are meritorious whether you intend them or not. For example animals can gain merit by walking around stupas or prostrating even though they do so without intent.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I wanted to gain clarification on one aspect of Buddhism: Love. Love seems to be one of the most important concepts to the Buddha, from my very little research and understanding on the topic, but the Preta, or "Hungry Ghosts", are supposedly attached to the world for a variety of reasons, one of them being Love. How does this work? Is it particular kinds of love(i.e. Platonic vs. Romantic vs. Friendship), or ways of loving, or is it an intensity thing? I always thought about it like this: the Buddha wants us to love and bring happiness to others always, but accept their deaths as an inevitability, allowing us to be both deattached and attached. But again, I'm not a Buddhist. Thanks in advance! Not able to answer for Buddhism as a whole, really, and the above answers apply very well, but today while talking about Lord Jigten Sumgon as today is his anniversary, my lama discussed that Jigten Sumgon has taught that for beginning practitioners and such it is often more beneficial to meditate on love than on compassion, because meditating too much to develop compassion can lead to agitation and suffering if it is not developed in the context of bodhicitta. The difference is that of meditating on love for all sentient beings as your mother just naturally, respecting every sentient being as the one who has been kind for you in this and past lives, and loving all sentient beings with equanimity and kindness, treating every being as your guest, mother, guru, and Buddha. The equivalent to love in this sense would be close to the Greek concept of Agape, or perhaps the Latin virtue of Caritas, or just generally compassionate or altruistic love. Compassion is the feeling of movement that inspires us to act to benefit suffering sentient beings. We want to ease that suffering, we feel their suffering as our own and we are moved toward action to benefit them. Combined, love (loving-kindness is often how it's rendered in Buddhist literature) and compassion join to form Bodhicitta, the foundation of the Mahayana philosophy, that of a strong desire to attain perfect Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, in order to ease the suffering of others, rather than the desire to pass into parinirvana purely for the cessation of one's own suffering. But without love, meditating on compassion can drive us crazy, as developing it can lead to psychic trauma, thinking about all the immense suffering in the entire world. Developing both, however, provides a strong motivation to benefit sentient beings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:How do you meditate on something? Direct your thoughts towards it. With love, it's suggested to focus on your mother (by Tibetans, who are very into mothers, but anybody you love will work). You just focus your attention there and consider how they have treated you well, how they reduce your suffering, nurture you, etc. For compassion, you can focus on the same thing, but that person's suffering, and how you have felt similar suffering, and so on. Not all meditation is calm-abiding, and metta (lovingkindness and compassion) can be or it can be something else. Although it can be a form of calm-abiding, if you focus on such concept as your referent object. Also there is a general conception of meditation involving freeing the mind of thoughts or not thinking, but this is not always the case. In Drikung Kagyu practice my understanding is that thoughts should be redirected towards the referent if that's what you're doing, especially in the early stages of learning meditation, but that thoughts are simply dependently arising phenomenon like anything else, and so at some point one simply abides them coming and going as well, so long as it can be done without grasping. After all, being rid of thought entirely is still grasping. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Shnooks posted:I know it doesn't really matter, but has anyone used Mala for things other than chanting? Some of the meditation and mindfulness practices I do require counting and I was thinking carrying a small mala around would be easier than keeping it in my head. In Tibet where some practices involve hundreds of thousands of prostrations there are additional counters that attach right to the mala to let you keep track of way many more numbers. So yeah. The mala is a tool. It's a religious tool, and often blessed, but it is a tool regardless, so feel free to use it as such. Also in Tibet they are sometimes used for divination and decision making so there's that. It's really a very utilitarian device. I guess as long as you're not using it to count murders or something it's fine. The only exception I can think of is mala consecrated for use in deity yoga, which need treated with respect throughout the practice at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
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. I'm not an expert on the matter, so I will link Wikipedia for the details, but there was a cultural exchange between Buddhist and Greek cultures during the Hellenistic period. If your brand of Orthodox is Eastern, it's not unreasonable that there may be some ideas brought from Mahayana ideology and otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism But on a broader scale, the Buddha was an observer, not a dictator. He didn't mandate the solution to the problem of suffering, he studied it, recognized its causes, and developed a solution. It is not unlikely that other cultures would have developed the same general conclusions. There are some who postulate Christ as a Bodhisattva, for example. Stoic philosophers in Greece, such as Epictetus, had come to similar conclusions. Epictetus is well known in modern psychological circles as the speaker of a favorite quote of Albert Ellis, "it is not things that disturb me, but the view I take of them," which inspired the modern cognitive behavioral movement. This is now merging with mindfulness thought largely inspired by the East. In any case, the teachings of the Buddha were not developed as dogma or handed down as divinely inspired (per se), but rather they are observations of the actual nature of things. And though Shakyamuni Buddha is the Buddha for this fortunate kalpa, there are many other Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Shravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas born all around. So even if there is no cultural exchange, there are likely to be others with other insights practicing other religions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:I would be careful with those kind of statements though... Anyone talking about the "true" way, should be avoided in my humble opinion. I'm not sure if that was directed at my post, and I don't think I made that implication in my post, but I'd point out that while this is true to an extent, the Four Noble Truths are so called because they are profound. They are universally applicable. Whether you're Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, whatever, the truth is that attachment, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering, and that all sentient beings will inevitably suffer birth, sickness, old age, and death without fail. The solution, renunciation of those attachments and aversions, development of right view, and so on is also universal in that anyone can accomplish it that way. Others might accomplish it other ways, and that's fine, so long as they accomplish it. My lama says that essentially so long as a religion teaches morality, and practices compassion and lovingkindness, that's a true path, because ultimately that's what it takes. Mother Theresa was Catholic, but no less a bodhisattva. Zen certainly has aspects of renunciation. It's a Mahayana school. They may not be so prominent, but Zen does not deny or deemphasize the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path. And I think your statement about denying the physical world is off-point, because very few Buddhist sects outright deny the physical world. Such is wrong view. Now, they do get very involved in philosophical treatises on why the physical world is without essence and ultimately empty, as does Zen, but nobody is saying to deny the physical world. Buddhist approach to physical reality is extremely practical. For example in the Vinaya monks shouldn't eat after midday, unless of course they are sick or have done physical labor. Buddhism is nothing if not practical. Finding who you are is of course important, but I think a problem with this is that self is non-essential. There is no self-essence, there is no "this is intrinsically me." And without renunciation, without abandonment of worldly desire, it is difficult to realize that virtually any statement of "this is who I am" is wrong view. So I think Zen certainly incorporates renunciation and such. I would add however that renunciation does not always mean monasticism, does not mean following the Vinaya, and so on. Renunciation can be done mentally by householders, who can become unattached to worldly things while still possessing them. It's harder to do, I think, but it certainly can be done. So there's no need to become a homeless monk if that is not possible - and you need to work within the facticity of your existence. Buddhist practices need adapted to the culture where they are being practiced, this is important. I know Western monks who have jobs. It is an important aspect of Buddhism that Buddha taught 84,000 paths. Anyhow, I agree fundamentally that the idea that "there's one true truth and all others are wrong" is itself wrong, but I also didn't see anyone saying that? Unless you were responding to something on the page before in which case sorry about all this. Haha
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:What's that supposed to mean? Clearly Baguazhang is the superior Buddhist martial art. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:Which actually brings me to another question -- what is the Buddhist philosophy (or philosophies, if the schools differ) on humans' responsibilities toward animals? I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household in the South, so I'm well aware of the Old Testament imperative for men to act as stewards for animals, but that too often gets interpreted as "we can kill them for sport because God said we're better than they are." Does Buddhism, with its concern for all living things, have any specific views on how humans should treat or engage with them? In Tibetan Buddhism, all animals, from the lowest worm to the highest king, are to be considered as one's own mother*. In the vast ocean of Samsara, countless sentient beings have gone through these cycles of birth, sickness, old age, and death, and so it is likely that any being, perhaps all beings, have at one point been your mother. So, when this mosquito is sucking the blood from your arm, and you think to swat, perhaps this is a cause of hesitation, for this very mosquito was probably once your mother, who showed you kindness and nurtured you and raised you lovingly and comforted your suffering. Any animal should be treated as an esteemed guest, and given all the care one can afford. Realistically, with so many numerous sentient beings, this becomes impossible, but at the very least a polite regard is appropriate. Killing an animal because it is convenient to do so is never okay. * One's mother in this context refers to any being that shows you supreme kindness. So if your biological mother in this life is neglectful or hateful of you, this does not mean mothers suck, it means your mother in this life is not your biological mother only. Even still, your biological mother must be highly regarded for the suffering she went through in birthing you. Even the most hateful bio-mom once endured suffering for you, even if only that once. Taliaquin posted:I know it's been a couple of weeks, but can we go back to the spider for a minute? (Sorry, I've only just now read the thread.) I know a tiny bit about Buddhist philosophy from my brief stint as a religion major years ago, but this is something I've never quite understood. The spider, in this instance, is ending a life, but is it really causing suffering? An ant's mind isn't really that developed; correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, isn't it debatable whether or not an ant can even be credited with any intelligence, by the conventional definition? Whereas a spider is demonstrably more intelligent - or maybe what I should say is higher-functioning in terms of its mental capacity. Is there any privileging of an animal's mental functions in determining suffering? Anemones and sponges are animals, but they don't really have any mental functions whatsoever, and going by how we think of animals' minds and behaviors, they seem closer to a cabbage than, say, a turtle. Or what about its ecological importance? Spiders have undoubtedly kept some insect-borne diseases in check. The higher or lower mental capacities are not a consideration. Beings with higher mental capacity are perhaps more auspicious due to a better capability to comprehend Dharma, but in general being an animal is considered quite inauspicious (one of the "three lower realms," alongside hell-realm beings and hungry ghosts), because an animal has little capacity to practice Dharma, and is driven from place to place by craving and aversion. Animals kill to placate their cravings, and this is killing, it is a cause of negative karma, and a cause of rebirth in lower and lower realms. This gives us two considerations: first, that we are very fortunate to have this human life, and should use it to practice Dharma. Second, that we should do all we can to reduce the sufferings of animals, and to show them kindness, and importantly (in Mahayana) to dedicate our merit, so that we can provide sufficient cause for those beings locked in lower cycles of suffering to be reborn in a better position. Incidentally, this is also why Tibetans frequently hang prayer flags, and this is the impetus for one of my favorite things HE Garchen Rinpoche has done, which is to popularize and prepare for mass dissemination mantras of liberation by sight (the Mantra of Hanu) and liberation by touch, which he has advised some people to attach to their vehicles so that if they come into contact with insects while driving the mantra provides sufficient cause for rebirth in a higher realm. Returning to the animals like anemones and such, and whether or not an ant eaten by a spider suffers, the test for that is a common sense sort of one. Specifically, the traditional test for whether a thing is a sentient being or not (and therefore whether it suffers) is whether or not it stirs compassion in us. Basically, does it look like it is suffering? Does it move us? The ant suffers because drat, it looks like it's suffering. I can sympathize with that. Even if it is not thinking in its tiny ganglionic system the cognitive thoughts of "oh my, I am undone! This spider has ensnared me and now is going to kill me! I'll never see my colony again!," it struggles. It attempts to free itself. It thrashes and resists to the last. Even without the cognition of its own death, or life, or so on, it too has suffered. It too was born, has been sick, has waxed in age, and now is dying. So lower functioning being or not, it is suffering. It knows fear, and that's all it knows, so is this not a worse fate even than to be born human and to have known happiness? Anemones and such were probably mainly unknown to the Buddha, but I would apply this same test even there. If it behaves in ways that indicate suffering, if it experiences those same four great sufferings, then it's a sentient being. If not, then not, but we should still be respectful of it because of its provision of aid to us (do not simply chop down a tree that is a home to sentient beings. Do not mindlessly trod upon flowers that are food for sentient beings. And so on).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Sorry for bumping the thread, but what is the point of ideas such as emptiness, dependent origination, and impermanence? I've been interested in Buddhism for some time, and have read up on these philosophies. They seem to make sense and I know of nothing which contradicts them (I don't know of any object or phenomenon which is permanent and has an independent existence). But the problem I'm having is the usefulness of these ideas. It's like, no poo poo that everything exists because of prior causes, no poo poo that things are always changing from one moment to the next, no poo poo that we're products of the world and aren't separate from it and everything's connected and our ideas of separation are ultimately arbitrary. But what's the point of acknowledging all of that? How does it deal with the problem of suffering? Edged Hymn more or less nailed this. These philosophies are the underlying foundation that provide the substrate upon which renunciation can be accomplished. It also provides the underpinnings for the who idea of why non-attachment makes sense as a solution to the problem. For example, if things had intrinsic identity, it is possible that a thing might be intrinsically "good," or might intrinsically cause happiness. If that's the case, why bother with renunciation? Just do that thing. Also, as Edged Hymn says, it provides the reasoning behind the thing. It deals with the problem of suffering because it points out that both suffering and happiness are dependently originated states, and through renunciation of attachment to impermanent, temporary things, we are freed from the suffering of loss of those things. By renunciation of aversion from impermanent, temporary things, we are freed from the suffering of the existence of those things. By seeing things how they really are, we are freed from the ignorance of perceiving things as permanent. If I have a nice car, then this might be a cause for momentary happiness, but, recognizing from the onset its impermanence, the suffering of that car rusting and falling apart, or being smashed in an accident, or exploding spontaneously, is non-existent. Knowing from the onset that this car is not a permanent happiness, the loss of things becomes just another event. Similarly, if I am in even incredible pain, this surely sucks, but it may not be a cause for suffering if I realize the ephemeral nature of this pain. The pain is not intrinsic, it has no absolute reality or truth. It is merely a sensation arising from temporary circumstances. The causes and conditions presently exist for me to be in pain, but those causes and conditions are not permanent. Eventually, the pain will not longer exist, either through medicine or even my own death. It is, one way or another, not a permanent state and so enduring it becomes less arduous, less cause of suffering. Clinging to his life, and fearing death, causes great suffering. By recognizing that this life is empty and without any true existence, we can avoid clinging to it. By realizing that death is inevitable, that we have nothing to fear from it because it is simply another change in state in a cycle much bigger than our illusory selves, we can avoid fear. By recognizing the true nature of things, we can avoid deception and ignorance that leads us to fall continuously into these states of attachment and aversion. In this way, based upon the wisdom of emptiness, we can avoid the sufferings of attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Taliaquin posted:
You might like reading things about, for example, this: http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/04/photos-buddhists-bless-liberate-hundreds-of-u-s-lobsters/ . I also read recently of a nun in I believe Seattle whose sangha bought the entire local fishing capture, blessed, and released them. The fish then become a cause for liberation of other fish as they brush up against each other and so on. ashgromnies posted:I'm sorry, but what? This is confusing to me. I don't understand all the "rebirth in higher realms" and such... it almost seems to suggest a travelling soul which I thought was antithetical to the idea of rebirth. I always hear Western Buddhists suggest that "rebirth" differs from "reincarnation" in that it's not a literal transmigration of a "soul", rather just the energy and matter of the being continuing on. I am not a Buddhist, though. It makes such a suggestion but a lot of this whole thing becomes complicated due to connotations that come with for example concepts of "souls" and then concepts of "mindstreams" and so on. The concept of a soul, in the Western sense, is not tenable in Buddhism because in the Western sense a "soul" is a core, fundamental, inherent point of identity. It is an "essence" with intrinsic existence. This obviously is incompatible with Buddhist thinking. Sentient beings do have a kind of perpetuating rebirth system that is somewhat linear and where causes and conditions lead to specific rebirths. It is not the same being, because it's not the same being, but it's sort of related via a kind of spark. To get into detail on that spark, something like "mind" works, but "mind" brings about the idea of conceptual thought here, so there is no ideal word for it. A being dies, another being is born. That new being may be born with new identity. The general concept in Tibetan Buddhism is that a being in the Bardo (the interstitial space between births) will tend to gravitate toward certain circumstances based on the causes and conditions and circumstances surrounding their life and death. A being with great merit, huge good deeds, and so on, but without a heart of bodhicitta, for example, may be reborn as a demigod or god, but even this state is temporary. A being with not much merit, who killed and did other nonvirtuous deeds without care, who lacks compassion, may be reborn as a suffering being, in a lower realm. Honestly, it doesn't matter I think for the core of practical Buddhism, because it is not pertinent to our daily lives usually. It becomes pertinent on a spiritual level. I was initially not pleased by it, too, thinking it implied an essential self that travels along from birth to birth, but that's not really on point. It's difficult to explain in what way it's not on point though without getting into a whole lot of things the content of which would drag and the details of which would differ in name from position to position. The distillation, I suppose, introducing a lot of corruption unfortunately due to my own poor understanding and the inherent dissatisfactory nature of language, is that all beings possess the same "essential nature" of non-essence. All beings are empty, and so share in the emptiness-nature. From that emptiness-nature that is shared universally, manifestations arise. Those manifestations take forms, either in physical forms, or spiritual/illusory forms, but all kind of spontaneously arise and fall away based on causes and conditions. So the gist is that accumulating merit (practicing virtuous deeds, practicing Dharma, etc) leads to the causes and conditions which bear the fruit of enlightenment, and benefiting sentient beings. Practicing non-virtue (being an animal, for example, that murders for every meal, with no compassionate regard for its prey) leads to the causes and conditions which bear the fruit of suffering. Things like mantras and merit dedication provide means of helping other sentient beings who without a "seed" cannot "fruit." All sentient beings could naturally attain enlightenment by eventually cycling down to the hell realms, where negative karma is not gained and negative actions "gain fruition" at which point after that karma is "burned off" by suffering (the effect of the cause, which was whatever nonvirtuous deed) they get spontaneously reborn in more auspicious ways. But by dedicating merit, we can try to spare some beings this suffering. Sometimes, beings who have great vast stores of merit and accumulated miracle power and so on, great bodhisattvas, for example, provide means to help sentient beings. Sometimes they build Pure Lands that anyone can go to if they merely hear the name of the Buddha (Amitabha's Pure Lands, for example), sometimes they produce mantras that when seen can cleanse negative karma (for example, by taking it onto themselves, because as enlightened beings even if they are reborn in the hell realms they do not suffer) and sometimes they produce mantras that when touched can do the same. Always the cause must lead to the effect, however. By attaining liberation and enlightenment though, the misery of those lower rebirths becomes much less. Really though that amount of detail and discussion is almost trifling if your concern is mainly for this life. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 19:09
|
|
) since I've heard of them being set loose in ecosystems they don't belong in, which is hazardous to local wildlife and to the turtles themselves, for instance, putting freshwater turtles in saltwater. 
|
I'm at work on my phone, so I have to make a brief comment rather than mega words presently, but to clarify the mindstream: a mindstream isn't like a stream in that it flows from life to life, but in that it has the appearance of being the same despite constantly changing. When we look at a stream or river, our inclination is to see it as the same. But the water is not the same water. Mindstreams are similar. The mind is the same intrinsically empty vessel, with thoughts and forms arising. In yogacara this process includes the consciousnesses, in madhyamaka we focus down less and just roll with the natural mind, being empty, non dual, and without intrinsic nature, without denying yogacara.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Let's get weirder/more esoteric for fun. (I know, this has little practical importance to most practitioners but it's interesting!) I can talk a little about this because the tradition I practice relies heavily on it, but my understanding is not perfect, perhaps just a bit enough to clarify the value or validity of the practices. In Vajrayana, it is very common to practice deity and guru yogas. These are specialized practices that rely heavily on a proper understanding of the concepts that were asked about earlier. Without indulging technicalities that rely a lot on accepting certain Tibetan conceits that are not really necessary, the general idea is that a deity in this case is not the same as in the Western case. A common deity yoga practice for example is that of Chenrezig/Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. Conceptually, if we want to consider compassion, Chenrezig is a personification of it. Whether or not Chenrezig possesses relative reality depends on a degree of acceptance of a lot of trifling details that I will explain below, but which are not essential to the practice. So anyways, Chenrezig is this mental construction, a sort of conceptualized personification, meant to allow our conceptual mind to interface with this being meaningfully. With this being the case, we can say that Chenrezig, a being defined conceptually as compassion, is a being. In deity yoga, we do visualizations and see ourselves as becoming Chenrezig. All beings becoming Chenrezig. This allows us then to mentally recognize that we are the compassion being, that other beings are likewise a deity, and so it becomes easier for us to remember "oh, I should respect this other person because they are Chenrezig" or "oh, I should do compassionate deeds for my enemy because I am Chenrezig." The lynchpin in this mental game of identification is that all beings are ultimately essenceless, empty, and without intrinsic identity. Because all beings are empty and without inherent "self," there is no way to say that this aspect is mine, that aspect is yours, or so on. When you pour two cups of water together, no water can be said to belong to one cup or the other. The water, while remaining the same, becomes inseparable. Likewise, we are inseparable from the deity, our nature inextricably interwoven, and so there is no real way in which we're not the deity. Guru yoga is thus similar, except with the very real guru as the object of supplication and identification. "Below" starts here: This was complicated to discuss without lies-to-children, so I'll go a bit further here. The thing about things having relative or actual existence is difficult. Technically, nothing has any true existence, but also nothing lacks true existence. Emptiness is non-conceptual, and dualistic delusions of existence and non-existence are conceptual. When a thing has "relative reality" it means essentially "existing in the really real world." One could say that deities lack relative reality, except it would be essentially a lie-to-children. Even ignoring the emanated manifestation-bodies of deities (HHDL is an emanation of Chenrezig, meaning he is a physical embodiment springing from that particular mindstream. So while he is not identical to Chenrezig, he is inseparable from and born of the same seed), it is difficult to say these things lack relative reality because, well, we can interface with them mentally. Visualizations and dreams have the same reality as physical world because they both exist in the mind, and are inseparable therefrom. Dreams are just as real as the waking state. Visualizations are just as real as dreams. Ultimately, everything is relatively real. This is the "trick" to these practices. If I generate a visualization field in front of myself that includes all those beings, and I interact with them, this is the same as if I was actually doing it because my mind's experience is the key point here. It does not matter that nobody else in the room sees it, because I likewise do not see the world the same way they do. So when I visualize myself as a deity, and everyone else as a deity, that becomes the "relative reality" for me. If I visualize everyone as a Buddha, or as my mother, then treat them accordingly, in what way aren't they that? In actual reality, it's all emptiness anyhow, all causes and conditions spontaneously arising and falling. And if I use this to reinforce key points, such as that every being is inseparable from the Buddha, possessing a Buddha nature, and arising from Emptiness exactly like a Buddha, then that is a great learning, a great attainment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Shambhala is legit if a bit unorthodox Tibetan Buddhism. The lineage is solid but their methods are not the conventional methods as Trungpa Rinpoche was keen on Western culture and using Western ideas to convey Buddhism. However, their unorthodox nature does cause controversy and consternation in some. Chogyam Trungpa is recognized as having possessed "crazy wisdom" and a lot of his methods are unorthodox. The Shambhala thing itself is, to my understanding, based on his belief that sufficient numbers of enlightened beings or beings on the path can actualize in relative reality (this physical world) a sort of pure land or enlightened society. So it's not "stay away" but it's not representational of "orthodox" Tibetan Buddhism. It's debatable whether or not a system developed primarily for dissemination in the West is more or less effective. Even more orthodox lineages have adapted their teachings to the West because the Buddha taught that Dharma must be practiced relative to the ways of the culture in which one finds oneself. So for example in Drikung Kagyu monks can hold mundane jobs in the West, because there is no system in place for patronage and support of monastics otherwise as there is in the East. There are also teachings about how probably doing a 3 year retreat is not feasible for most Westerners, so there are alternative methods of practicing things like Mahamudra. In that light, Shambhala is simply another alternative method of practice aimed towards Westerners, so the criticisms of its unorthodoxy ought to be tempered in that light. Regarding the Zen center, I suspect having only one teaching before service, and not much guidance past that, is because my understanding of Zen is that there is a strong emphasis on teacher to student relations, such that it's probably expected that your actual learning is being done with your teacher in private. You may want to look into that further.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Question for the Zen folks: The term "Zen Master" is almost genericized in the US, and my understanding is there's no specific thing that makes one a "Zen master." But is the term generally understood to mean someone who has achieved liberation? Or is it just a term for someone who "gets" Zen? I should think the very nature of Zen being so individualized, a person who "gets" it should, well, have achieved liberation. I also get the impression that Zen masters teach, and I should figure one should have gained some degree of enlightenment to teach. So, what really does it mean here?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Interesting. Is the nature of a dharma transmission in Zen similar to that in Dzogchen's heart transmission or Kagyu's oral transmission?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:My choices as far as ability to attend and learn are of these three as far as places with sanghas: You've seen the Zen center and it sounds good. Your ideas about Chenrezig Tibetan are not far off probably, but I would point out that a direct comparison to Catholicism in terms of deity yoga and such isn't really appropriate. One of the reasons Vajrayana is sometimes considered "secret" is not because there are any secrets, but because it's pretty much impossible to describe it without writing huge gigantic treatises, and even those inevitably lose details. Also, the Tibetans didn't add that stuff onto a Buddhist substrate, rather, that stuff existed in Tibet in the form of Bon shamanism, and when Buddhism arrived in Tibet it merged into a syncretistic practice, as the Buddha has taught that Dharma should be practiced in accordance and harmony with the cultural practices of the region. New Kadampa is an apostate sect of Tibetan Buddhism with a lot of out there ideas, and no legitimate lineage. Their leader styles himself Geshe but has been kicked out of numerous monasteries in the Tibetan tradition, seemingly mainly over a spat with His Holiness the Dalai Lama about Dorje Shugden worship, which just makes the whole thing seem weird. I'd stay away from NKT if only because one of their primary tenets is that once you've done NKT you should not practice or even study anything else at all. While it's generally taught in Tibetan Buddhism that it's best to follow one tradition, this is generally done after one finds a guru who is just right and perfect, and most Tibetan lamas are at least passingly familiar with other traditions (my guru for example practices Mahamudra in Drikung Kagyu, but has completed Dzogchen training in the Nyingma tradition). Chenrezig Tibetan Center appears to be a Gelug tradition school with a lineage that checks out, so it will have a legitimate lineage and so on. The thing about Tibetan Buddhism is that even my guru has talked about how sometimes it can look like a "drama stage" in the shrine room, and there's seemingly a lot of stuff going on, but fundamentally it's very simple. The "point" to so much ritual and such is that Vajrayana is very much a system for mainlining attainment, almost "gaming the system" so to speak by engaging in practices very specifically intending to attain liberation very quickly, but with the absolutely critical requirement of doing so out of a pure motivation to benefit all sentient beings. Bodhicitta, the excellent and precious mind of enlightenment and altruistic motivation, is at the core, and practicing Vajrayana requires developing that because engaging in tantric practices without such a motivation can lead to one's spiritual ruin. So if you want to check out Chenrezig Tibetan Center you should perhaps do that, but if you are hesitant to miss your own practice at the Zen Center, you can probably contact someone from Chenrezig Center to show you around, give you a teaching, explain some of the practices better without going to the actual practice right away. Honestly one of the things I worry about sometimes with new people coming to just random practices, like a deity yoga of some sort or smoke offerings or something, is that they will get the wrong impression and think that Vajrayana is some kind of crazy voodoo-cult or that all of the ritual [i]is[i] Vajrayana, and miss the simple ideas of Buddhism that are foundational to the practices. FWIW, my wife prefers a very simple Buddhism without all the trappings, and this is just fine. I prefer the trappings as they help me on my path. Buddha taught 84000 paths, and any path that brings one happiness, reduces suffering of sentient beings, and leads one towards liberation is valid. I don't know anything about Nalandabodhi, but from perusing their website the lineage seems intact and their fundamental ideas seem rooted in the thinking central to Vajrayana, that of the mind's natural state being already enlightened. So they could be worth checking out as well. Because they're spun out of Naropa University, which I believe is a project of Shambhala, they will have their things very much tailored toward a Western mind that is more scientific and skeptical, with less blind devotional things than one might find in a more Tibetan Tibetan Buddhism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
I'll answer some of these from my perspective how I can. Some of them I'm not quite sure what to do with so I'll leave them alone.Perpetual Hiatus posted:It has been really great to discover these things have names and have been discussed and reflected upon for thousands of years, although I really am someone who must re-invent the wheel - I have to earn my truths or they just don't mean anything to me. I guess its probably time to get to the questions... One thing that you might appreciate then in Buddhism is that Buddhism is big on contemplative learning. That is, no matter how much you read, until you have experienced a thing for yourself it is accepted that it won't "click in." Different traditions have different perspectives on learning things ahead of one's contemplative and experiential learning. quote:I have no real understanding of spirituality or religion other than that intrinsic or innate to my self, do you think that Buddhist texts and thoughts are able to be properly understood without having a lens of spiritual practice? If you read the Dhammapada or some other Buddhist text, you will find it meaningful even outside a spiritual practice. If you read it in the course of developing a spiritual practice, it will maybe be more or differently meaningful. If you read it in the course of practicing a spiritual practice, you will find it maybe more or differently meaningful. Part of that whole thing about contemplative understanding is that perspective is crucial, lived experience is critical. You might read something a hundred times, but that hundredth time it may have a meaning to you that is extremely profound and which you'd never considered because up until that point, your mind was not ready to understand that thing, it wasn't ripe yet. quote:How do you (personally) distinguish between your own (internal) truths, universal truths, and falsehood or misunderstanding? Do you have any advice for distinguishing the voice of clarity from your ego/mind/emotions/self-concept-preservation? I don't know the proper term but I think you will know what I mean, I guess I could say the light of the process of insight and reflection instead... Answering this personally: Agreement with teachers and scripture is what I use to distinguish right view from wrong view. As for internal truths from universal truths . . . what is the point? What even is truth, that it can be distinguished. Is there an intrinsic truth other than the emptiness and interdependence of all things? If I believe that the sun shines green, and that disagrees with the external reality, what does it matter? Getting hung up on what is true or false is, to me, a false dilemma. Further, it depends on what truth, what reality we're talking about. Relative reality, this physical world we live in, possesses relative truth which can be useful in functioning within the same relative reality, but the most important part of it to realize is the absolute truth, that while relative reality possesses relative truth, it is all fundamentally empty. Thus the relative reality, the relative truth of, say, a wall existing only matters relatively. Why this is important is framing. Some people might go "oh, but that wall exists so who cares if it doesn't exist absolutely, it is there" and they are correct. Some people might say "oh, but that wall only exists temporarily, a momentary arrangement of elements that will all return to nothing soon enough" and those people are correct. So quibbling over "who is right, what is reality" isn't that important. When you're asleep, and you're dreaming, and there is a wall, that wall is real in the relative context of that dream. The same can be said of anything in the physical world. In a more abstract sense; internal truths and universal truths are in agreement. If they aren't, they need to be tested. Falsehood and misunderstanding needs to be purified by having a good teacher and access to good information, such as scripture, which we can use to test a thing. If a thing corresponds with what is written, it's probably safe to use it. If it doesn't correspond, maybe it is time to reframe or reconsider or look at it differently. quote:My friend who studies(?) yoga suggested that learning a basic routine would help me to focus in learning meditation and that meditation is a lot less about the mind and more about the interaction between the parts of your self, what are your thoughts on this? Meditation is a process, not a goal, and to say that it's this or that is troublesome. There are different types of meditation, of course. Hatha yoga is likely useful for a lot of meditation practice. quote:I am probably really far off in my non-understanding of this but here goes: One of the central ideas is that it is the attachment brings suffering, how does non-attached love work in the Buddhist philosophy? Id also like to know what sexual misconduct means, which isn't actually very related to the last question surprisingly. Attachment leads to suffering inasmuch as any attachment inevitably ends in loss. If we predicate our happiness on an impermanent thing, then our happiness, too, is impermanent. I love my wife very much, and there is some attachment there, surely, but I am also aware of her impermanence and my own impermanence and the impermanence of situations. Perhaps tomorrow she is blown up by a falling satellite. Perhaps today I am killed in a freak grocery shopping accident. Who knows? Sometimes she goes to professional conferences for days at a time. Sometimes I'm on call or working many shifts and so I see her only asleep the entire day. To be in love without being attached means, to me, that I acknowledge the impermanence and enjoy each moment as it is. If she's killed today, or leaves me, or whatever, then that happens. I don't predicate my happiness on my relationship with her - our relationship contributes to my happiness, I'm happy with our relationship, but when it ends, which is certainly and undeniably will someday, then I will still be happy, because I am non-attached. Incidentally, this leads me to a point about renunciation, which is that renunciation can be a mental process. You do not have to literally give up every single thing to be a renunciate, but you do have to mentally do so. I have this computer and I like it, but someday it will break or become so obsolete as to be useless and that's okay. I am not attached. I like many things I have in this apartment, but they are not intrinsically "mine," nothing has an intrinsic nature, and their existence and my own is impermanent. If I come home from work tonight and the whole apartment is burned up, nothing remains, okay, welp. Probably there will be some pain arising, but mentally I am prepared for this, for I have already renounced all I have in my mind. I am not attached to it. I am not saying I am perfect at maintaining this point of view, it is a process, not an end, and I practice it every day. For example, a small thing, but the other day a pen I use at work was pickpocketed from me by one of the patients. I knew this as soon as I got back to the unit and reached for my pen, which I kept in my right pocket. At first, the afflicting emotion of disappointment, of grasping for this thing I don't have arose. I was annoyed a little, but swiftly I was able to realize, the pen is not intrinsically mine, it is impermanent, it is gone, and then I decided instead that rather than be angry something of mine was stolen, I should just hope that that pen brings happiness to whoever stole it the way it brought happiness to me. I sincerely hope stealing it brought them some happiness and that whoever is using it appreciates it as a fine pen for writing. As for sexual misconduct, this will depend who you ask, what tradition, and so on. Generally "don't have sex without consent, and if you're married don't have sex outside of the relationship without consent." Don't engage in sexual relations that bring suffering to yourself (through attachment, through craving for sexual gratification) or others (through cheating, through rape). quote:Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, that is the opposite of my intentions. If you believe in a karmic system of reincarnation how do you distinguish between suffering that is part of your/their purpose in this reincarnation and suffering that should be alleviated when possible? I really struggle with this concept when I try and think about it... How do you parse the horrors that man can inflict, is a child born into sex-slavery simply living out there karma? How do your beliefs balance the freedoms of will(choice and intention) against the experiences that people are apportioned? How does the karmic 'butterfly-effect' work? At a retreat I was at the other day, there was a great teacher from India who is known for the power of healing people. Someone was asking about whether or not they should ask for a healing blessing for a friend with cancer. Their concern was that this sick person's karma was to be sick, and wouldn't that be interfering? I pointed out that if this person is healed, then it is this person's karma to be healed, as well. We should do compassionate things for everyone, every time we can. If their karma is to suffer, that karma will ripen to fruition regardless. But maybe it is their karma to be healed, or for their suffering to end. Either way it does not matter. Don't forget about karma or cause and effect, but don't obsess over it either. Be aware that all your actions have repercussions going forward, and always be mindful of this. Don't worry too much about other people's karma or even the fruition of your own past karma, rather just going forward, do your best. Karma is not a force of arbitration or judgment. Karma is very simply cause and effect. Horrible things happen to sentient beings every day. Child sex-slavery, etc. These things are awful and we should do all we can to alleviate them. Probably we cannot alleviate them all, due to cause and effect. But if we can help one suffering being, then this is good. The karmic "butterfly effect" works the same way as any cause or effect. If we do a good deed, even if we just smile at one person, then they smile at another person, and on and on, then our one smile can make hundreds of people happy. If I do one thing that makes a sentient being happy, then they are happier, then they will maybe make others happier, and so on. Similarly, if I do a bad thing to someone, and cause suffering, then perhaps they are more likely to cause suffering to others.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Further, to acknowledge the divine in all things is also fundamnetally unbuddhist. There is no brahman, no atman. These are core tenets. This is simply untrue. A huge aspect of deity yoga involves essentially this. The difference of course is that in deity yoga, one recognizes that all sentient beings are fundamentally inseparable from Buddha, because they all possess the same Truth-Body, the same emptiness. Chenrezig and I are one and the same, because neither of us possess an intrinsic self that is "other." There may or may not be a relative reality Brahman, and if there is, we are fundamentally inseparable from him and the same as him, because both Brahman and myself are empty and devoid of intrinsic nature. Being without an intrinsic nature, but rather interdependently originated, we are both the realization of the same causes and conditions. Atman, as a concept, is misunderstood in Western discourse as referring to "self" or "soul" in a way that it simply doesn't. The concept of anatta tells us that we lack an intrinsic nature, a natural "self" that arises without cause or condition and which never changes. This is, of course, false, for there is nothing that is without cause, and nothing without cause can change, and so on. Numerous refutations of the existence of an intrinsic self have been proffered by great teachers, as you know. But the concept of self itself is relatively true at a certain level, if it is understood to be the unbroken stream of consciousness. It is, of course, changing, impermanent, and dependently originated, but it does exist in a practical sense. In a practical sense, I can talk to you, with myself as a subject and yourself as an object. In the absolute sense, of course, this is rubbish, because subject-object dualism is wrong view and there is no myself to talk to yourself, simply composite beings arisen from causes and conditions, without an enduring, permanent, intrinsic nature. Still, though, this puts us in the position of being able to say that acknowledging the divine in all things is fundamentally flawed is itself flawed. Buddha-nature can be said to be divine (though I would maybe think sublime is better), in that we go to Buddha, his teachings, and his retinue for refuge. Buddha-nature is primordial emptiness. All things possess this Buddha-nature. Thus, all things are inseparable from Buddha, possessing a Buddha nature. So while I would agree that the practice of remembering the divine nature of all things is not inherently Buddhist, it is also not fundamentally un-Buddhist. It is not wrong view to see that all things possess a divine spark, an inherent nature that is inseparable from enlightened-mind, provided that this understanding is made within the context of a greater perception. It is, of course, wrong view to say that such divinity is absolutely real, however, or that it is independently originated, or self-arising without cause. I don't suspect you'll disagree with me on the main gist here, and I know it seems a small nit to pick, but I am hesitant to call any practice "fundamentally un-Buddhist" if that practice results in virtuous living and the generation of merit, especially if that practice can be employed within a context of Buddhist practice. Rather, I'd suggest not necessarily avoiding Bhakti yoga, at least not any more than avoiding any other non-Buddhist dharma, because it's a Hindu yoga practice. Buddhism has a lot of yogas of its own, and bhakti's goal is more or less no different in its actual realization than simply practicing Buddhism. quote:this is why I would most strongly guide someone who wishes to engage in a buddhist practise away from bhakti- Yes, it is great, it will make you a great person, but it is heading the wrong direction. The bhakta knows love, because as the bhagavad gita tells us: Krishna says that god is love, and love is god. The bhakta practises upon this love as a means of devotion to god, to the almighty. If you aren't being tauht that the bhakta is living for god, welp. v Yeah if you're practicing Hinduism, or any other religion, and as a result practice virtues, abandon non-virtues, and live to reduce the suffering of others, then that is great but it isn't necessarily Buddhism. It also isn't un-Buddhist though, except inasmuch as it's taking place outside a Buddhist context. Then again, my simple test for "is it Buddhist" is "is it in accordance with Buddha's teachings" and then as a kind of secondary test "is the person doing it doing so for the motivation of Buddhist practice, and/or have they taken Refuge?" Edit: Just to be perfectly clear, bhakti yoga is not a Buddhist practice and bhakti specifically is a Hindu practice that has one taking refuge in something other than the Triple Gem, so for that reason I think it is true that it is fundamentally un-Buddhist if practiced in such a context. I was confused about the flow of conversation, and thought that it was in play somewhere and so I was simply trying to point out that it's not utterly incompatible. On its own, practicing Bhakti Yoga is not practicing Buddhadharma. I guess my quibble was on the use of the word "fundamentally." This is what happens when I write long things without first clarifying that I even understand what is being said. Forgive me. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 21:32
|
|
v
|
an skeleton posted:Is it possible to gain the benefits of meditation through just trying to be awake and mindful during every day activities? Meditation helps one develop the mental discipline to do this. Being present in the moment without distraction, without grasping or avoiding the things of the senses, is why we meditate. But just as one does not wake up one day and decide "today I run a marathon" or "today I perform surgery," it takes practice and training to reach the point where one possesses the clarity of mind to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Tilopa taught that the problem is not with enjoyment, but with attachment. We do not need to flee from enjoying ourselves, from nice things, and so on. We need to guard carefully, however, against attachment. So to enjoy life, to live life is not a non-virtue. However, the advice here seems to be to seek out enjoyment with little regard for anything else because life is short and impermanent, so we should have a good time. This smacks of attachment. This path only leads to suffering when the journeys end, the parties stop, the body becomes too old and frail to go on. So, I don't think the dude is any more enlightened than any other person. He is simply teaching a form of attachment that leads to suffering later rather than sooner. an skeleton posted:Do you think life is more about seeking out opportunity/traveling and developing one's self and learning along the way, or that you can live an equally fulfilling life locked up inside of a monastery or meditating inside of your bedroom? It's not about either of those things. Amusingly, the monks I know have many of the much more interesting life experiences than the jet set youth I know. Going out of one's way to get unique or exciting experiences belies attachment to that quality of experience. Would it not be better to find enjoyment no matter what your experience? If a man finds his happiness in travel, excitement, and adventure, he will inevitably suffer when he is not traveling, not stimulated, not adventuring. Likewise, if a man finds his happiness in sitting in his house alone, he will inevitably suffer when he must attend to life's demands. However, if a man finds his happiness in simply being, without attachment or aversion to what he's doing, then he will never know the suffering of having to do things he'd rather not, or not being able to do the things he wishes he could. Edit: If you're on vacation, enjoy vacation. Have fun! If you're at work, enjoy work. Do good work and have pride in what you do. If you're at home, enjoy home. Relax. If you're in the hospital, enjoy the hospital. Get better. If you're destitute and unemployed, enjoy destitution. Look for work as you can so as not to produce a burden and suffering on others, but be happy that you can do that. If you're dying, enjoy dying. Just rest. By renouncing attachments, we do not need to predicate our happiness on impermanent things. By not having our non-suffering predicated on impermanence, we are liberated from suffering. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Okay, a friend of mine has just sent me a text message asking for a book to help provide some clarity and peace. She asked for a book to help "achieve zen" but I believe she means in it a sort of lay-manner. Prompted for something more specific, she says "I don't even know where I begin. I just want to be relaxed and feel calm. I have a lot of anger in me that I want to release. I feel stressed all of the time and just want to learn who to roll with what I have vs flipping out or retreating into my own hole." This is a good insight for her to start with, as she realizes the source of anger/frustration/suffering is within her own control. So, my question is, what is maybe a good book to recommend to a non-Buddhist that conveys Buddhist principles in a directly applicable way? She knows I am Buddhist, that I meditate, and so on so she is open to Buddhism and Buddhist ideas or she'd have asked someone else I think, but I don't want to just haul off and be like "read the Dhammapada and the Way of the Bodhisattva and the Jewel Ornament of Liberation and . . . " and so on. I am thinking Thich Nhat Hanh, but he is quite prolific. Maybe Peace is Every Step?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Edit: I apologize for the wall of text, I am not really gifted to speak briefly. I hope that I can at least speak accurately, but where I make a mistake I hope that others might correct it before damage is done.Purple Prince posted:I have two questions about Buddhist philosophy. They're pretty big deals to me since they're the reason I'm not a Buddhist, but they might be inconsequential to you. They're in fact pretty big deals to Buddhists, too, but they are based on a kind of wrong view, which I am happy to try to dispel. I can only adequately answer them according to the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. I suspect the answers for the Theravadan traditions are similar in all but the claimed motivation. quote:(1) If all suffering is the result of attachment, what motivation can there be to alleviate others' suffering? I understand that suffering is an imperfect translation of dukkha, but even the mental pain experienced by someone who is injured or who sees a friend injured is arguably still a result of attachment. In the one case it's an attachment to the absence of pain, or to life, in the other it's an attachment to that friend and their well-being, or more likely to how that friend makes one feel. So how can helping the friend or curing injuries be justified except as a result of attachment? We are motivated to alleviate the sufferings of others out of compassion and altruistic motivation. "Attachment" is a tricky thing. There is one of my favorite parables, which deals with the concept of attachment. The story goes that one day, a discipline asked the Buddha about attachment, how anyone can ever enjoy or do anything without attachment. The Buddha taught, "every day I drink tea from my favorite tea cup. I hold it in my hands and feel the warmth, and I enjoy my mornings this way. But in my mind, the teacup is already broken." Because of impermanence, the Buddha realizes that attachment to this teacup is folly, it leads to suffering. But because of right view, because of knowing this, the Buddha does not wallow in the fact that someday he'll lose this teacup, rather, he enjoys the present moment, without attachment. The same applies to wives and friends and so on. But in this case, your concern is a kind of attachment to non-suffering. Here I would say the response is that this does not motivate me at all to relieve the suffering of beings. I've never considered it. When I see a being that is injured, I am not attached to alleviating to the absence of pain, or do life, or so on. That's a silly way to go, knowing that pain and death are inevitable! But, I also know that pain from injuries is transient, and that it is real, and that it is not good. When it is in my power, to alleviate the suffering of beings even in temporary ways is good practice. Even though I know that my friend will continue to suffer in other ways due to his attachments and aversions, and even though I know that I will continue to suffer due to mine, what point is there to going "oh, well suffering will happen, so gently caress it?" The entire motivation of Buddhist practice is the cessation of suffering. This is exactly what the Buddha sought to find in his contemplation. Sometimes, the cessation of suffering is simply. If you are sick, take medicine! Of course, the true source of the suffering of sickness is attachment to feeling health, aversion from pain, and so on, but this does not mean that we should just say "oh, I am attached to health, I should renounce this and then feel no illness." Most of us can't accomplish that right away. For that reason, take medicine, do both! If my friend becomes injured, of course I will help him with his injuries. It has nothing to do with my own desire to alleviate his pain, and everything to do with the fact that he feels pain and I should help that if I can! As an EMT, I often can. But the flipside of this is that it is not limited to my friends. If my friend is suffering or my worst enemy is suffering, I want to ease both of their sufferings. All sentient beings experience suffering, and to alleviate that for even a moment is very good. It's not because of attachment to others being happy, that's a silly thing to attach to, knowing those beings are samsaric beings who suffer. But if a person is hungry, they should be fed. We don't look at hungry people and think "oh, well they will be hungry again in 8 hours if I feed them, so better I should let them be hungry." Of course not! We feed them, because they are hungry right now. We'll deal with 8 hours in 8 hours. quote:(2) Is Buddhism life-denying? I mean this in the sense that it perceives all attachment as suffering. If one surrenders all attachment, then one has no motivation to do anything. I can see the argument being made that all action is useless and achieves nothing, but this isn't satisfactory to me. It seems as if you'd have to either dedicate to wu wei or live a life of non-participation, i.e. a monastic life. Perhaps I'm too attached to my ego, but it seems to me that fighting a doomed fight for one's beliefs is superior to withdrawing from reality. Buddhism is not life-denying in my experience, though this is a discussion that comes up on occasion. Buddhism is life-affirming, but with right view. All action is not useless, all action does not achieve nothing. That's wrong view. All action has cause and all action has effect. How can it achieve nothing if it has both immediate and karmic consequences? I watched a Russian documentary last night where they followed His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a day, and interviewed him. At one point, he said that sometimes, people have asked him if because inevitably the whole Universe will collapse and be destroyed, why should we do anything to improve it? He says this is a silly thing to think. The sun rises, it's up, and it will go down. We don't go "oh, because it will eventually be night, we shouldn't do anything during the day." Use the light while it's here to practice virtue. When the universe dies, that's impermanence, that's fine, but we'll deal with that then. Fighting a doomed fight is wrong action. Why fight at all? You are alive, live that life. But live that life unconfused by wrong view. Don't live your life because of attachment or aversion or confusion or ignorance. Live that life striving to benefit sentient beings. This is part of where an understanding of rebirth is important, because it motivates practice to help others. To me, it is important to acknowledge both things. First, I should help ease the suffering of those around me whenever I can, because I can and it brings them even momentary happiness. Secondly, I should focus to ensure that my whole life is dedicated to helping sentient beings. This way, when I'm reborn, I can continue with that altruistic motivation to alleviate sentient beings. By developing bodhicitta, that is, the mind of enlightenment, the pure compassion for all beings, then even if I'm reborn in the hell realms, I can aid the suffering of beings in the hell realms, without regard for my own suffering. And that's the crux of it. We should disregard our own suffering, because we know it is not real. We know our suffering is the result of attachment and aversion. If we renounce our attachments and aversions, then our suffering is gone. That doesn't mean we don't feel pain or loss or sorrow, but we don't suffer for it. Even the Buddha died. But we must also realize that numberless other beings do not know the truth of Dharma, do not realize the cause of their suffering. It would be cruel to let them suffer due to their ignorance, so we must try to help them just as our own mothers have helped us while we were babies. The suffering of beings is real and true, and in the Mahayana, even attaining Buddhahood is done with the motivation of helping sentient beings. We need do nothing for our own sake*, knowing the truth of our own impermanence and the reality of our own suffering, but dedicate our lives to other beings. Basically, being a monastic is a great vehicle for helping sentient beings as it aids us in accomplishing Buddhahood so we can benefit more sentient beings. But being a monastic does not in fact mean shutting off from the world entirely. Even in retreat, it is done with knowledge of the outside world. Shantideva, in the Way of the Bodhisattva, teaches that it is good to take up residence in a cave or in the woods to escape people who distract us from the path. But then he also teaches to help sentient beings, giving everything we have for them. There are times and places for both. Why a life of non-participation? That seems like a misunderstanding, or perhaps this is a Theravada thing. Without getting too deep into wisdom awareness, it is both wrong to accept this world as absolute and real and true, as well as to deny that this world is true and real. Non-participation seems to be like trying to pretend that this world isn't real and like the suffering of beings isn't real. It is possible that one might not participate in the world the same way, for example by not indulging in the attachments and aversions of others, but how can we not participate and live? And how can we benefit beings if we don't live? So I don't think Buddhism is life-denying at all. Rather, I think it is more genuinely life-affirming. It affirms life as it really is, and teaches us to embrace life as it really is, without seeking for sense pleasures or trying to grasp for things that are not or hold on fruitlessly to impermanent things that are. It is life-denying to, for example, try to travel and have experiences and adventures for the sake of fulfilling some kind of arbitrary feeling of "aliveness" which is inevitably going to end. Putting our happiness in anything is a bad practice, because everything is impermanent, including our own lives. But that doesn't mean we should deny our lives. Like the teacup, enjoy it while it is here, realizing that it is already gone. * But we should also not neglect ourselves until we have attained that level. Our bodies are excellent vehicles for the practice of Dharma and the benefit of sentient beings, so neglecting our own health or welfare, mental or physical, ultimately limits our ability to benefit sentient beings. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:How do the Buddhists view afflictions that can influence one's understanding of Dharma? Many people afflicted by more serious mental illnesses are incapable of making decisions which will spare them suffering. Or, as in case of old people, they may have been able to live according to the Buddhist values, only to be hampered by neurodegeneration caused by Alzheimer's disease. As I understand, people whose brains do not function properly, still generate negative karma and affect their rebirth? Briefly, because I'm on my phone, one of the preliminary practices in my tradition are four thoughts that turn the mind to dharma. One of those four thoughts is the rarity and opportunity of a "precious human body." Notably, not every human birth is precious. A precious birth is one where at least one has access and ability to practice dharma. We pray that the Buddha turns the wheel of dharma in accordance with the minds and capacities of sentient beings, but not all beings have the fortune of being able to practice dharma. To this end, we alleviate their suffering when we can, teach them when we can, and dedicate our merit always to the benefit of all sentient beings. Dedication of merit is for that reason one of the most important Mahayana practices. Basically, it is very sad when a being has no ability to practice dharma, so we should do all we can to help teach them compassion and virtuous behavior and to dedicate our merit and so on to improve their chances in future rebirths, and never give up on this life for them, because even the most violent criminal or hateful psychotic has a Buddha nature. Incidentally, I work in mental health, so this question is very close to my heart.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
The topic has been broached before but I thought I would mention a recent experience with Western psychology appropriating Buddhism from my own life. The other day I was walking by one of the therapist offices where I work when I noticed a singing bowl. I asked about it and learned we're moving into a Dialectic Behavioral Therapy program where singing bowls will be used to signal transitions between groups and such. DBT has a heavy emphasis on mindfulness and approaching reality as it is without making should/could statements, and with orienting to present reality. I am pleased by that, since I've already been using this in crisis intervention and in helping patients. Nevertheless, I thought the decision to employ singing bowls seems at the very least strange. I guess nothing else has quite long resonance though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:My question: what's up with the bodhisattva vow? Is it a literal vow with specific words or just the concept of dedication to the liberation of all beings from suffering? Isn't a bodhisattva supposed to keep themselves from becoming enlightened in order to help others, giving the idea oh the Mahayana "great vehicle"? How does a bodhisattva keep themselves from reaching enlightenment? The bodhisattva vow is a simple vow to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, and not to pass into parinirvana until all sentient beings attain liberation. In its common practice, it is essentially a vow to maintain either the practices in Santideva's "Way of the Bodhisattva," or the 37 Bodhisattva Practices. The basic idea is that bodhicitta, the excellent mind of pure altruistic motivation, is the foundation of attaining complete Buddhahood. There is of course the dispute mentioned before by Yiggy, and its result, which is along the lines of Mahayana Buddhists saying that Theravada/"Hinayana" practitioners don't get real enlightenment, because their motivation is ultimately selfish. (Edit: this is not to diminish the Theravadan school, which practices the essence of Buddhism and which serves as the foundation of Mahayana. I believe Gampopa writes that those who accomplish the Hinayana ultimately end up just becoming Mahayanists later while doing whatever fully enlightened beings do, but I lack any knowledge to talk about that). Without regard to its historical development and so on, bodhisattva practices are the essence of Mahayana. This is practiced through developing the six perfections (generosity, moral behavior, patience/tolerance, diligence, concentration, wisdom awareness) and so progressing through various levels of development with various levels of attainment and on and on. For a good reference from the Drikung Kagyu tradition, the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa is fantastic. As far as the "keeping self from reaching enlightenment," it's less about keeping oneself from reaching enlightenment and more about passing into parinirvana. A bodhisattva can be a fully enlightened being, such as Avalokitesvara, Manjusri, etc. As for how they can prevent that, they have attained liberation and having so attained they can kinda "game" rebirth, to be crass about it. Also with high enough attainment, they are not limited by the basic rules of rebirth and such. For example, Avalokitesvara has four physical ("nirmanakaya") forms right now off the top of my head (HH the Dalai Lama, HH Chetsang Rinpoche, HH the Karmapa, HE Dagmo Kusho Sakya) and likely hundreds or thousands of others I don't know of. Each are kind of distinct, discrete beings, but their mindstream is inseparable from Avalokitesvara. As for attaining Buddhahood, Mahayana uses this slightly different definition of Buddha, because while there is only one Buddha for any given realm in any given kalpa (Sakyamuni Buddha, for example, for us), there are as many potential Buddhas as there are sentient beings, and there are also Buddhas kinda staging for the future already. Buddha Maitreya, for example, will be the next Buddha in this realm after the teachings of Sakyamuni are lost. There are also Buddhas for all the various realms, and for other worlds, universes, etc. It becomes even more complicated when you start breaking down Buddhas into different bodies or forms or so on. For example Sakyamuni Buddha is the nirmanakaya (physical form) of Vairocana, the samboghakaya (subtle form), who is also Vajradhara (the primordial Buddha) in dharmakaya (truth body form, i.e., primordial void). So you can have one being who is a bunch of other things too. Then there are the other "Wisdom Buddhas," who are essentially considered to be the kind of emanated conceptualization of an aspect of Buddhahood. So for example, Buddha Amitabha is the emanated concept of the compassionate nature of all Buddhas. I'm getting off topic a bit, but I recommend Santideva's "Way of the Bodhisattva" to learn more about what a Bodhisattva is, does, and what motivates him or her or it. This particular translation I've linked is a great copy. BTW in terms of the vow itself, the translated vow my tradition uses is as simple as "Until I attain the heart of enlightenment, I take refuge in all the Buddhas, I take refuge in the Dharma, and likewise in the assembly of the Bodhisattvas. As the previous Buddhas cultivated the enlightened mind, and progressed along the Bodhisattva Path, I, too, for the benefit of all sentient beings, give birth to Bodhicitta and apply myself to accomplish the stages of the path." There's not much more to it than that on the face, but Gampopa explains that the vow should be initially taken from your teacher unless you are incapable of finding a teacher or traveling to your teacher would risk your very life, in which case it can be taken by yourself, and that there are a couple different ways to take it, and so on. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
My center requests donations for teachings and so on, but never turns anyone away for lack of funds or unwillingness to pay. We request 20 or so for teachings and practice and while we never get that much per head, donations are our only source of income. We pay tens of thousands in taxes and building upkeep and for supporting our monastics, so I pay as often as I can and try to buy dharma supplies from our bookstore. That said, mandating payment or turning away people for nonpayment or lack of funds is totally contrary to the spirit of dharma. I would be very wary of even a recognized lineage that was turning people away for nonpayment. The dharma belongs to everyone and no one, so should never be for sale, and generosity goes both ways.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
It seems to me that usually people who have difficulty or reject the concept of rebirth do so because they haven't considered it further than a rather basic Western idea of reincarnation. That is, they see it as an individual person or being (me, you, whatever) being reborn in another form, thus retaining some kind of essence throughout numerous rebirths. Someone struggling with that should consider what rebirth means in a context where there is no intrinsic self, no essential being, no distinction between subject and object. Where "I" am only "I" because of a convenient collection of circumstances and parts, and where that same "I" is in fact also a circumstance and part in an infinitely greater series.Rurik posted:I wish to talk with you about music. Is there music that supports meditation? Is it even good to listen to music while meditating? Do you like music that can be considered meditative or "Buddhist-like"? It depends on what you mean by meditation. I find some music can drop me extremely readily into a trance-state or a dissociative state, but that's mainly because I dissociate or trance out readily, that's the kind of brain I have. But dissociation or trance-state is not usually a goal of meditation. Because meditation often involves being more present in the moment, music that leads one into a trance is in fact problematic. A mind that retreats into itself is not experiencing rigpa/ordinary mind/unelaborated mind, it's simply becoming absent. However, because music can be part of our surroundings, being present with music doesn't necessarily impair meditation, either. And I don't see how simple music, such as maybe just a rhythmic beat or a bell, couldn't serve as an external support or focus for meditation. The issue becomes when one uses complicated, complex, or especially aesthetically pleasing music, because this simply provides stimulation for the mind, encouraging it to grasp. The mind grasps for things to think about, and part of meditation is training it not to grasp for stimulation. The Ebene piece you posted is very heavily experiential, it induces an experience. One could meditate or reflect on it, but I wouldn't consider that a standard meditation. I mean, essentially Shamatha is meant to train the mind towards single-pointed concentration, after that meditation becomes either Vipassana when focused on a thing (such as a song, an idea, whatever) or something like Mahamudra if it's directed on just resting in the state of mind without fabrications. Meditating listening to music that seems meant to induce experiences is a form of contemplative meditation, though I wonder what is the motivation for doing that? If it is to realize the illusory and transient nature of experience, how it is arbitrary and can be induced artificially, that's awesome. If it's to have a good time having an experience, that's less awesome but still okay, just be wary of grasping.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
In a passage from The Nectar of Manjusri's Speech by Kunzang Pelden, the mechanism of rebirth is discussed.Kunzang Pelden posted:The length of time spent in the human world is the result of past karma. When this is exhausted, as the final moment of human consciousness ends, it creates the immediate cause [of the new life], whiel the karma that brings about birth in a hell realm, or whatever, constitutes the cooperative cause. Wherever people are subsequently born, whether in hell or elsewhere, they have at death a human body, whereas at birth, they will have the body of a hell being and so on. In other words, the previous consciousness now terminated is that of a human, whiel at the moment of the later birth, the consciousness is that of a hell being. The two are thus distinct. When the body and mind of a human come to an end, the mind and body of the following life come into being. it is not that there is a movement or transmigration of something from a former to a subsequent state. As it is said: This brings to end a lengthy discussion on the part of Kunzang Pelden on the practice of equalizing self and other, as described in Shantideva's "Way of the Bodhisattva," wherein he elaborates on the faultiness of the concept of "I" and "other" and demonstrates the futility of such differentiation, and how establishing the equality of self and other as both being interdependent beings arisen of causes makes it absurd to pronounce a distinction, just as we might not make a distinction between cells in our liver and cells in our arm. We do not say "these cells in my arm are not me, but the cells in my liver are me" or so on. Rather, we see them all as one being. But still, it is possible to make a distinction between those cells, such that the cells in the liver demonstrably are different from those in the arm. Sentient beings are much the same, where there is no rational basis for differentiation of "I" from "you" based on any intrinsic properties, but it is readily possible to do so based on superficial appearances. "I" am no more distinct from "you" than my liver is distinct from my arm: superficially there are differences, but in general they both constitute "I." Thus with rebirth, to say one being migrates from one state to another is not correct. There is no one being to migrate to another being. There is no "I" to be passed on to become a new "I." Rather, one "I" ceases, another "I" arises, but karma perpetuates in that karma produces the causes and conditions of a new arising, and so on. It's a bit of an awkward topic I fear, and I know I have not explained it perfectly. Still, I hope that the explanation provides some clarification, and if that fails, that the passage from Kunzang Pelden's commentary, removed from context as it is, provides it better. That particular piece of commentary is included as an appendix to the translation of Bodhicharyavatara that I recommended earlier in the thread, which can be purchased here. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Does mainstream Buddhism consider the disabled as people being justly punished for misdeeds in their past life, or is that just the more extreme sects? Nobody gets "punished," that is not how it works. However, nothing happens without a "cause." But it is terribly wrong view to think "oh, a person was born blind, they must have been bad and they deserve it!" Still, there is an understanding that they must have somehow had the cause of being born blind, and yet, that does not make them any different than us. Different circumstances and causes, different outcomes, still a sentient being with a Buddha-nature. Thinking about things in that way is not correct. There are sects that avoid attempting to ease the suffering of the disabled, and so on, due to the idea that it is their karmic consequence that they should suffer for past deeds, and if they don't suffer now, they will "get theirs" eventually. This is misguided. I was once asked if it seemed wrong to pray for the easing of suffering of sick people because they have karmically "earned" being sick. I pointed out that if someone eases their suffering, then they were karmically able to have their suffering healed, as well. Karma is not "reward and punishment." It is simply cause and effect. In the introduction to that Shantideva book I've referred to so often lately (I apologize, I've been really into it, and like many good books it tends to be beautifully on point on a variety of topics), it says: quote:Thus, for Shantideva, as with the Buddhist tradition in general, in the education of the mind - our own minds - fear and the dread of the consequences of evil are tools as legitimate as those of enthusiasm and encouragement. It is in this spirit of mental training that Shantideva places before us the unpalatable facts of human existence: its fragility, its impermanence, the certainty and horrible realities of death, and the possibility, if not probability, of post-mortem suffering in infernal torment. Perhaps it is because the stakes are so high that he tears away so mercilessly the pretenses and facile optimisms with which we veil the facts, trying to convince ourselves that "after all, things are not so bad." To those new to Buddhadharma, it often comes as a surprise that in a tradition which places such a high premium on love and compassion, so much attention should be given to the sufferings of the lower states: those of animals, of hungry ghosts, and of beings in hell. The scriptures and commentaries abound in detailed descriptions, and Buddhist iconography can be horrifyingly explicit. To the unprepared Westerner, the shock is often severe. And no doubt through an overhasty comparison with similar themes (rightly or wrongly understood), as these have played themselves out in the history of European and Near Eastern religious thought, the Buddhist ideas are not infrequently dismissed as being of morbid and sadistic origin. In some regards, one might consider that a person born with a disability is in fact still quite virtuous, he or she must be, to be born as a human being in the first place. Even a human being born in the worst of circumstances, with no good fortune at all, is at least born as a human being and not as an animal or hungry ghost or hell being, with far greater suffering. That is not to diminish at all the suffering of such an unfortunate being, but there certainly should be no judgment in our treatment of a person with a disability. They are a suffering being, just as we all are in samsara, and we should treat them with the kindness we'd show our own mother. Their past transgressions are no matter. Those things are gone and done. Edit: This is a topic close to my mind, because I work with people with psychiatric disabilities, and specifically with people who are especially reviled by society. I work in a residential treatment center for juveniles, and my particular unit is a unit for juvenile sex offenders. Many of them are themselves victims of abuse and horrible neglect as children, many of them are themselves having psychiatric illness predating their offenses. Many are MR/DD, or have a variety of crippling psychiatric conditions. I also volunteer as an EMT, and through that see other people who have suffered terrible illnesses and disabilities. But it is not right to say "oh, they are being punished." That's such an utterly foreign thought to Buddhism that it's practically anathema, almost difficult to refute exactly because the very fundamental principle, the idea of karma as a punitive or rewarding force, is not accurate. It's so alien as to be difficult to address coherently, so I hope the passage I've provided, and my own thoughts, were helpful here. Edit2: I also know that there are places in the world where the disabled are treated poorly because of this exact line of thought. I believe someone in E/N posted a thread recently where they did a scholarship opportunity thing to get world experiences where they volunteered with the disabled in I believe Burma, and recall them citing the Buddhist ideology there as a reason why the suffering were basically neglected. I do not know if this is typical of Theravada, or typical of the region. While I know it goes on, my understanding is that it is wrong view that causes this. But to that end I'd say that Buddhism is a very deep philosophical religion and in many places where it is practiced culturally, the depth of understanding is pretty limited by the lay population. Similar to how any given Catholic may not be able to go into detail on the ins and outs of Neo-Platonic philosophy on the development of doctrine of transubstantiation, any given lay Buddhist in a region may or may not be able to detail the nature of karmic consequences. This is not to demean or diminish those practitioners, but merely to point out why such a lack of compassion might be present in a Buddhist community. Not every Buddhist is a Buddha, and this is why Buddhist communities sometimes fight wars, or shun the disabled, or so on. We're all beings in samsara, and subject to the pernicious influence of the kleshas. Edit3: TRIPLE EDIT. What I've written here and quoted here is applicable to Mahayana. It was pointed out to me that "mainstream Buddhism" isn't really a great phrase, as there are several sects and none is more "Buddhist" than the other (with the potential claim by provenance that Theravada is more Buddhist because it's more closely what the historical Buddha taught historically). I don't know the Theravadan answer to this question. Perhaps Prickly Pete can shed some light on this? Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:So it's not a punishment, but it is a direct consequence of their previous actions? Not exactly, but close. It is not a punishment, and it is a result of previous actions, but it's not exactly correct to call it "their" previous actions. They haven't done any previous actions, as they have just been born. Previous actions have been done which have created the causes and conditions such that a person was born with disability. That particular person being born, somewhere down their mindstream, also must have done something that produces similar causes and conditions. It is not directly punitive nor can it be tracked to specific prior lives directly. To claim it is a result of "their" past actions implies "they" are the same being that performed those actions, and carries with it that sort of punitive concept. I think it sounds like I'm doing some kind of existential dodge, but one of the things about Buddhist doctrine is that it is all very internally consistent and also irreducibly complex. A Buddhist view on karma requires a Buddhist view on death and self, which is difficult to agree upon because there are different takes on that. Regardless though it is generally agreed that a thing and its causes cannot be the same, so doctrinally it is wrong to say that a person caused their own karmic consequences through some direct action. In practice, though, it is difficult to divorce ourselves from this view. In fact, karma is quite impersonal, being simply a cause and effect. Maybe a page back I posted another part from this book which describes the nature of the function of karma as simply the fruition of causes and effects.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
It is not an easy concept to get, neither is it an easy concept to explain. This is in part because of the irreducible complexity of the concept, and part because I am not a great teacher, I have not mastered this subject. Still, I'll try to clarify and break it down a bit more. The main point of contention is the statement "it's not a punishment, but it is a direct consequence of their previous actions." I realize you're asking this as a clarifying question and not as a statement, but to explain why the statement is not correct as written, I need to break it down as to why it's not correct. It is not correct in the following ways: first, in that it is not punishment, which has already been discussed; second, in that it is a direct consequence; and third, that it is their own actions leading to the effects. First, it has already been discussed that it's not a punishment. It is not a punishment because this implies an intention, a sort of agent inflicting this punishment as an unrelated tool to inflict pain for transgression of some kind of rule. This is not the case, as has already been discussed. The second and third points are more complicated, and require some background and explanation. This is part of that "irreducible complexity" bit. One can't simply just say "such is the case" and provide a satisfying answer. The second point is that of a direct consequence. This is a problematic phrasing. By way of example, let's say I kill somebody. This is the action. This action now creates new causes and conditions. Because I kill this person, I have deprived his or her family, I've ended their life, prevented them from achieving things they wanted to achieve, robbed them of their opportunities to practice Dharma, on and on. It's a really bad thing that I've killed someone. There are therefore immediate fruits of my actions. Perhaps I go to jail, or people really hate me, and already it's known that the person's family will suffer, or at least the person I killed has suffered. However, more than this, I've also created further causes and conditions for future suffering. One might propose all sorts of mechanisms for this, but they aren't really important. Perhaps that person will be reborn into violence because of his attachment to violence, or because of his grasping after revenge, or his anger at me will lead him to want to be born in such a way that he can do the same to others, or whatever. And for myself, perhaps I will get what I want, and think that it is okay to kill people, and so I will tell others it's okay, or I will continue to kill people in order to get my way, or so on. All of this is just conjecture, and isn't really important. The gist of it is, certain seeds only produce certain plants. I cannot plant a begonia and expect a hyacinth to grow. Similarly, I cannot plant a violent seed and expect a peaceful happy result. There is a lot more complexity here, because things like intent matters, mindset, and other circumstances, but at the bottom line, Buddhist thinking is very much based on an unceasing chain of causes and effects. Violent actions cause violent effects. Nonvirtuous actions (those which produce suffering) cause suffering. Sometimes, this suffering is not immediately visible. One might dismiss these teachings as coercive tools to encourage good behavior, by saying "oh if you do a nonvirtue you will suffer, even if not in this life then in the next," but ultimately these are a sort of lie-to-children, because of the third problem, that of "consequences for your own behavior." In any case, a karmic consequence isn't a direct consequence because while that chain of cause and effect is unbroken, it may not be immediate. The fruition of karma is not often easily comprehensible, and it may be that even now I am reaping the karmic fruits of lives many times removed from me. The third problem is that of "for your own behavior," which requires a lot of background. One of the fundamental concepts of Buddhism is that of impermanence, and that of emptiness. Emptiness is understood not in the Western sense of being without something inside, and other perhaps better terms include "voidness." But in any case, it means without an intrinsic, inherent essence. All things lack essence, there is nothing that has an intrinsic essence. A table is not intrinsically a table, but rather is a table because it has been shaped that way, the causes and conditions for it to become a table have arisen in the form of laborers shaping wood or some such. A rock is not inherently a rock, but rather elements have come together through billion year processes to form it into a rock. And a rock can just as soon become a statue if the conditions arise of a skilled craftsman, a table can just as soon become firewood, and so on. Ultimately, there exists nothing that is not a compilation of its causes. There is nothing that is not empty, because nothing has an intrinsic nature, rather, everything is a result of causes and conditions coming together, an aggregate of elements. Likewise, a person, a "self," is not inherently a "self." There is no intrinsic "self" that can exist outside of its causes and conditions. This is demonstrable several ways. One such way is simply by observation, asking "where is the self?" Nowhere that we look can we find a "self." Even if it is said to be an invisible spirit, that cannot be an intrinsic self, because something that is intrinsic cannot be affected by other causes, but surely a spirit is so affected, in that it changes from "possessing a body" to "not possessing a body," if one exists, when the body ceases to be. So there is no intrinsic, inherent self. Based on this, there can be no transfer of a self. There are only causes and conditions arising that result in a self, but it is not the same "self." Even if my killing that person in the example before does not result in immediate suffering for me, those conditions still exist, I have still created those causes. So when I inevitably die, it becomes impossible that I myself might suffer consequences for my actions. I am, after all, dead. This self is no more. There is no more a body, no more this mind. The causes and conditions which brought about this self have exhausted, and I'm now dead. But in dying, the causes and conditions for another self, a new being, being born arise. The causes and conditions for violence still exist. So, a new self may be born in violent circumstances. This new self, this new being, is a result of previous causes and circumstances and conditions coming to fruition. A human baby is the result of all of the circumstances surrounding its birth, both physically and spiritually. There can be no baby born without causes and conditions because that would be a self-arising thing, with an intrinsic nature, and so does not exist. Perhaps this baby is born lame, or deaf, or mentally retarded, or blind, or something like this. Maybe this baby is born with Down Syndrome. It certainly is not correct to say this is the fault of the baby, that this is a consequence of the baby's actions. How could it be? This baby is blameless, it is simply a being born in adverse circumstances. At the same time, it is incorrect to say that this baby's afflictions are the result of randomness, or that they have occurred for no reason. This is simply not possible, there cannot be an effect without a precipitating cause, or else that effect would be intrinsic, without cause, and so immutable, permanent, and so on. Such things cannot happen. We might take a strictly materialist perspective on the matter, and say that it is merely genetic mutation or somesuch, but still this must have a cause, which we do not understand, and still on a spiritual level this requires us to ask "why this baby? How is this just?" The lack of self-ness, though, the lack of intrinsic nature, answers this for us. Surely it is true that this baby's afflictions are not the fault of the baby, but it is also surely true that this is not the result of randomness. The baby's birth is a fruition of causes, a plant born from a seed, or as Kunzang Pelden describes, a flame passed from one lamp to another. While it is surely true that without the first flame, the second could not be lit, and so they are unarguably linked and interdependent, it is also true that the second flame cannot be said to be the same as the first. The second flame arises as a result of the first, but is not identical to it. There is no transfer, no migration, no exchange of consciousness from the death of the killer and the birth of the baby, but causally they cannot be said to be independent. Ultimately, the last point is one that follows as a sort of digression from the absence of self, from the nature of emptiness, which is the concept of non-duality. Because I lack an intrinsic identity, and the baby lacks an intrinsic identity, and you lack an intrinsic identity, and so on, it becomes impossible to determine where one stops and the other starts. There is no distinction. Just as each cell of our body constitutes "us" without defining "us," each being is just a particle of a greater being and on and on. Cells in my heart and cells in my lung are distinct though related. Remove my heart or my lungs and the other suffers, but they aren't the same. Ultimately, sentient beings are much the same. We are all equal, all part of the same void-process, the same expression of interdependence. Even having never met you personally, I know you are a person just like me, riding the waves of samsara. We're only superficially distinct, our minds delineating artificial boundaries between selves based on arbitrary standards. When this baby is born with unfortunate afflictions, it is not fair to say that this baby is suffering for his or her nonvirtuous acts, because he or she is only freshly born, and has not yet done anything, but still they are a result of a system of cause and effect that they are a participant in. There is no intrinsic nature of "past-wrongdoing-ness" that has led to these circumstances, but simply there are causes and conditions of beings causing fruition in beings. Personal accountability exists in the form of this kind of participatory nature. If I kill someone, I create causes and conditions for being killed. I personally may die of old age, but these causes and conditions exist in the general universe. Other beings, who lack any intrinsic distinction from myself, will suffer as a result of these actions. Because I am non-distinct from them, I will suffer. There are all sorts of things about mindstreams and such, and there's concepts such as tulkus and so on. Even tulkus do not claim to be the same being, they know this is impossible. The Dalai Lama says sometimes he gets flashes of his past, but he knows that is not him. They are non-equivalent. So it is true that I will die, it is true that "I" will be born again. The "I" that is born again will not be the same as the "I" that has died, because the circumstances, causes, conditions, and so forth will be different. If I as a 28 year old white male die today, and tomorrow am reborn as a cat, or a hell being, or even another human, I will not be the same I. There is a kind of perpetuation, but it is not a transfer or transformation or transmigration. It's simply distinct beings arising at different points along a chain of cause and effect. And if I die today having killed someone without the fruit having resulted from that action, then it is reasonably safe to assume that whatever "I" exists in the future will have that come to fruition. With mindstreams, they are often misunderstood of having the concept of a stream flowing along, like a path with movement along it. Instead, they are better conceived of as having the nature of a stream, that we might pass a stream daily and think "ah, the same stream!" but in fact, none of the water there today is there tomorrow. It is all different while maintaining the same sort of causal nature. That's how mindstreams work, and that can be understood in the discussion of karmic fruition as to how the "I" that is typing this now is not the same "I" that existed before and will not be the same "I" that will exist in the future, but maintains the same causes and conditions and so on. Edit: So, to bring this back on point, the baby born with a disability is not being "punished," it is not suffering consequences for its "own" actions, but it is suffering, and those actions are actions that in a causal chain must come to fruition. The baby is not to blame, not to be held at fault, but neither is the baby perfectly innocent of it. If the baby were totally innocent, without any causes or conditions of whatever affliction, then the baby would not be born with such afflictions. It would be a different baby, born in different circumstances. But the baby does have those causes and conditions somewhere in its past. They don't belong to the baby, but they are present and some previous life has produced those karmic seeds, just as in that life karmic seeds had come to fruition, and so on. Therefore, we must treat every being with respect, compassion, and lovingkindness as if they were our own mother, because they are not guilty of anything we ourselves have not been guilty of in some life or another. There can be all sorts of spiritual interpretations of how karma brings mindstreams intertwined together, where spiritual masters are reborn close to their disciples and vice versa, where husbands and wives are reborn close to one another for many generations, due to the causes and conditions of attachment, and so on, but I have tried to keep this very much philosophical and analytical in order to avoid confusion with lots of examples. I hope I've not done a disservice by so doing. I realize I've typed a small book and I hope it has helped, I don't know any better how to clarify this point short of referring you to various books and sources which have a better understanding and capacity to teach, but which I have not assembled and do not have close to hand. I hope someone else might correct any mistakes I've made, and that this in any case doesn't cause you further suffering or confusion. Edit continuation: also, the above link is concise and somewhat differs from mine in some key points, which I believe to be differences between Theravada and Mahayana thought. It is still something that is very good to read, and far more concise and well organized than what I've written. Thanks Prickly Pete for sharing it. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:In a GBS thread, I used an analogy about how I look at existence: that everything is like waves on an ocean. The waves are ephemeral and transient, but the ocean remains. So when I die, it's like my wave is breaking and receding, but I was never separate from the ocean to begin with, and it's only my pattern that is disappearing. Except that I also used the word "God", and I wonder if all I did was use a cutesy metaphor. It's funny you've used this, because a similar analogy is sometimes used for mind with thoughts, where mind is the ocean and thoughts are waves that rise and fall, or where mind is space, and thoughts are like clouds that obscure the actual space. This is a pretty accurate view of the whole thing, but as all conceptual metaphors, it is of course bound by conceptual thought. I'm a big fan of such metaphors as thinking things. In terms of knowing it but not "feeling" it, that really sounds to me like the distinction between knowing a thing and realizing a thing. You are aware of emptiness, but you haven't realized emptiness, because your habitual thoughts of things being substantial still take over. With mental training, we can train ourselves not to use those habitual thoughts, not to rely on that old ignorant view, and to instead address things as they really are. This is achieved through contemplation and practice, which requires some degree of discipline. This is why many traditions teach first calm-abiding, to train the mind to be able to focus and contemplate effectively, and then insight meditation, to turn that laser focus towards a goal. Another useful thing is to simply remind oneself of these things frequently. Constantly think of impermanence. When you see something you don't like, remember it is impermanent. When you see something you do like, remember it is impermanent. This will shape your way of interacting with the world. Likewise with interdependence. Start thinking about the connections between things as part of your way of addressing them. Prickly Pete posted:This is very common and very frustrating at first. You'll find yourself distracted by aches, pains and sensations that arise while you try to watch the breath. The best thing to do is realize that these are temporary sensations, and simply note them, and then return to the breath. You may only manage to maintain attention on the breath for a few seconds before being distracted again by another sensation. And when this happens, you note the sensation, and then gently return attention to the breath. I haven't read this book but this is spot on stuff. The thing that made meditation "click" for me was when a teacher pointed out that meditation is not about focusing on the object. It's about those moments when, while focusing on the object, you become aware of the fact that you have been thinking about other things for however long, and then bring it back to the object. That moment is the actual mindful awareness. Focusing on an object is just focusing on an object, the "success" in meditation comes from developing freedom from distraction, which comes first from recognizing when distraction occurs. In Shamatha to Mahamudra, it is written that there are two approaches to distraction, which are to recognize the true nature of any thoughts that arise, and allow them to arise, or to quickly cut the thoughts and return to the focus object. It is then pointed out that only people with great accomplishment in previous lives, who are right on the cusp of liberation, can look at thoughts and examine their true nature without getting caught up, so it is better to practice cutting the thought when we realize they are there. Thoughts are like any other event - impermanent. Simply not following thoughts but going back to the focus object is the practice. Insight meditation where we focus on certain things is usually reserved for once you can maintain that one-pointed meditation. AlphaNiner posted:My question for the thread; Do you think there is a right way and wrong way to go about Buddhism? If so, what are the implications? The right way is the virtuous way that results in fruition, the wrong way is via non-virtue and wrong action. Basically, do what works for you, what seems right, what stands up under scrutiny. The Buddha never demanded blind devotion or undeserved faith. He taught to practice what works, and abandon what doesn't. So for some people one tradition is good, for another another tradition is better. Even things like precepts are things you should practice if you can, don't if you can't. It's not uncommon for practitioners in Tibet for example to hold one, maybe two precepts. Do what you can do. Practice what you can practice. Another thing with what you mention is the different understandings and such. In my own experience, when I started practicing Buddhism, I figured "eh, I can drink, it's no big deal." I did for a while. I had ways it was justified for me, even my teacher told me it was okay to drink certain times while avoiding inebriation, and so on. But as I practice more and more, I have stayed away from it. I have also stopped smoking entirely. At first I'd still maybe have a cigarette if I was with friends who smoked because if I smoked a cigarette early on I wouldn't crave one anymore despite them doing it around me. Over time though, I simply have no desire to smoke. As your understanding deepens and changes, your practice can change. That's great, that's impermanence. So maybe right now your understanding of karma is very direct, and is a behavioral modification thing. That's fine, if it encourages you to practice virtue, and abandon non-virtue, then do that. If later you learn other things about karma that changes your understanding, that's fine too! So yeah, the right way to practice Buddhism is the way that ultimately leads to fruition. The wrong way is the way that leads to suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Depending on your tradition, refuge can be taken more or less whenever. If you feel like you are ready to identify as Buddhist, and are ready to commit to whatever precepts and live that path ( take it. In the Vajrayana perspective of Drikung Kagyu, you should take refuge and precepts whenever you're going to generally keep them because if you are a precept holder then whenever you're keeping them you gain merit, whereas otherwise you gain merit only for willful acts. For example if you're a precept holder for not killing, then any time you aren't killing, even if you're sleeping and so on, you accrue the merit of keeping your precept. If you don't hold that, then of course not killing a thing is still virtuous, but only when presented with such an option. Ultimately, refuge isn't a huge thing that only happens once. A lot of people take refuge with multiple lamas and so on. And taking refuge to acquire an identity is useful as an expedient means, but ultimately dressing for the ego. So basically, do you have a qualified Lama you want to take refuge with? If so, ask them if they'll give it to you and ask when you should take it. If not, maybe look for a Lama or don't. If you feel ready to take it, take it. Edit: anecdotally, I started believing in Buddhism two months before moving to an area with a sangha, and took refuge 5 days after I got there. I am now very happy, and it has been a wonderful experience. Refuge was great for me. To answer your question directly from my tradition's perspective, there is no point to wait if you know you're doing it anyways. Might as well make the commitment solid. You've already made it in your heart and mind, after all. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 02:19
|
|