|
Razage posted:Thanks for the warning! I checked that out and I don't think I want any part of someone's organization when they disparage other cultures. The precepts aren't commandments. They aren't oaths that you can't break (unless you're a monk). The precepts are general advice for how to live life to minimize suffering and to minimize the accumulation of negative karma. In Tibet, most lay people are one or two precept-holders, usually holding the precepts against killing and sexual misconduct, sometimes stealing. It can fluctuate. For Western converts, it's much more typical to be a five-precept holder, but not at all necessary. It's not forbidden to drink. I don't drink, but my guru has told me straight up before that if I drink, it is not virtuous, but it is okay if I am doing so as to reduce suffering. For example my family has a heavy drinking culture. My old friends are mostly drinking buddies. At one point it would have caused them suffering for me to be like "gently caress you guys I found religion." So at one point, I continued to drink. But now that is mostly resolved. Amusingly, when I took refuge my plan was still to drink sometimes. Over time though I decided I don't really even want to drink. The same is happening with me now with eating meat. I never have thought "I should be a vegetarian" but increasingly I find myself disliking the concept of eating flesh. I still do it, but I'm at least mindful of it and probably at some point I will stop. quote:Also is it necessary to learn Tibeten to read things or is this stuff usually presented in English in western countries? There are tens of thousands of Buddhist texts in Tibetan that are untranslated. None of them are necessary to read. Haha. It's not essential, most of the major texts are translated, many of the important minor texts are translated, and generally every text is better taught through a qualified lama anyhow, who usually can read Tibetan. If you're really really into languages, you may want to pick it up, but it's definitely not necessary. One thing though is that in Kagyu traditions, an oral transmission is given by reading a text to a person perfectly. This can be an interesting experience because in those cases if you don't speak Tibetan it's pretty common to have no idea what transmission/empowerment you just received.
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:All in all I both like it a lot but would also have to throw so much of it out that I wonder what would even be the point in trying to be Buddhist. Sorry about not having any real questions. Buddhism is a religion of practice. Don't worry about the details if you don't believe them or something. There is no problem with taking the ideas you like and leaving the ones you don't. Practice what works for you, leave what doesn't. In turns of rebirth and so on, this is not meant to be a carrot on a stick to coerce morality. Whether you believe in rebirth or not, if you practice virtuous behavior, you'll improve the lives of others. Realizing emptiness, realizing our own impermanence, if you recognize that, then behaving morally, behaving ethically becomes an important thing not because of some future gain or benefit, but because of the very real benefit it has for others in this lifetime. Without all the spiritual metaphysical whatsit, His Holiness the Dalai Lama defines Buddhism as nonviolence and loving-kindness. If you practice those things, you're a Buddhist. And those things are really very closely related. Buddha never demanded that people follow everything he teaches. He always instructed to try it out, test it, see if it works. If it brings happiness, embrace it. If it brings suffering, cast it away. There is no need to reject Buddhism based on its spiritual things, because the foundation of Buddhism is its practice. Everything else is philosophical foundation, if you don't want that, don't do it - the noble truths and eightfold path can bring fruition without accepting literal rebirth and on and on. His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote in his book, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” He is very much a man of science, and a professor of a very practical form of Buddhism. Practice what works for you, with an open an investigative mind, and an eye of analysis. Do what works. Don't accept dogmatic labels or imagine you must adhere strictly to dogmatic principles to practice Buddhism. Certainly don't discard good moral ethics that leads to a reduction of suffering for both yourself and others because you don't want to accept what are essentially trappings. At the end of the day, Buddhism which aims only for future rewards, but which doesn't practice good ethics in the present, is empty. It's words and rituals with no substance. A far better Buddhist is a man who practices non-violence, who treats everyone he meets as his esteemed guest, with love and kindness in his heart, but who never once has uttered a refuge prayer, than a person who says his refuge prayer every day but then acts like a schmuck and harbors hatred towards his fellow sentient beings. So yeah, whether you want to accept a literal rebirth or not, that's fine. As to the other points that were made after that post, the concepts of rebirth and karma and such are involved. Ultimately, it all relies on the concepts of emptiness and interdependence, which are fundamentally in agreement with modern physicalist reasoning. Basically, nothing has an inherent substance. Even atoms of elements are not inherently those elements, we've found, as every particle can be reduced further. Buddhist atomism, the concept that every single thing can be reduced infinitely, and that even a partless particle has parts (reflected in its various sides and interactions), long predates the actual scientific discovery of the atom. Everything builds off a foundation that has only been verified, never contradicted, by scientific research. Karma doesn't contradict that, because karma is literally cause and effect. That is not at all a post-hoc definition. Karma is the rule that if you do thing, other thing will result, and that a thing cannot be its own cause. Therefore, everything that happens has some kind of other cause, and nothing that happens happens based on its own existence. As such, everything is dependent on every other thing, therefore we must be mindful of the results of our own actions. Regarding rebirth, the "it's all about mental states" thing seems like a post-hoc, but is not even so, as the basic idea reduces to the point that even our consciousness, our unceasing flow of thoughts, is not spontaneously self-arisen but dependently arisen and therefore without fundamental existence. The "you" reading this sentence is not the "you" that read the sentence prior, because given new information, it has changed. It has been reborn. As to the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation, this is very important, because when I die, I'm dead. That's it. There is a belief that another being will be born as a result in Buddhism, this idea that death is a cause of rebirth, with the conditions of rebirth being based on karma, but this is not critical to accept in order to accept the practical ethical and behavioral level of Buddhism. Whether or not you believe in rebirth is, ultimately, immaterial. You'll die eventually, another being will be reborn or it won't, and it's no big deal. Rebirth is a complicated concept to grasp, and I'd encourage you to look for some of my posts earlier in the thread where I've quoted people much smarter and wiser than myself in trying to elucidate the concept. Needless to say, however, the idea that there is some kind of perpetuation of consciousness beyond the death of the body is not fundamental to Buddhism, even when it does appear in various traditions usually of the Vajrayana persuasion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Razage posted:How does Buddhism confront that there is a lot of suffering in the world and that one person can't fix the problems of everyone they encounter? Realism. My teacher once told me straight up that we should do whatever we can do. If I can't give up my paycheck because I'd be homeless myself, then I can't give up my paycheck. There is a ton of suffering in the world, more than any one man can fix. Even if I ease the suffering of every being in my town, and make a true utopia, that doesn't fix the next town. It is also understood that not everyone can sacrifice everything. Not everyone has that level of attainment. For a bodhisattva with a high level, they might even sacrifice parts of their body, because they can do that. But for example Shantideva teaches that if you're not at the point where you can handle sacrificing your arms and legs and head and so on, where you don't have the omniscient view to do that properly, then you should only sacrifice your body as a complete thing. If you can't even do that, then only sacrifice your belongings. It's up to you, basically. Remember that this is a long game, not a short game. Even in Vajrayana, where we strive to attain Buddhahood in this very lifetime, there is a recognition that I cannot do it all instantly. Facticity, in the existential sense, is important in Buddhism as well. Do what you're able to do. Sure, if I can give a homeless guy a ride to my place, I should do that, provided I know that will really help him. If I don't have the ability to know that, then maybe I shouldn't. Maybe I should do something else. How do I know he doesn't rob me and thus hurt my ability to help others? If I become homeless myself, then my longterm ability to practice dharma becomes less, so maybe I should not do that one. Maybe I should! But if I lack the wisdom insight to know if I should or shouldn't, I should do only what I can do safely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
On my phone, so quick and dirty, check out Tibetan Spirit for shrine supplies. I know the old owners personally. Good store and people and prices.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Third Murderer posted:The candles/bodies are different, but in that talk Bhikkhu Bodhi specifically says that there is a continuity between the dying thought of one lifetime and the first thought of the next, like how the flames from both candles could be said to be the same flame. The new being will have a different body, a different culture, a different set of memories and so on, so it won't be the same person by any means, but there is supposed to be some sort of continuity there regardless. The continuity is causation, not of any type of substance. If I take a tree and fashion it into a chair, one cannot say the tree and the chair are the same, but yet one cannot say they're distinct. Shantideva uses the example of the candle, where if one candle lights another, then the cannot be said to be the same flame, but the source is the same. He further elaborates that if the first candle goes out at the time the second begins, they are not the same flame but there is a causal chain. That chain of cause and effect is karma. When we die, this creates the immediate cause for consciousness to manifest elsewhere (rebirth) and our merits and so on create the cooperative cause that dictate where the consciousness manifests. It cannot be said to be the same consciousness or the same person, but it is part of the same causal chain. In Tibetan Buddhism, we use the example of a mindstream, which is not to be understood as a linear path, but rather in the sense that when we look at a stream day after day, we say "that is the same stream" and yet none of the water is the same. It is an unceasing stream of change, a process rather than a result. It is both the same stream and not the same stream. So too are our minds, so too is our consciousness, and when "I" die, I am no more, but another "I" will arise, distinct but part of that same mindstream, that same unceasing stream of consciousness that has never stopped since we were born and will not stop after we die. A large part of this hinges on the understanding that "I" in terms of being a separate, distinct, differentiated being is entirely illusory. The concept that we're distinct beings is a fabrication. So when this particular string of consciousness which I call "I" ceases, another will arise, but in terms of "consciousness" in general, it continues, only changed slightly. Our cells die and new cells are born every day, not one single cell of your original body exists today as it did the day you were born, yet we refer to this as our "self." Similarly, when a being dies and another being is born, the process continues with only the smallest details changing. If we consider ourselves with right view to simply be the union of appearance and emptiness, then we are merely a small component of the much larger universe, all of which has the same nature of being emptiness. Therefore our death and rebirth does not belong to us as a distinct entity - that's illusory to begin with. This body dies, another body is born. This body's death creates causes and conditions sufficient for another body's birth, with the unceasing flow of primordial consciousness manifesting in that new body. Our specific merit and karma contributes to determine whether that being will be born a human, a god, a hell being, an animal, whatever. It is simply cause and effect, and the hangup comes from the idea that "you" and "I" are distinct entities. We're not, there is nothing intrinsically real that separates us, merely appearance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Third Murderer posted:Right, but my question is, what is the mechanism that allows this to occur? Some other religion might suggest that angels record your death, consult the akashic record, and cause a birth somewhere else as appropriate. That's a little silly, but at least it's an explanation. Let's say my karma ensures my death will lead to the birth of a cute puppy. How? Unfortunately the only answer I know for this, coming from commentary on the Bodhicharyavitara, is likely to be unsatisfying, being specifically that as an unenlightened being trapped within dependence on the skandhas, we can't really know the mechanism. More importantly, the mechanism of "how" is somewhat unimportant. Consider it like gravity, I suppose. There is speculation on the how, but any imputed determination would necessarily be lacking, itself being an imputation or appellation. The how is largely irrelevant, because the is is readily observable. The discussion is largely irrelevant, because the self that we say is reborn is empty, the reborn thing is empty, neither have any true, inherent reality. Both are simply things which have arisen or fallen, but neither are self-arising nor self-falling. Everything is cause and effect. If I drop a teacup, I need not attempt to speculate or imputate on why it has fallen to the ground, why it has shattered, why this or why that. It has fallen, it has shattered, and we can reasonably assume that such was a natural causal process. Further inquiry in fact complicates things. For example, with angels consulting the akashic records, whence come these angels? Whence come these records? Why do the angels consult it so? What format are the records stored in, PDF or DOCX? How did that specific angel come to read it on that day? And the answer is that all of that is emptiness too. If there are beings reading these things, then they too are arisen of emptiness through cause and effect. To be able to track causality like that is impossible with a limited mind dependent on sensory experience. It requires a mind of enlightenment, the combination of wisdom and emptiness. So if your karma ensures that a cute puppy will be reborn, why does this matter? Any discussion of the future is a discussion of non-reality, so any attempt to rationalize why a non-real event may occur is wrong concentration. quote:I don't know if this seems like an irrelevant point but it's a major thing to me. It's the idea that the specific death of the illusory being I consider myself to be clearly leads to some other specific birth that does not make sense to me. Maybe its just a matter of wording: Not really, because the distinction is purely arbitrary. A body dies, another body is born. Bodies die and are born all the time. There is causality to this. The thing is that any thinking about how I will be reborn is expedient in the relative reality but not in the ultimate reality. And in the relative reality, it doesn't matter if I conceive to myself that I might be reborn as another I that still maintains part of this seed consciousness or not. The relative reality where there are tables and coatracks and so on is very useful for our relative lives, and not at all important with an understanding of emptiness. So I mean, there's no problem with it being an irrelevancy, if you need to know that information I encourage you to meditate, contemplate, and read about it. I haven't gotten into that depth mostly because I practice a much more religious angle where to me "it happens out of emptiness" is totally reasonable and sufficient. Then again, to me "Achi Chokyi Drolma is literally a powerful enlightened being who will protect and aid practitioners of my lineage if asked" is entirely an okay thing. Others would think that's ridiculous, and that's cool, because it's not core essential Buddhism. The essence of Dharma is compassion and emptiness. The Four Noble Truths and the noble eightfold path are the elaboration of that. Anything beyond that is trappings. Live a good life. =] Razage posted:What's a good Buddhist way to deal with problems like bedbugs? I don't have them, but I'm curious what the answers might be. Depends on how you want to approach it. I'd probably just let them be and if they eat some of my blood, fantastic, I hope it's a good meal for them. Maybe other people would think that's hell of gross, and would try to vacuum them up in a way that they can be released. Still others would say that they cause suffering by their existence and if we kill them with truly compassionate intention, we're just sparing them accumulating negative karma from theft and causing suffering. I am interested to hear what thoughts people would give you here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
comaerror posted:While we're on the lotus topic, I have a question. When I try it, I have trouble finding a good central place in my lap to rest my hands since the ball of whichever foot is on top gets in the way. Are you supposed to hold your hands up a little higher, or should my feet be further out to the sides? In the complete 7 point variety it should rest roughly central to your stomach, not actually sitting on your lap. This is accomplished by drawing your shoulders back. The Seven-Point Posture of Vairocana (as it's called in Drikung Kagyu) entails: 1) Cross your legs in the Lotus Position, which blocks the lower energies and is also a stable position. 2) Straighten your body and back, which slows the movement of the winds. 3) Bring your shoulders back "like the wings of a vulture" which elevates your hands slightly. 4) Join your hands at the navel area where your winds come together, bringing a transcendental aspect 5) Bring your neck slightly forward, which directs your gaze forward comfortably and allows you to rest your head for less distraction. 6) Touch your tongue to the top of your palate, in order to keep your mouth moist 7) Let your teeth and eyes sit in a natural position, without dedicating any effort to them, so touch them if they touch, don't if they don't, don't worry about it. For eyes, just let them rest, if they close, they close, and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:One thing I found helpful at first was to put some small supports under my knees to keep them slightly propped up. I would use washclothes, or even balled up socks to keep them supported. I don't need to do this anymore but it was a huge help during my first few sits. I'd be wary of this this particular thing just because the risk is injury to the hip and pelvis joints. This will address that somewhat but generally the knees should be lower than the hips when sitting in any of these positions. This is usually achieved with a small cushion or blanket or somesuch up underneath the butt so that you can sit with your knees lower than your pelvis, which will increase comfort and stability without introducing strain or weakness. Incidentally, elevating the butt above the knees also naturally brings the spine straight to reduce the tendency to slouch, which is resultant from needing low-back curvature in order to maintain what appears to be uprightness. Elevating the butt at the base of the spine allows the spine to naturally straighten instead of the slight bend at the low back which results from sitting the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
No More Toast posted:Thanks for this as well. The friend that mentioned the mala beads has been uninformed about similar things in the past, so I'm not too surprised they got that wrong. I think I am being impatient with meditation as well, but I'm going to keep at it and try out what you suggested - sometimes my annoyance at getting distracted ends up more distracting than the distraction itself. This is really important. The goal of meditation is not to focus. It's not to not-focus. It's to sit and be aware. The most important thing about meditation I've been told was that when the mind wanders, and you get that moment of "oh drat, my mind wandered I've been off on a tangent for a while. . . ." that's when your meditation has been successful. If you're just sitting there and you never once realize your mind has wandered, then you're either already a high level of meditative achievement, or, more likely, you're not aware of the fact that your mind is wandering. In those moments where you go "oh drat I've been distracted," that's when you've gained something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:I'm curious now, because I really can't think of any reason whatsoever why a person shouldn't use Mala beads basically however they wish? Especially if they seem to find it helpful? Coming from the Tibetan tradition, so already unorthodox, they are even used for things like small decision making divinations. In terms of using it "wrongly" the only thing I could think of would be that certain materials are considered auspicious or inauspicious for certain activities. Like a human bone mala is used for wrathful deities preferably. However not using the right mala isn't going to cause you to get smited or something, and you should use what is expedient. It's usually better to do a practice incompletely or inaccurately than to not practice at all. I would actually consider the use to count breaths totally appropriate. I think the "issue" would be that by engaging additional senses to kind of "fill in" versus distraction, one doesn't actually address the problem of distraction, one simply buries it. It doesn't solve anything. That said, use things for ways that work. Sometimes I spin a prayer wheel when I'm going to be meditating for an extended period because it lets me "come back" to it and if it stops spinning, I know my mind has wandered.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:What's everyone's view on substances like caffeine, in regards to the fifth precept? A book on meditation called Shamatha to Mahamudra, written some several hundred years ago, recommends strong Chinese tea as the solution to the meditative problem of drowsiness. My personal lama prefers coffee, but to each their own. Caffeine is generally not considered an intoxicant because it doesn't cause one to lose mindfulness. But it should also not be a crutch. If one were drinking so much caffeine as to cause him or herself illness, for example via heart problems, so on, that would be something to be avoided. The precept against intoxicants is primarily against substances that lead to heedlessness, so caffeine is often considered okay. Nicotine would probably be considered the same way, except for the obvious health problems associated. On more "serious" stimulants, I would avoid illegal drugs because most have health effects and many cause addiction, which unlike the relatively benign and endemic caffeine addiction, leads to increasingly problematic behavior. If a guy was focusing all his activities on getting his next shot of coffee, I would say the same about caffeine, but that is not generally a problem. Medications like Ritalin by prescription would seem reasonable to me, taken by prescription and only when necessary, in accordance with the same general principle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Mr Tastee posted:Wow. Buddhism is a lot bleaker than I imagined. Nirvana is literally impossible. Obviously not? I mean it's been attained at least once by the Buddha, and if you accept the accounts through history, by literally hundreds of thousands of people. In many cases, those people are even pretty bad dudes until they begin practicing Dharma, for example, Milarepa was a black magic user who blew up cities and towns before he attained enlightenment. It's not bleak at all: do things to be happy, practice compassion and lovingkindness. That's it, that's all. The rest will take care of itself. Stop grasping for arbitrary attainment, just practice Dharma. Practicing Dharma brings happiness and leads to cessation of suffering in this very life. This is evident by looking at the lives of practitioners who often report being happier despite their circumstances not changing much at all. The entire Tibetan diaspora is a culture of people who have had to flee their homeland. One of the happiest people I've known once taught me about how what we possess at any given time is what's in our arm's reach, a lesson he learned while being beaten in labor camps by Chinese police. The total cessation of suffering is the goal, Buddhism is the path. It is true that until you have reached the end of the path, you cannot reach the destination, but the path itself reduces suffering for self and others. I don't know how you could reasonably draw the conclusion that attaining Nirvana is impossible. You primordially possess Buddha nature. It is impossible for you not to attain Buddhahood. It just might not be this lifetime. Or it might. Only way to find out is to live it. If anything, I find Buddhist practice ultimately affirming. Edit: I can name multiple fully enlightened living human beings off the top of my head, but it's not like they go around proclaiming it, seeing as that behavior would not be consistent with being an enlightened being.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
I think "emptiness" hangs people up a lot. I know some teachers prefer to use other terms such as "void nature" but even that doesn't work well always. It also makes it difficult because "emptiness" is the conventional term. I don't think there's a good solution because there's no one word description in English that works, and one can only say "devoid of intrinsic self-nature"so many times before it becomes tedious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Lordboots posted:I have a question about Mantras and Karma. There are many mantras that claim to lessen or eliminate bad Karma. Then there are people that claim that using Mantras can't eliminate bad Karma at all, and that only better thoughts and deeds can improve your Karma. Is there anyone here that can clear this up, or have any other opinions, views on the matter? Saying a mantra is doing a thought and a deed. The general idea as I understand it is that your karmic consequences will ripen. That will definitely happen. Mantra recitation accumulates merit that can mitigate some of those consequences but not stop them entirely. Depending on the type of mantras depends on the effects and such. To say definitely "saying a mantra does a thing" is a sort of esoteric position. I say certain mantras and do certain practices for certain reasons, of course. Mainly though a mantra is part of a larger pattern of behavior. If you recite the six-syllable mantra, yes maybe this will bring about compassion and so on and give you merit to reduce the impact of past misdeeds or whatever. But more importantly, if I say Chenrezig matnras, then I think about Chenrezig. This leads me to behave in a way that emulates Chenrezig. This way I become more compassionate, my mind is molded into compassionate thinking. We act how we think, our behaviors are based on our mental states and causality and so on. So if I say compassion mantras, and don't just say them, but recite them aloud, using my body, speech, and mind, then I become more compassionate. If I develop more compassion, then whatever negative karma comes to fruition, I deal with it compassionately, and it is not suffering. If someone has the negative karma to be reborn in the hell realms, but has developed bodhicitta, compassion, and lovingkindness, then they do not suffer in the hell realms. Of course they experience all the hell-things, but they got here as a bodhisattva, and they alleviate the suffering of others, and because they can do this then they are not actually suffering even in the hell realms. There are purification mantras like the hundred syllable mantra, but my understanding is that even these don't wipe away cause and effect, because that can't be done, rather, they induce the fruiting of negative karma to happen at times when it can be handled, or to happen sooner than later to get it over with, or so on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:I'm struggling to find the quote now, but I remember reading something the Dalai Lama said along the lines of "we know when the sun rises in the morning it will set again at night, but this doesn't mean we don't go about our day." He says this in a Russian documentary called Sunrise/Sunset, if that helps you find it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I still have trouble with the way people differentiate between nihilism and Buddhism. If you take away all the supernatural elements, you don't really seem to end up with two very different things. It makes a few more metaphysical claims than nihilism, but otherwise it just looks like a proactive and empirical approach to dealing with nihilism to me. "Here's how things are, here's how to deal with it." Especially with the way the Buddha advised people to avoid speculative ontological questions because there's no useful or meaningful answer to them. Less about whether life is depressing or not than about how to not be depressed about it. The core difference between Buddhism and nihilism is that Buddhism explicitly rejects nihilistic thinking as dualistic delusion at best, and critically harmful misunderstanding at worst. Buddhist thought bridges the Middle Way not just in behavior, practical ethics, and so on, but in terms of worldview. Buddhism bridges a gap between both metaphysical nihilism and essentialism, and existential nihilism and essentialism. It rejects metaphysical nihilism and metaphysical essentialism on the grounds that everything that exists relatively really exists, but not in any sort of tangible, permanent way, that it can be said to be possessive of existence in a meaningful way. A chair for example exists, because I can sit on it, or throw it, or otherwise interact with it. Thus it is surely real. But because it could burn up and be gone, or because the craftsman might never carve it from wood, it cannot be said to be existent as a fundamental, essential state. It is both wrong to say "there is no chair" as well as to say "a chair essentially exists." It is wrong to accept one or the other, or both, or neither. Buddhist philosophy opposes nihilism because it sees nihilism as utterly incorrect, so incorrect, in fact, that the very paradigm of correctness upon which one might test nihilism (whether or not a thing exists) is rejected and refuted as being a false dualistic binary. In terms of philosophical nihlism, Buddhism essentially rejects concepts of things being meaningful or non-meaningful for the same reason. A thing cannot intrinsically possess meaning, because a thing being meaningful requires at least two things: a meaningful thing, and an observer to find it meaningful. Because at least two things are required, no one thing can be said to be possessive of meaningfulness. If no one thing possesses it, it is wrong to call a thing meaningful, but equally wrong to say it is without meaning. To one person, a painting might just be colors. To another it might be a deep expression of cosmic truth. Both of them are absolutely correct. The painting is simultaneously with and without meaning. Everything is just like that. It's not nihilistic because it accepts existence of both meaning and material objects. It's not essentialist because it rejects existence of meaning intrinsically, as well as existence of material objects intrinsically. It's not really nihilism. It's realism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Hollis posted:I have a weird question, when I was very young my father was a buhhdist he has since abandoned it, but I was raised with certain beliefs. One of them was rather unusual was that Buhdist can under certain circumstances eat meat, even if their vegetarian if it's being thrown away? Or that you did not prepared and was offered to you freely. Is this true. Monastics can eat meat that is being offered to them if they know that the animal was not killed specifically for them, yes. It's about not offending the generosity of one's benefactors, and also very much a "beggars can't be choosers" sort of thing. But again, the animal cannot have been killed for the monk, because then one would take on the negative karma of the killing. So like if you were a monk and you came to visit and I had made beef stew or hamburgers or something, and I gave you one, you could eat that (you don't have to, but it's not forbidden) whereas if you came over and I was like "sup bro I murdered this chicken for you let's eat it!" that would not be okay. I eat meat, but do not eat meat that was killed specifically for me (like lobster, crab, etc. where I know the animal was alive until I was gonna eat it). Eating meat that is going to be thrown away is probably also something that is okay, but I have not heard that one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Or maybe I'm getting nihilism wrong, I'm hardly an expert. Part of it is also that the general Buddhist disavowal of nihilism predates modern nihilism and I may have been stretching its application too far. Generally Buddhism is a refutation of nihilism and essentialism as claims that things either don't exist or that they do exist. I personally find a lot of parallels between Buddhist thinking and existentialism, but because of the significant differences in Eastern thought from Western, and the big load of baggage that comes with a comparison to a hashed out modern philosophy, I think it's best to avoid such comparisons. In terms of vignettes, I can't help you quickly with that, but some koans are in the form of vignettes. Here is an online copy of The Gateless Gate, a compilation of koans: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/cgi-bin/koan-index.pl
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 12:51
|
|
Nietzsche had a very unique and specific idea of what nihilism means, though, which are at this point at least a century out of date. I suppose if you look at it under that definition it's exactly what Buddhism doesn't, but I'm talking more about the modern conception that's the basis for existentialism, postmodernism, constructivism, those things.
|
The thing to be cautious of with the concept of emptiness, with the concept of nothingness, with nihilism, in relation to Buddhism, is that it is a very strong trap that is itself a quagmire of delusion. But it is a trap that is very difficult to emerge from. When someone believes everything is real, that it exists in an absolute way, it is fairly trivial to demonstrate that such is not the case if their mind is receptive to this. It is easy enough to show that a wooden chair was once not a chair at all, and will someday not be a chair at all, and so that its "chair-nature" is impermanent, interdependently arising, and not essential. It is far more difficult once someone has decided that nothing exists or is real in an absolute sense to convince them that things are real. The actual point in Buddhist practice is not that nothing exists really, or that nothing matters because of emptiness. That's a trap, but an easy one to fall into. It's easy to fall into the trap of "oh, everything is empty, so all actions are empty, so I can do whatever or not do whatever and it is empty and no problem." Make no mistake, if you set a torch to your house it will burn down. Buddhism does not deny this. It does deny that the house existed absolutely, so it does deny that anything of essence was lost. It also recognizes that the fire was predicated by a cause, and so it would deny that the fire existed essentially, that the fire was necessary. And so in this case a Buddhist might say "ah, the house burned down, but no house burned, and fire was not real" and this would be true! Nothing primordially "house" burned, the fire, being interdependent upon the fuel, could not have been real, because fire only exists where the necessary causes of fuel, oxygen, heat, and a sustained chemical reaction happen. But to take that to the next step and go "oh, nothing is real because emptiness" is a pit that one falls into easily but from which one does not easily climb. Buddhism's emphasis on the middle way is not about denying the existence of things that happen. They exist in a very conventional sense. They do not exist in an absolute sense, and this is the crux of the matter. There is no absolute reality. There is certainly conventional reality. Therefore, the escape from the inconvenience of getting dressed and eating is to get dressed and eat. After that's done, there is no inconvenience. The escape from suffering does not free one from the material things they must do. A fully enlightened being still has to eat or their body will die. They still have to drink. They still must wear clothes or face the social consequences. But they do not suffer for these things. A fully enlightened being might still be robbed, or beaten, or take ill, or be eaten by a lion, but they don't suffer for it. If you cut the finger of a Tathagatha, it will still hurt, but there will be no suffering. They are free from the actual cause of suffering, which is not the event itself. Dying is not suffering, it is just a process. We suffer when we die because we are clinging to life. Being sick is not suffering, it is just a process. We suffer when we are sick because we are clinging to good, healthy feeling. Growing old is not suffering, it is just a process. We suffer from it because we cling to the capability of our youth. This is why I said Buddhism is not nihilism, but realism. Buddhism looks at things how they really are, rather than how they are presented or fabricated mentally. Mentally if I am hit by a car and my leg falls off, this sucks! How terrible! All my hopes and dreams are dashed, my desires and wants crushed, all my potential dashed before my eyes. In reality? It's just a leg that has fallen off a body. This happens to other animals all the time. It happens to other people, living and dead. It is just a thing that happens. Yes of course my capabilities for the future are limited, but they were never real to begin with because obviously the causes and conditions necessary to bring them about were not there. So it's realism, not nihilism. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Shnooks posted:I have the option to receive the Five Mindfulness Trainings (basically the Five Precepts) formally this weekend and I'm not sure if I should do it. I'd do it up, but it's based on whether you want them or not. To me, I take most practices if my schedule lines up and it's a practice I feel I should take sooner or later regardless, because to me that's a kind of signal that maybe that time and place is when I should take it. After all, if you're going to take it eventually, then why not take it sooner than later? You might die any moment, and have to wait lifetimes to have the opportunity. If you're taking it eventually anyways, then you have already committed to taking them. If it were some tantric practice, or some deity yoga, or something like this, I'd say maybe to hold off until a teacher instructs you to take them or something like this, but something so basic as refuge and precepts is a thing we should take numberless times. If you're not ready to really understand it now, it will plant a seed. Edit: I just read up above where you said you would perhaps rather take the teachings at the monastery, so I guess there the question is why not do both? If it's just a teaching/training, and not an empowerment or something that you have to commit with, then do it both times and places. If it is something that forms a vow with a teacher or something, then do it with the teacher you want, regardless of the location. But yeah, if it would be more meaningful at the monastery that is definitely a consideration.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:This may sound really, really odd, so I want to preface this with a bit of an apology -- I'm not trying to start anything, but am just curious. Well, with regard to the one-with-everything deal, you already are. There's no becoming necessary. You are interdependent with everything else and possess no nature that is not interdependently arisen. That aside, however, we pursue enlightenment not for enlightenment itself but in pursuit of the same goal the Buddha was striving for when he became enlightened: the cessation of suffering. Enlightenment itself is not a reasonable goal without a motivation. That motivation for many is cessation of their own suffering, for some it's the cessation of suffering for others. Regardless, though, the only way that practice and pursuit of enlightenment becomes reasonable is within the context of suffering and our goal to achieve an escape from the unsatisfactoriness of samsara.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Are there any sutta references for this idea that "everything is connected" or "we are all one"? I don't recall the Buddha ever stating this idea in the Pali Canon. I haven't read every sutta by any means, I just havent seen this view explicitly stated before, so I am just curious as to why it seems to come up so often during discussion of the Dhamma. As far as a view, specifically, it reminds me of something that would be brushed aside as a thicket of views, something that isn't necessarily relevant or important to the path. The interconnectedness is a result of interdependent origination and emptiness as concepts. Everything is devoid of intrinsic nature, everything arises in relation to everything else. The concept of "I" is irrelevant because it is a matter of viewpoint, and the viewpoint is not intrinsic. Thus when I say "I" I conventionally refer to myself, but there is nothing "myself" to be distinct from, say, you. So it is possible to think "I" and mean "all sentient beings." There is nothing but an arbitrary distinction, no true disconnect aside from mental appellation, which is illusory. I do not know if there is a foundation for this in the Dhammapada. It is deeply expounded upon in the works of Nagarjuna and in the teachings of all paths following from Nagarjuna's tradition. Third Murderer posted:I think it's statements like this that cause confusion between rebirth and reincarnation. In this scenario, what is doing the waiting? Not me I think, because I ceased to be when I died, since I am only a particular arrangement of stuff that has now been disrupted. Some other being will be getting that opportunity, surely? I understand the idea that all things are connected by causation, but then why should some particular being be considered my next life? How am I any more connected with that new life than I am to any number of other beings? This is an example of conventional language being problematic. It is true that if Shnooks dies and doesn't receive the teaching, no Shnooks will receive the teaching. It's also true that there is nothing intrinsically Shnooks to receive the teaching in the future - but then, there's no Shnooks to receive the teaching in the present! The teaching will be given and received and Shnooks is an irrelevancy. A particular being is not considered "your" next life in an absolute sense, but rather a being is born resultant from the causes you create. In a Vajrayana sort of way, one might consider that a being can be an emanation of the same mindstream, the same primordial root of consciousness. There is discussion in texts from the Drikung Kagyu and I assume other Kagyu traditions discussing the "unceasing flow of consciousness that is primordial awareness." That is, your thoughts are being thought now, they have never not been present since you were born, they will never stop being present, even after you die, they will simply change vantage point. The conscious awareness in this case is merely dependently originating, but it is unceasing, always changing but never starting or stopping. I cannot expound properly on this concept because I myself taint it by applying Western esoteric concepts that are similar but perhaps imprecise regarding a sort of precedence of consciousness-emanation stuff, but it's no matter. The end result is that there is a flow of conscious thought that does not start or stop, and that even when we die, this flow of conscious thought will continue, but from a new vantage point. Just as our present thoughts of "I" and "you" are distinct only because of the vantage point of the consciousness, and ultimately are illusory ego-constructions meant to maintain that separation, so too will be future "births" of that consciousness stream merely distinct by vantage-point. Mind is not separate, but like a stream that splits apart and then rejoins, it becomes distinct and then indistinct based on conceptual thought. So yes, it is imprecise for me to say Shnooks might receive a teaching in a future life as that future life will not be identical to Shnooks, it will not be the same Shnooks. It might be a male monk, it might be a princess, it might be a politician, whatever. It might be in 500 years after countless cycles as a moth or a fish or whatever. It might be in the next kalpa after this world has burned away, or on another planet, or whatever. Clearly Shnooks is not those things and will not directly become those things. But through cause and effect Shnooks actions will bring about other beings, and on and on. So yes it's imprecise language but the language becomes tedious. I'd also like to point out that the thing about consciousness flow is not core, fundamental Buddhism in the sense of being Theravadan or something the Buddha taught. It's inextricable from the teachings of Vajrayana Buddhism, but not something you have to accept. And regardless, it's definitely fine detail which is unimportant to the noble eightfold path. Rebirth itself is a contentious point. WAFFLEHOUND for example strongly advocates that someone must accept literal rebirth to even enter the Buddhist sphere. I reject this notion, and hold that someone who practiced every precept, and who followed the eightfold path, and who did all these thing is as surely a Buddhist as someone who holds one precept and is a refuge-holder also believes in rebirth. I strongly believe that anyone should take whatever they want from Buddhism and leave what they can't handle at this point. One particular feature of Buddhism is that everything follows logically from everything else. It's a very internally consistent belief system. So eventually if you accept one premise, you will likely come to similar conclusions on your own. If not, that's okay too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:That all makes sense to me. I guess I always wondered at the concept because I see it stated so often and so emphatically, but never with any kind of sutta references. This translation is solid inasmuch as any translation can be. As with the Suttas, it can be tedious to read, with all the logical points set up meticulously and in that sort of longhand way. It is the fundamental work of the whole Madhyamaka school, however, so it's worth a read. It is also the work wherein Nagarjuna meticulously refutes dualism and dismantles binary systems. It's a solid read but it's dense. Letter to a Friend is also a very important work of his, but focuses more on the ethical and practical side of Buddhist practice than on the philosophical bits. Edit: I have also quoted a few times from The Way of the Bodhisattva by Shantideva, and there are a few chapters in this book ("Wisdom Awareness" being the main) that focus on this same philosophical issue. Shantideva delivered this entire book at Nalanda University, which Nagarjuna had headed, and it is steeped in that same doctrine. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Ehhh... I mean in a broad sense this is workable for the English usage of Karma but not for the Buddhist useasge. I'd really love quantumfate to chime in on this one, dude is like a master at explaining karma. I think it was me who said it, and it's not only workable for the English usage. It's absolutely workable for the correct usage. The effect of good deeds is to increase net good. The effect of bad deeds is to increase net bad. It's not a completely in depth definition, and it's not meant to be a definition, but rather a way to think about karma without placing moral judgment. To the mind of people who grew in the West, it's sometimes difficult to conceive of this idea that cause and effect just happen. Without a moral arbiter, we're quick to use our rational brain to go "well I should do nonvirtues if I can get away with them" or "if I won't be punished for this then why shouldn't I do it?" It's easy to demonstrate why we should refrain from certain acts. For example, we can easily see why we shouldn't kill or steal. But it's more difficult, without some kind of promise of reward, to justify why we should do good deeds. Sure, "because it accumulates merit" is a functional answer to that question, and yes, accumulating merit through cause and effect does lead to tangible and intangible benefits. But in practical terms, the most straightforward reason people should do good deeds, altruistically and without direct benefit, is because doing good increases net good. If I am nice to a person, then even if they blow me off and motherfuck me and go on their way just as grouchy, the net good deeds in the world has gone up. So, I used that quote almost exactly to justify why we should behave altruistically and compassionately despite no promise of reward and despite no punishment for failure. It's not complete, but it's practical. I also disagree that it's an accurate description of Western conceptions of Karma, which are basically "if you do good good things will happen to you." In fact, it's meant to deliberately sidestep that. Saying "do good so good things happen to you" is exactly that reward, exactly that carrot which I am saying does not exist. You may never see a reward in this lifetime for your virtuous actions, but you should do them anyways because it makes things a nicer place overall. I could get into the whole "and you lack intrinsic identity so you're actually being nice to yourself and perhaps in a future life by having increased net good you'll be more likely to have good experiences as a new being" but we don't even need all that. Karma is cause and effect. A poplar seed always grows into a poplar tree, a sumac seed always becomes a sumac, but to look at either of them after a few weeks and you'd never know they become such big trees! So a good cause always becomes a good effect, even if it's not immediately obvious. I also use that line generally in conjunction with the law of jerks for mediating arguments where I can't just get straight up Buddhist. The law of jerks is that if someone is a jerk to you, and you become a jerk back, all you've done is created two jerks. Nobody likes jerks, and two jerks is worse than one jerk, so don't be a jerk back. I never spout nonsense about how if you just are nice back to the jerk they'll stop being a jerk. That's not realistic and just ends up with people being bitter about the whole thing. But if you have one jerk, and then add another jerk, now we're almost to a jerk crowd and that's no good. Do I claim this to be a perfect and ideal Buddhist teaching straight from the sutras? No, of course not. But it's pretty useful, and it's ultimately Buddhist thinking. So yeah, doing good deeds increases net good deeds. This is because of karma, this is an effect of karma. Because karma is basically cause and effect, it's infinitely scaleable, as with all Buddhist truths. It is true in both the cosmic scale of rebirths and such, but it's also true just in the practical level of real life. If I take an fruit and I drop it on the ground from a height because of carelessness, or malice, or anger, or scientific curiosity, I have a bruised orange. That's karma. Edit tldr: What that is, "doing good deeds increases net good deeds in the world" is a very practical, relatable form of karma. It lacks depth of philosophy and so on so on, but it's not meant to encompass all that depth. It's meant to be practical and relatable in a way that people can read it and go "oh, yeah, that's true, I should do good deeds without consideration of reward or personal benefit." It's important to keep in mind these practical, relatable things, because without them we bury ourselves in bullshit and Sanskrit and "originally intended meanings" and somewhere in the shuffle we lose our heart of compassion. Sometimes, you just gotta smile and say hello to other little rafts on the ocean of samsara. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Madhyamaka! But karma isn't an actual thing. It's a process. It isn't a force or external power or a system put in place by something or other. It's not quite the same as Newtownian cause and effect, but it's pretty similar, only with ethics instead of with physical things. I'd argue Newtonian cause and effect is pretty much a manifestation of karma.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Pepsi-Tan posted:I asked this once before and never got an answer on it, but, what are your opinions of Pure Land Buddhism? My limited understanding of the quick and dirty of it is that it's basically regular Buddhism ethically, but with added devotional things towards specific Dhyani Buddhas (usually Amitabha) meant to ensure rebirth in a Pure Land. It's not to the neglect of Buddhist ethical or moral behavior and reasoning, and certainly does not neglect the teachings of the historical Buddha, but adds onto this reasoning that even doing everything we can, it is very difficult to attain enlightenment in this material Samsaric world, so we should not only do everything we can to advance on the path in this lifetime, but also seek to attain an auspicious rebirth in the Pure Lands where we can attain enlightenment easier. In Tibetan Buddhism specifically, some of these practices are also observed, but as a kind of parachute plan, with the goal to attain enlightenment in this very life being foremost, but with practices that ensure rebirth in a Pure Land serving as a backup and also being used as a merit-generating practice. I can't speak much for the actual practice and observance of Pure Land practitioners, because in my own practice prayers to be reborn in a Pure Land are rather secondary. It's not a primary goal, but it's good practice regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I am thrilled to hear from someone who is culturally Buddhist but not from Tibet, and am looking forward to more information on how it looks to the laity elsewhere in Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
A huge problem is that "no-self" is not a very good translation. There is a self. There is no intrinsic self identity, that is, the self that exists is not inherently that self. It possesses nothing that makes it "that self" that is unchanging. There very much is a self, but that self exists through interdependent origination, not through spontaneously arising. English simply doesn't do justice to the concept with the quick words for it. We're very quick to take things like no self, no soul, no identity, and so on, and to extrapolate that to a nihilistic position. This is not correct. There is a self. You can look at your body and go "this is a self." That's fine! What's wrong is to cling to that self as unchanging, to believe that that self is "real" in the sense that it will always be real. The Western concept of an eternal, unchanging, intrinsic soul that comprises the self is what is in question here, not the day-to-day concept of self. After a sense, sure, a "self" is a useful fiction, because it is not inherent or intrinsically true. It's "real" only in the relative sense, but not in the absolute sense. Still, this relative truth should not be discarded simply due to translation error. The idea of a literal rebirth becomes much more consistent when we recognize things in this way. Rather than saying "well, there is no sense, therefore there is no self to be literally reborn," we can look at it as "there is this self, that is in a constant state of change. One change that this self will undergo is death. Another change that this self has already undergone is birth. After death, this self will undergo yet further changes." The self is never the same. It lacks intrinsic identity. It is wrong to see it as one thing, as a Noun which exists of-itself. It is phenomenal, not noumenal. It might be argued that this is essentialism. "There is still a self then!" Well, there is a self, but it's hardly the same. Look at your own self. You were born a tiny infant. Was that infant you? How could it not be? Is that infant still you? Certainly not! You will become old and die. Is that old person you? That dead person? Not right now! So where is the "self?" How is it unchanging? And so on. My lama explained mindstream to me this way: a mindstream should not be considered as a stream in that it goes from one place to another. Rather, consider it this way: if you look at a stream from day to day, it will appear the same. We might go "oh that is the same stream" every time. But the water that fills that stream is constantly changing! How can we say it is the same stream when none of the constituent parts, the individual parts of water, are the same? So it is with mindstreams. The mindstream perpetuates from birth to birth, but it too is changing as its constituent aspects change. To get metaphysical with it, HHDL is an emanation of Avalokitesvara. There are other emanations of Avalokitesvara. There are past Dalai Lamas. This Dalai Lama is not his past Dalai Lamas. They aren't the same beings. He does not have memories of "past lives" in that very Western sense. He does report occasionally having a recognition, or familiarity, but it's not like Tenzin Gyatso is literally Thubten Gyatso in a new body, who is literally Trinley Gyatso, and so on. That's not how it works. Same mindstream, different beings. Different water, same stream.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What's the etiquette of if you know somebody from the street and go to a Buddhist temple and see them as a monk there? Yeap, I'd just follow with "and do you have something else you'd like to be called?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I guess I have a follow up question; Does rebirth depend on a dualistic conception of the mind? It seems that much of Western neuroscience and philosophy are codifying around a monistic version where the mind is the brain or is an emergent property of the brain. Rather the opposite - it denounces a dualistic conception of the mind, including the idea that the mind exists or does not exist. The mind is not the brain, the mind is not not the brain. They are both interdependently originating, and they neither can exist without the other. But, neither exist "intrinsically" either. There is no eternal element that is intrinsic and inherent to the identity of either a mind or a brain. Regarding the Christianity/Buddhism thing, I do not think it is possible to be Christian and Buddhist, but the problem is on both sides. To be truly Christian, or even to believe in the Western conception of God as an anthropomorphic being, essentially requires a belief in an eternal, unchanging thing. That doesn't work well with the concept of dependent origination and the concepts of emptiness and such. However, there are Buddhist conceptions of deities that do work in accordance with Buddhist thought and doctrine - but those gods do not meet the same standard Christianity requires. Also, the whole conception of salvation being necessary is kinda non-Buddhist. I mean, original sin? Heck naw dawg, only cause and effect. However, that doesn't mean that Buddhists should reject other people practicing their religions outright. My teacher is fond of saying that any religion that leads to the cessation of suffering is right for that person. If you are doing Christianity, and it's making you happier and encouraging right ethical behavior, then do that! If you're doing it and it's making you suffer, or encouraging non-virtue, then stop! That's pretty much as simple as it gets. Buddhism is nothing if not practical.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Is it possible that the fact we all possess Buddha nature/primordial purity is actually the complete opposite of original sin? Yeah pretty much. We have no innate essence, thus primordial purity. How can we have an innately sinful state, then?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:So as someone who has yet to start a meditation practice, how reliable or trustworthy is it? Yeah, the opposite of this, basically. Meditation is generally about quieting the mind to allow oneself to be present in the moment as it truly is, without mental obscurations and appellations. Most of us engage primarily in top-down processing, a very efficient mental heuristic where we take a mental schema of a situation and impose it upon the world in order to quickly sort out what's going on. Through mindfulness, through meditative awareness, we learn to instead simply experience how things actually are, without mental appellations, without imposing our own take upon things. I know of very few monks who claim they can recollect past lives who are legit. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, perhaps the best known tulku, or reincarnated being, has himself said that he does not recall a past life as if it was his present life. There may be impressions, thoughts, sort of memories of familiarity with locations he's never been to, but many of us have such experiences. It's all cause and effect. It is important to not get too heavily caught up in that kind of thing, because when one gets into "woo," with psychic experiences and what not, it is the inclination of many to start pursuing that as if it were the path. Like Razage said, Buddhist scripture talks about psychic powers and such. A lot of Buddhists through history have demonstrated "miracle powers" and so on. But if that's your fixation, you're no longer pursuing non-attachment. Hell, the primary text of my lineage talks at some length about all the capacities of various attainments, but if you're of the level that you're experiencing those things, you don't need to worry about them. If you're not of the level where you're experiencing things, you also don't need to worry about them. So yeah, I think you will find the opposite is true with a genuine meditation practice. It's not fooling yourself, because you're fooled now! Thinking in dualistic ways, believing things exist or things don't exist, and so on. It's unfooling yourself that's the trick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Not intentionally, I'm just curious about your statement since I'm not sure it lines up with Buddhist thought. What really? The idea that the enlightened mind is beyond trivial description as religious affiliation, without attachment to any term of identity or state of belonging, is so fundamental to Buddhist thinking that it is boggling my mind how you could think this. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. No Buddhas are Buddhists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:The "all-encompassing love of metta" is by its nature a fleeting state, therefore transitory and illusory, and therefore pain. Transitory and illusory states are not in and of themselves painful or suffering causing. Indeed, all states are transitory and illusory. Emotions are not necessarily suffering. It is only suffering if we attach ourselves on those emotions. It is perfectly acceptable to be happy you won the game - the suffering only comes in if you attach on that, if you think "I want to feel like this forever!" The suffering of happiness only occurs in the suffering of sadness. The various sufferings, those of having a unwanted thing, of wanting an unhad thing, of losing a wanted thing one haves, or of gaining an unwanted thing one does not have, are all predicated upon having a wanted or unwanted thing. When a Buddha's mother dies, he feels sadness, but he does not suffer. When a Buddha performs virtues or sees others performing virtues, he is happy. If when he then sees those others perform non-virtues, surely he is no longer happy, but yet he is free from suffering, because he realizes the transitory nature and does not cling. So, I think it is semantically incorrect to say "all emotions are pain." It may be accurate to say "all emotions are pain when experienced by an unenlightened being who clings to them," but we can reduce this logically to see that emotions are not the core of that statement, by looking at each part piece by piece. Are emotions inherently painful? No. Are experiences inherently painful? No. Are beings inherently pained? No, not inherently. Unenlightened beings? Yes, but only because they cling, for if they did not have attachments or aversions, they would be enlightened beings. So clinging, attachment, and aversion, and by extension wants and unwants, are the root of suffering, and emotions are generally associated with suffering only because we tend to attach very strongly to happy emotions and be aversive to unhappy emotions. One could argue that certain emotions always come with suffering, such as specifically hate-filled anger, but I think under examination one would find that even those emotions are only suffering or only exist because of attachment or aversion. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You were talking about Metta as a desireable state, something worth pursuing. What happens when it ends? What do you have then? You have a memory of a good feeling. Do you want to bring it about again? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If you do, then that is the suffering in itself. If you don't, then why were you trying to bring it about in the first place? Then the desire to bring about a pleasurable state from the start was the suffering. This is the scope of the problem, for us all to continually remind ourselves of. But this is a false dichotomy. When it happens, it happens, that is nice. When it stops happening, it stops happening. I don't have to want it back, nor do I have to pursue it again. I don't have to be upset because it's gone, or yearn for it to be back. States, emotions, events, they rise and fall like waves on the sea. So for an enlightened being, there is certainly the possibility (in fact I believe the certainty) to feel compassion and joy for all sentient beings, and if that ends, for an enlightened being, then it just ends. It is senseless to avoid a positive thing for fear of the loss of that positive thing because that loss is a certainty. All things are impermanent! To avoid happiness because there may follow unhappiness is to embrace that unhappiness as a permanent state. Without understanding a path to the cessation of suffering, we must assume suffering is permanent, but because there has been a Buddha, we know this is not true. Thus we should not act like it is true. There is a path to the cessation of suffering. That path does not constitute emotionlessness. Emotions are experiences, like any other experiences. Avoiding unpleasant things is not the activity of an enlightened being. It is the opposite of the "one taste," to simply avoid things that lead to unpleasantness. So to say "emotions are pain" is false. Attachment and aversion towards emotions are pain. Emotions are pain only if we want to avoid them. Sadness is only suffering if we wish it were some other way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Remember, we're still talking about the four seals of Buddhism, and a disagreement on whether emotions are pain or not. All anyone has tried to do is say "some emotions are pain" when it clearly says "all emotions are pain". Therefore, not Buddhists. There was a logical progression to this point. I am not saying you're not Buddhists as a starting point because of some felt sense, it is the logical conclusion of a whole conversation. If you think that's somehow arrogant, then I dunno what to say. Just calling it how I see it, since no one else is going to do it. Wait you're doing this as a four seals thing? Because the four seals as I learned them are All conditioned things are impermanent All tainted things are suffering Nirvana is peace All phenomena are devoid and without self Sooo??? I see, I clicked the article you posted before from Shambhala Sun. I will not argue with the Dzongsar in this matter, but that is not a translation from Tibetan that I would personally endorse. Of course, Tibetan is certainly not my native language. So, with all the argument resulting from language, I am thoroughly amused that the Wittgensteinian nightmare has fruited, and people are being called non-Buddhists over translational differences ITT. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
The four seals as translated by Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsten that my center uses are: All composite phenomena are impermanent All the afflicted states are suffering All phenomena are devoid of self The unconditional, ultimate peace is nirvana The second part there can be taken to be "tainted" in the Dzogchen-styled sense to be "all things capable of being a subject of afflicted emotions," but an "afflicted state" does not translate to "emotion." The author of that article has taken a liberty with a translation, or is working with an unorthodox source. Edit: I think "afflicted things" is a greater set than "emotions" and so "all emotions are pain" is not accurate. Afflicted things are afflicted by attachment and aversion, which I think tends to agree with the point I made initially that nothing in and of itself is suffering, rather, suffering arises from attachment and aversion. This, I think, agrees very closely with the second Noble Truth, being that attachment, aversion, and craving are the origin of suffering. Suffering is not an inherent property of anything, including emotions, because all things are primordially empty. They are not primordially with-suffering. Suffering is an experiential state (and, arguably, constitutes this entire world as a continually arising process) that is dependently arisen. Emotions are not equal to pain because that would imply that the experience of emotion has an intrinsic, non-empty, permanent and foundational state, which is suffering. This is not true, because emotions, like any other experience, are dependently arisen. Afflicted states, being states tainted by attachment or aversion, are suffering because that suffering arises as a result of the attachment, aversion, or craving. Emotions can be afflicted in this way, but are not fundamentally or eidetically so afflicted. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:States are nothing if not afflicted! Next So, would you say that all states are afflicted by definition? Would you assert, then, that this is a fundamental, permanent, and independent natural "state" of all states, that all states are afflicted by nature? Because if so you have thrown out the First Seal in favor of the Second. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:My tradition doesn't classify emotions in any way at all! It sidesteps the whole issue. It doesn't, because making an existential statement of identity is certainly classification.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
When in scripture the Buddha "enters into a state of samadhi," as an enlightened being, would you say that this state is necessarily tainted?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:There is no natural state apart from all states, aside from the one that we refer to in language. All states are impermanent and therefore afflicted. Affliction constantly happens. I have not introduced any contradiction between the seals. Impermanence is not affliction. Impermanence isn't even suffering. Emotions are empty, without substance. How, then, can an emotion be fundamentally suffering? No, an emotion can only be suffering if it is afflicted by attachment, aversion, or craving. Joy is only suffering when it is afflicted. In its natural state (emptiness), joy is not suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You want to have your cake and eat it too. Have a state without being attached to it. This is an ideal that is impossible to reach. This is the basis of delusion. The uncomfortable truth that all Buddhism leads to. I find this fascinating coming from someone who practices Dzogchen, which is a Vajrayana practice which results in still-living enlightened practitioners. I think that this statement is overbroad and borders on nihilistic. An enlightened Dzogchen practitioner who has accomplished the path still experiences states, but does not suffer. The enlightened Buddha slept and woke, ate food and took drink, and lived just as a human being. The generally perceived ultimate realization of Dzogchen and Mahamudra both point to the idea that samsara and nirvana are illusory, separated only by the mind. They do not deny the relative reality, but rather seek instead to perceive the absolute reality of emptiness. Emptiness includes emptiness of suffering, and someone who has accomplished the path of Dzogchen is still an alive human being, interacting and experiencing and so on. They do so without attachment or aversion. That's why they are considered to have accomplished the path. It is entirely possible to have a state without being attached to it. It is not possible to want to have a state without attachment to it, but I think the very real, living examples of enlightened beings demonstrate that it is possible to attain enlightenment in this very life. quote:After this whole charade is over, you find freedom. Until that point, suffering. This I do agree with, but I don't know that I can agree with the broader statement that having a state mandates suffering. Samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 20:52
|
|