Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

«‹›4 »

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

echinopsis posted:

am I welcome to ask questions about meditation that I have from Sam Harris� waking up course and other surrounding questions I�ve come across since

As Shakyamuni himself said to Manjusri: :justpost:

# ¿ May 28, 2019 05:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Hiro Protagonist posted:

I know it will likely vary from traditions, but in your experiences, is it better to read sutras alone with the possibility of misinterpreting them, or to wait to read until one is in a community or with a teacher that can clarify the sutra in question?

I think you should read that poo poo although it might also be good to ask questions in informed communities. But if you find yourself thinking 'wow, I've figured out what Buddha REALLY meant, and it's actually that I'm Maitreya' maybe slow your roll.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2019 00:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Thirteen Orphans posted:

I was thinking of, say, meditation where you "watch" the breath, and other such techniques taught in your standard meditation classes derived from Zen. By inhibiting, and I should have been specific, I mean mental disorders that make the act of following the technique of meditation untenable. The situation that immediately comes to mind are those who suffer from mania. Meditation can trigger mania or make a manic episode much worse. What does the person do in a Zen perspective if they cannot practice this kind of meditation? My only other knowledge of Zen practice is Koan practice, and I don't know if you can divorce meditation from koan training.

My instinct would be to say "take another dharma door" but you'd want to talk to an actual Zen priest of some kind because there's a lot more going on here than meditating. I get a lot more out of mantras than sitting, though I try to do both.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2019 22:37

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Paramemetic posted:

It's not right, that's either cribbing off of or based on an account by Alexandria David-Neel in Magic and Mystery in Tibet. David-Neel was an early explorer in Tibet who asked a lot of questions that didn't translate very well.

I get annoyed about the tendency for Buddhist academics in the West to try to turn every drat thing into a psychological model that promotes mental wellbeing and that's all enlightenment is blah blah blah. Unfortunately, the opposite also happens and it happened a lot very early on: esoteric stuff was taught using words that didn't really line up and then they get transformed into Internet foolishness.

The term is extremely uncommon in tantras. "tul" (Wylie: 'sprul) means "emanation" and the "pa" ending makes it a noun. So a tulpa is just "an emanated thing." The honorific form is "tulku" which we all know as "dudes who have emanated" but nobody gets weird about that because they're people.

When you're doing tantric practice you visualize a hollow form of a deity and then invite the wisdom beings into that hollow form. The hollow form is an illusory mental projection, but it's no different than physical things because phenomena are all equally empty of inherent existence and so even things we can physically see are just illusory mental projections too. However, we then invite the wisdom being (the enlightened formless form) of the deity into that vessel so that we can make offerings and get merits and also receive blessings and so on. When we finish the practice, we mentally dissolve that illusory form and the wisdom beings both and they are (usually) absorbed into the various chakras that we've been meditating on. By installing these deities at those chakras we're creating a transformative template for our body, speech, and mind. The wisdom beings dissolving into those chakras and then merging with us non-dually brings the recognition that we are not "other than" the deity, because self and other are false distinctions. All of that comprises the "generation stage" of practice. This then leads us into the "completion stage" of meditation where we meditate on non-dual emptiness and so on.

All of the explanations that David-Neel and other early explorers received were consistent with this, but they were being translated in pidgin or otherwise imprecisely without the benefit of an academic tradition to give us precise language. Subtle nuances like "the illusory projected form is no different than physical appearances" were misunderstood because there was no academic basis for understanding that their non-different-ness is based on the fact that both are devoid of inherent existence and intrinsically empty, not based on the idea that the mental projection becomes physically manifest. David-Neel wrote some wild poo poo as a result. She also documented what may have been actual sorcerous practice, so the whole thing gets ambiguous.

Anyhow, that's the thing on "tulpas" but it's hard to get to those terms because they don't call those "tulpas" usually, it's just when she kept asking "what is that thing called, the thing you generate" they eventually were like "it's an emanation." And it is, in that the illusory form emanates from our mind and then the wisdom beings emanate from their primordial Buddha natures and then we merge non-dually etc.

You "gain its power" because you're achieving the realizations of the yidam by merging non-dually and then meditating on emptiness and so on.

Then decades later the an X-Files writer read Magic and Mystery but didn't attribute it and also just made some poo poo up about it and we're off to the goddamn races.

It's funny when you describe this, Para, because I can absolutely see where this got branched off and turned into Scientology, both directly and with a way-station with Aleister Crowley.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 22:39

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Senju Kannon posted:

one of my students asked me if i counted as a buddhist theologian, and i had to say, �well... yes and no�

the illusion of objectivity.... gone. the mysterious reason why so many of the readings have featured jodo shinshu scholars... solved.

Did you trick them into saying any nembutsus with chapter headings and so on?

# ¿ Sep 19, 2019 21:32

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:

time for . . . rebirth (of the thread), perhaps?

Buddhism Maitreyathread: Self Power, Other Power, and Post Power

# ¿ Sep 20, 2019 19:39

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Caufman posted:

That sounds like a good feeling to be able to re-manifest. The practice is meant to be helpful and ultimately pleasant.

I'm also grateful that I heard a dharma talk by a monk who joked that in between discovering Buddhism and becoming a monastic, he would have to sometimes think, "God, I wish I never met Thich Nhat Hanh!" That makes me smile, because I think many practitioners discover with some struggle that carrying a mindfulness of compassion means being willing to touch painful seeds within and around you with tenderness. That is also why it's advised that you don't practice alone, either, and that you mutually cultivate the equanimity and compassion with your loved ones.

I always feel like I'm humblebragging when it comes up, but (on a much lower level, I'm sure) I can relate to that. I know a lot of people who are in a lot of pain and I've often felt guilty because I have felt as though compassion drove me to be in a supportive role in their lives... but it's rough, because I used to be in a different role, and I enjoyed that more.

Of course, this is attachment, but it gets socially isolating.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2019 07:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

RandomPauI posted:

I have a follow-up. I'm a secular humanist. I see things I can use from many aspects of Buddhism. But I don't like the idea of appropriating from the faith selectively; especially if I don't intend to accept the spiritual aspects of Buddhism.

Does anyone have advice for how I can find my way while avoiding doing the standard white guy appropriation bs?

I think that you are welcome to use meditative practices and so forth, although we bid you to not use them for evil a la the "mindfulness training so you can better crush code in 12 hour shifts, yeah!" Tias described a while ago.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2019 22:05

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

KiteAuraan posted:

I read his book on meditation (the one where he claims he invented or rediscovered certain techniques) after reading Dogen's instructions for Zazen and the Sattipathana Sutta and got a kick out of how it was just those two, combined, with added belief in atman and like twice the pages.

This seems common for all kinds of cult leaders. Find two religious things... stick 'em together! Now you're Jesus the Buddha! L. Ron Hubbard glued Crowley's mystic stuff with his understanding of Tibetan Buddhism together using things he read in The Incredible Hulk, and he was able to convince Tom Cruise.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2019 20:40

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Despite every second text on Buddhism in English seeming to be "did you know meditation can have quantifiable neurological impacts? We did a science. Also, the Dalai Lama came by our campus once" - yeah, meditation is important but it is not a 1:1 cognate to Buddhism.

RandomPauI posted:

Well, for me my thoughts run away really quickly and they're attached with overwhelmingly strong feelings. The exercise almost doesn't even matter.

Yesterday my therapist and I tried a visualization exercise about talking with someone. And my mind ran from talking to someone to people dying in the span of a second.

So I had to be present to listen to the exercise, and form a reasonable answer to her questions, and calm down the part that was freaking out, and try not to show the inner freaking out, and then once I had an appropriate answer in mind I knew what I wanted to say but I also couldn't get the words out.

I'd imagine most people's experiences allow for acknowledging thoughts without having to worry about, say, one part getting control long enough bash my skull into the wall. But I have to stop myself and I'm not always successful.

I'm really tired of this, but I can't afford to give up because that means death.

Did you articulate this to your therapist or were you focused on restraining yourself in order to not demonstrate these patterns to your therapist? I guess that's the first obvious question. This seems like something they should know. I am an amateur here but it seems as though something could be developed to help you... if you are quite literally concerned that if you lose mental control you will smash your head into a wall (I do not mean this as mockery; I cannot tell if that was a joke or not) then perhaps you could strap into protective gear before letting yourself relax.

However this is my amateurish thought. I am not sure of the lead up to this. I don't share your own issue but this doesn't mean your issue isn't real. If you feel comfortable elaborating on it, it is possible Paramimetic or somebody may have better advice.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2019 03:21

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

NikkolasKing posted:

I figure now is as good a time as any to ask this.

Why do Buddhists concern themselves with politics? In this wold of suffering and impermanence, why be concerned with something as materialistic as statecraft? I'm well aware there have been Buddhists involved in politics in every country where Buddhism had any power but it still confuses me. There's nothing to gain from trying to establish a political order in a world of unending instability and pain. The best thing we can all do is retreat from the world .

Leaving aside that not all Buddhists are going to be perfect followers of the dharma, I don't see why the perfect has to be the enemy of the good, either. It would be foolish to think that alterations in secular politics would end Suffering, in the general sense, but it could well end specific forms and aspects of suffering.

Like you could extend this same criticism to most charitable works, but while it is not as central a point as it is in some other religions, Buddhist organizations have done huge amounts of charitable work, much of which went somewhat farther than "basic religious education."

# ¿ Oct 27, 2019 19:54

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Omi no Kami posted:

So why is it that people who take their practice seriously but don't or can't dedicate their entire life to it singlemindedly aren't walking around feeling rotten about the wasted opportunity?

Probably because they took their practice seriously.

A human incarnation is precious, but you have to take the long view here, I figure

# ¿ Nov 3, 2019 09:04

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

matti posted:

i may need to get back into the fold

i just need to... i need to get my IRL poo poo fixed first, think thats more important and maybe imperative for any real practice to work out

I figure it's all real practice. Do a little when you can, it adds up.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2020 01:38

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Tosk posted:

Hi, I'm interested in Buddhism. Is there any good reference book for a historical overview of Buddhist tradition? I always find that kind of thing helps me contextualize myself to understand what I'm reading afterwards. I guess after that would be Mindfulness in Plain English?

A big platform into meditation and now Buddhism was discovering the book The Mind Illuminated. Has anyone heard of this book (I think it's fairly well known on the Internet) and if so do you have an opinion on it? I found it fascinating and an excellent introduction.

I found "All is Change" by Lawrence Sutin to be a good historical examination although its focus is the encounters between the West and Buddhism, so you are (for obvious reasons) kind of missing out of the creative ferment of the period between the Roman Empire and the rise of European oceanic voyages.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2020 02:13

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

What a beautiful account, Keret! Thank you for postin'.

I had the opportunity to visit a Shingon temple (among other places) when I visited, but it was part of a generalized tour, and so I couldn't linger. How long was your stay?

# ¿ Jan 15, 2020 06:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Rodney The Yam II posted:

Reincarnation is the aspect of Buddhism that I find most difficult to accept, particularly in light of the no-self. The logic of the no-self suggests that "I" am a cohesive bundle of causal phenomena. I could say that I am matter in space and time that is in the form of a human, temporarily. To identify my human experience as separate from the Ultimate Self of Everything (if I may) would seem to be a key component, if not the root, of suffering. When this human form unravels, it disperses and is Incorporated into various forms, some human and some non-human.

Let's say that my temporary form and resulting experience will never repeat: this combination of phenomena will never re-form in its entirety. In other words, no reincarnation of "me". Then, how am I to contend with the life of a householder knowing I can never reach enlightenment the way a monk does? I'm still working on this, but what I'm going towards is that their enlightenment and mine are fundamentally connected, here in this moment.

My personal interpretation, rather heavily informed by my youthful dabblings in various occult things, goes like this:

There isn't an immortal soul in the sense of some packet or object of spiritual matter that constitutes "Nessus," and which will exist for all time, even if it later becomes more people, and was many people prior to that. However, this is looking at things on the massively external level - there could very well be something which represents "Nessus" which is very durable, and given that many of the texts and teachings strongly suggest that this something-or-other is preserved in a sufficiently meaningful sense that (for instance) Shakyamuni can be said to have had previous lives in which he accumulated merit.

So the dichotomy only exists if we assume that the only two possible states are "immortal soul as constructed in the West" and "total materialism, once you die and cannot be revived that's it." I can't speculate on the higher level orders or details of this mind-stream existence. However, even on my amateurish level I have found sufficient strength and truth in the dharma that I'm willing to take this theory as being under good report from a very trusted source. At worst it is a simplification meant to guide people like me.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2020 22:32

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

To paraphrase the Book of the SubGenius, "don't worry - the "Self" is very tough and will come back soon enough - so you MIGHT AS WELL BLAST THAT SUCKER DOWN!"

# ¿ Jan 17, 2020 22:39

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I agree with everyone above regarding the idea that the dharma is for everyone in whatever way they benefit from. I believe the phrase is 84,000 dharma doors.

However, you asked how I feel.. as a relative novice with strong mystical inclinations it is kind of annoying how a lot of the English-language material kind of reifies the same basic ideas in a big loop. There is a big struggle with reconciling a particular sort of secular-materialist view of the world with what I assume are the genuine and inarguable positive experiences of meditation and so on, and I understand why it is necessary... but that isn't my problem, so it often feels like I am gleaning for scraps.

As for cultural appropriation it is hard for me to judge. However, I don't think it is reasonably possible to "appropriate" the teachings of the dharma because they were deliberately and more-or-less explicitly for all humanity. (I say more-or-less because it was not articulated in that sense, but it was not a teaching for northern Indians -- that's just where Shakyamuni was.) There probably is a point where you are more engaging in a mimickry of Indian, Cambodian, Japanese etc. religious practice more than following Buddhism, but I would not claim the discernment to say where that point was.

I do think that there is often a certain arrogance in the modern day scene which says "Aha, I, the white guy with a college education, have applied the critical theories of the late 20th century to this body of teachings, and now I understand what the guy REALLY meant." Some of this will be inevitable in anything, but there are degrees. Henry Steel Olcott no doubt brought some 19th-century Christian and occultist frameworks to his Buddhist catechism, but they still hail him as a hero in Sri Lanka.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2020 13:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Well, then I guess I consider myself a non-orthodox Theravadin who practices at a Vietnamese Mahayana temple and who respects a great deal of Mahayana Sutras. I respect the Bodhisattva vows, but still believe that arahantship is required before leading others to liberation or otherwise it's the blind leading the blind. I absolutely respect the Mahayana sutras, but still believe in the primacy of the Pali canon.

Am I still picking and choosing my dogma here? Because this is what I believe, but I also don't hold my beliefs to be unshakeable or free from correction.

e: If I had to choose a tradition that spoke to me specifically, it would be the Thai Forest tradition, but that's largely a monastic tradition and I'm not ready to release myself from the fetters of my wife or my dog, though I would love to take a Dhutanga regularly.

I think you have a good overall attitude here and I think that a whole lot of it boils down to, "Can you respect the difference in peace."

# ¿ Jan 19, 2020 22:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Thank you. I most certainly can, and it's why I don't want to demean any particular method of practice by paying it mere lip service and incorporating it into my own practice as an act of flippant appropriation. At the end of the day, though, I just have to accept that my beliefs are reflected in multiple traditions and I have to pay them as much respect and honesty as I can.

I think - to answer your question from a little ways ago - is that the answer is that all of the doors lead to the other shore. I can certainly understand why, if you don't dig on rebirth, you would be especially concerned about getting it right within a period of a few decades, though.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2020 04:59

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I guess it depends what your goal is. I don't think there are many schools of Buddhism that approach the sutras in the same way that Torah or the Quran get approached, although Nichiren more or less worships the Lotus Sutra directly, if I understand them right...

BDK gives out cute little Gideon Bible collections of Buddhist teaching in dead tree format, for free, and I found that very useful when I was getting started. They have citations in the back of it.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2020 07:49

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Wouldn't it better to start at the beginning and trace how differing schools of thought evolved and study in that direction rather than backwards?

I think either would be valid, depending on the goal. I think we default to assuming that when it comes to religion or philosophy, the original version has some freight and power that the other and later versions lack

# ¿ Feb 2, 2020 23:06

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Pardon? Aren't the words of the Buddha pretty definitively the basis of Buddhism?

Senju is referring to the core theological argument of Jodo shinshu which is basically "it is impossible, or effectively impossible, to follow the original dharma in this decayed world; therefore, take refuge in Amida buddha and do it in Amida's pure land."

# ¿ Feb 11, 2020 17:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Yeah, like, its original audience were people who could not do formal practice, become monks, etc. -- even they could be saved if they took refuge in Amida's vow.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2020 18:00

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

That's really quite sad, considering Buddhism's origins as equalizing, even mendicant religion.

I don't understand. What's the sad part? It's brought spiritual comfort to millions!

# ¿ Feb 11, 2020 19:07

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Some of this may also be the question of what is easier to articulate, especially if you are a lay person. "I want a favorable rebirth" is pretty straightforward.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2020 23:12

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Yes, but my question is, "how can I make the lives of other people around me better in this life" because I can't be certain I'll be able to do it in the next.

Simply praying for a better rebirth is useless to me. And to others.

There are many other needs and doors out there. I hope that you can at least perceive why the offer is attractive. It is certainly attractive for me, if for no other reason than having had several near-misses with vehicular death. There might be another one where I'm not so lucky. This is in large part beyond my control; a car could smear me on the pavement, or I could get the coronavirus, or a gamma-ray burst could hit the Earth. Any of these could happen.

I suppose one thing that affects my perspective here is that I am pretty dog certain of rebirth, even if I imagine there are nuances I don't get, so placing efforts and hopes into rebirth doesn't seem like punting or giving up - it seems like it can be a reasonable call, though going all-in on it when you have the resources to also do some improvement here and now isn't that great. (Many Japanese peasants probably did not, or got that benefit from the material surrounding the practices that were supposed to lead to the favorable rebirth.)

# ¿ Feb 11, 2020 23:36

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

I wonder if I am following the wrong path. Placing one's faith in the hopes of a better rebirth, as opposed to working to better everyone's condition in this life, seems enormously arrogant to me.

I don't think you are, though I do think that perhaps the Mahayana route isn't going to do a lot for you, and in general a lot of the old-fashioned Buddhist stuff does not move heavily towards social activism in a formal and direct way. Like you can get there from here, but it isn't like Shakyamuni said, "Incidentally, tax capital and fund civic improvements. You'll understand what that means later."

Is your desire to minister, or to channel Buddhist thought to further secular social improvements? These are not really mutually exclusive, as Paramimetic said, but this may help you guide your search.

I would also say that you want to be careful about "everyone." "Everyone" is a great way to set yourself up to continue the interior pattern of suffering, perhaps even counterproductively: you can perhaps do anything in this life, but you cannot do everything.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 00:12

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Josef bugman posted:

Is annihilation of the self as big a thing in all buddhist traditions?

I feel like "annihilation of the self" is a poor way to express the concept, it would be like saying the Catholic church is about "salvation through ritual cannibalism." In a sense, sure... but it isn't really getting at what they're doing.

But the idea is that the "self" does not have any kind of absolute reality, nor is there a "soul" or a "reality" or anything - save the dharma (maybe, this is kind of arcane to me, a humble puppeteer) - that has absolute, permanent reality. Realizing this is not easy or casually done.

This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as people, or that "I" and "you" are not distinct individuals, but that this is not a formal and absolute state of affairs.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 01:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Oh good lord, this would all be so much easier if he had. But then existence would be simple and easy, wouldn't it?

That's a really good question. I don't think I have any ability or authority to do the former, and I'm not confident that I do for the latter, either.

This is a good point. Thank you.

When I say minister I mean in the sense of helping others in a direct and overt way. From what you're posting this is your primary motivation. It is laudable although you also want to care for yourself; you, too, are a sentient being who is suffering. You should cultivate mercy for yourself, because then you'll have the habits and thoughts of mercy to apply elsewhere.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 03:10

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Yes, this is the crux of my attitude toward my practice. This also is one reason why I don't feel that I can take the Bodhisattva Vow. If I can't attain arahantship for myself, which isn't exactly one of my highest goals, how can I hope to lead anyone else to liberation? I can do what I can to help others in this life. I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enough to know that I can help them in the next.

Keep in mind that you will have a lot of chances to work on it. For a certain value of "you," anyway.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 04:08

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

Therein lies the rub: I have this life here and now. I don't know what sort of life comes next, but I have been exposed to the Dhamma in this life. I understand suffering, and I feel I would be remiss if I didn't attempt to alleviate it. Putting it off because I expect a chance to do so in a future existence is, well, horribly selfish.

This isn't, "you should put it off," it is, "do the best you can now, and expect to do more later," at least in my own view. One of the values I find in this concept is that it is comforting without being paralytic. I am a person of a certain set of assets and qualities, and I can use these qualities as best I can: I do not need to curse myself because I am also not the perfect son, the perfect political activist, the perfect counselor, etc. I need to do what I can with my karma, now, and in the 30-50 remaining years of life (not guaranteed!) I will have in this incarnation.

NikkolasKing posted:

The Bodhisattva Vow has always been my biggest problem with Mahayana Buddhism, too. I have large doubts I'll ever be enlightened and saved so how can I hope to save everyone else in the world? How can anyone believe they can save billions of people? It's more than that, you wanna save all life so animals, too. I'ts impossible to imagine.

Deep time, my friend.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 05:17

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Paramemetic posted:

An absolute boatload of dudes have taken vows to remain in samsara until you, personally, are liberated. You can make that vow too, or not. Ultimately we're talking about countless beings, but that's not important. It's not about the result, it's about the process. The important thing is that we keep working to liberate beings.

This is certainly angels on the head of the pin territory, but sometimes I've wondered. Some millions of people have taken the Bodhisattva vow and I imagine people on other planets have done the equivalent. Presumably at some point it will be down to all bodhisattvas. Who heads out last?

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 07:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I think that what may be an important nuance is that the "suffering" that Shakyamuni specifically addressed does not map exactly to the term "suffering" used in the modern day. It could also be translated, I am told, to "stress" and "unsatisfactoriness" and all of these would be reasonable.

When someone is very hungry and you feed them you have done a great good. They're fed! They will live on, and perhaps you have saved their lives, or eased their burden if they know they can come to the Buddha Burger and get one with everything. You can provide housing! Now they have a safe place to live. A livelihood! Now they can care for themselves and their material anxiety will lessen.

But when these things are present they do not prevent suffering in the general sense. The hedonic treadmill kicks in. People find new things to worry about. (I have not been able to stop this trend in my own mind but I have been able to observe it, and perhaps, to some extent, to slow it down.) That is the suffering that practice seeks to address directly.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2020 22:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mushika posted:

So it's spiritual Accelerationism, then. Hope that suffering in this life leads others to the Dhamma in the hope that their future lives will be alleviated of spiritual suffering. Dukkha in this life is irrelevant, only merit for the conditions of our rebirth is worthy of concern.

Am I reading this right? Because that's what it sounds like, and that sounds like bullshit. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be combative, but that's what it feels like I'm reading.

I feel like you're putting the frames of the early 21st century common era on top of ideas which in large part predate the constructions of modern states and capitalism. This can be fruitful if you do it moderately, of course.

I'm not sure where accelerationism here comes from. Accelerationism typically involves making things worse, or allowing them to become worse. I don't think anything in Buddhism calls for this, we just recognize that everything rises, persists, declines and disappears - this doesn't mean that the process cannot be affected by actions, or that a declining thing couldn't be renewed, but you can't make something eternal.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2020 02:30

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Josef bugman posted:

I tried looking for this and I apologise if this is a sore subject, but is there any overt anti-disability prejudice inside of Buddhism? Also, does the idea of reincarnation have to necessarily correspond with a kind of "just world" phenomenon.

I'm guessing you mean in the sense of, if you're disabled you deserve it because of karma? I don't think that that concept has come up in any teachings, though I could see how it might emerge as the expression of poo poo-rear end bullying in a Buddhist culture. In the sense of, "disabilities would be a fruit of bad karma," that is I suppose believed, in the sense that all kinds of bad things are the fruit of bad karma. But that isn't the same as deserving them.

That said, there's a deeper understanding in the theological materials I've read than literally "Karma causes everything." To copy these categories out of this article: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

quote:

Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

By this understanding, a physical disability would only be the direct fruit of karma if it were due to an intentional act of whatever kind. Now there is obviously some complication and everything has a bunch of causes, but not literally everything goes back to karma.

As for a just world, I don't know quite what you mean. Buddhism has been used to buttress various institutions and political orders, but it's also protested them; within a period of fifty years, some Buddhists advocated for the Japanese imperial project and other Buddhists committed suicide to protest the south Vietnamese government. I don't think any part of Buddhism would say this is the best of all possible worlds! Or that our current order of society is somehow intrinsically good - though a Buddhist might hold other beliefs that would not be incompatible with Buddhist practice, that did make such claims.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2020 09:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Josef bugman posted:

It's more that someone at work said to a colleague whose son had just passed away that "He must have done something wrong in a past life" and, whilst the person in question is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, it did get me thinking.

That person's being an rear end in a top hat. By being born as a being able to learn and practice the dharma, that son must have done something right in past lives to accumulate merit, or so it is often held. What's more, that person's doing real bad on the "right speech" axis, because saying this isn't even a neutral time-waster!

quote:

More like, due to the way karma works, you would be more likely to be nobility if you had paid attention in a previous existence. Is there a cross over between a belief in an "easier" material existence having some intersection with past actions?

There is some general belief/thought that if you do good things - like, things that just about anyone would recognize as good, such as being kind to children, treating others fairly, refraining from theft and arson - you will probably be inclined to be born into better circumstances in your next life, possibly to the point of being a god or deva or something with a much easier and more joyous life than a human could ever have. I don't know if on a formal basis a distinction was ever really made between different gradiations of "human lives able to practice the dharma." I know a lot of the basic structure of lay-monastic interaction in Theravadin stuff had a sort of root idea of, "Support the monastery and live righteously; return as someone able to become a monk; become a monk; achieve paranirvana; get the real thing when your clock runs out."

e: reading about it there is some reference to "noble families" but I sure don't know enough about Pali or Sanskrit to comment further.

Nessus fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Feb 16, 2020

# ¿ Feb 16, 2020 10:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

zhar posted:

I've heard it particularly in regards to the 6 perfections, eg generosity leads to good material resources, ethical conduct leads to a good rebirth, patience / fortitude leads to physical attractiveness, good health and so on. You can be reborn as a human due to fantastic ethical conduct but you may be bringing very little merit (from generosity etc) with you, and when that runs out you will be unable to survive. For example someone who leads an ethical life but is impatient may be reborn as a human who dies young of ill health. I don't think this even has to come about due to unwholesome actions but just running out of positive merit. Motivation is important too, which is why bodhisattvas don't just end up as devas all the time.

This is not prejudice against disabled people, poor people, animals or the ugly though. Karma is akin to something like the laws of thermodynamics: no one made it, the Buddha just observed and explained it. I have little doubt we all have latent negative karmic impressions in our mindstreams, and if I start thinking myself superior to people in a wheelchair or whatever that's just going to reinforce self-cherishing mental distortions leaving me stuck in samsara.

Right, and it's not the only thing going on. Appealing to karma to explain literally every single event that happens in its completeness is just as much of an error, I figure, as thinking that everything is rooted entirely in a totally mechanistic way, or attributing everything to the specific will of either ourselves or a god.

What I think can be agreed is that disability is not a moral judgment on the incarnation it has happened to. This will not prevent humans from being lovely about it, but people will find ways to do that under any ethical system.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2020 13:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Buddhism: This thread is Avici

«‹›4 »