|
Please do not answer these questions unless you actually know what you are talking about. If you have an opinion thats fine, but please word it as an opinion.
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
2.) I've read several sites about meditation. I've tried to do it myself. But im not even sure what it is Im trying to do. What is the actual goal of meditation? Is it about trying to temporarily focus on everything other than the "self", in an attempt to eventually reprogram the brain ridding one of the "self" ? Or do I have it all wrong here? Im talking long-term goal, btw.
|
I had Buddha's Scriptures once in Korean. I'm not buddhist but I'll open up with some thoughts and recollections. I personally felt Buddhism was too vague at many moments and so, I just let it be.
1 - Monks and nuns abstain from sex. Not everyone who is a buddhist is a monk or a nun. Afterall, the same applies to Christianity for sex and human eistance. Also, the concept of sex and desire was also a problem I had with Buddhism personally. To seperate self, a buddhist is pretty much in my eyes, an empty human vessel. One has to depart from all things and it's too aloof from the world for me.
Plus, there was a small passage in the scriptures I remember and has stuck with me... which was something along the lines of - If you search too hard for Nirvana, that in intself is a self-motivated and ego-driven action, which is not Nirvana. I honestly dwelled on that for... god knows how long... before I let it go and said the whole idea of buddhism boils down to simply not feeling bad from lack of fulfillment in lust.
2 - I think meditation is a mind excersize. Throughout the scriptures, I noticed when it mentions meditation, there is a certain really keen observation of surroundings. There was a mention of a log in still water in the scriptures. This log represented a form of self awareness and recognizes itself as a source of ripples but once it settles into peace, the lake itself also calms.
I dunno man, I am a stoner, I am a degenerate, but once ago, I used to have a working and thinking mind. Anyways, this is simply a start from a past I forgot due to the countless drugs and memory problems I have now.
Have fun reaching enlightenment ^_^ I gave up, maybe some other day.
|
2) meditation put simply is just clearing the mind of thoughts to try and aim for "inner peace". If you actively watch your own brain for a day you'll realize just how much needless crapyour minds fills itself with.
|
See? That makes sense with the log comparison... it was something along those lines, I sware.
|
Australia3818 Posts
If everyone was a priest there'd be a lot of molestation = true.
|
Canada9720 Posts
My roommate attended a Buddhist school, and lived with a group of monks for a month this summer. He's very interested about the subject, and fairly knowledgable. Since the verbosity of his enthusiasm on Buddhism, and basically any religious or pyschological topic has a tendency to alienate his audience person-to-person, he most likely has a lot of pent-up 'Buddha-talk' that he'd like to get off his chest.
I'll direct him here when I get home.
|
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I am a buddhist and I've also thought the same thing before. I would think, that not everyone will be able to abstain from sex, so humans will never become extinct from Buddhism. I also think, that Buddhism will say that if everyone was to become proper buddhists and reach enlightenment, then there would be no need for life on earth so the question would be mute. But that's my guess. It's not from proper factual data, and I may probably be inaccurate or incorrect.
Meditation is to clear ones mind of thoughts... I think it's to obtain control of one's mind and in turn, body. I would call it a different type of learning, like how kids are taught to fill one's mind with knowledge to become more intelligent, meditiation is like teaching yourself to gain control of your mind and body to reach enlightenment.
One important thing about buddhism is to never teach improperly the teachings of Buddha, so I would like to point out that my views here are just that. I do not know if they are accurate or not, so do not take it as that. The best thing is to go find a monk or nun and ask them.
|
SuperJongMan I liked your post. I am not sure but I think that I currently agree with you on #1. no comment on 2
|
On February 21 2007 07:48 alias wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I also think, that Buddhism will say that if everyone was to become proper buddhists and reach enlightenment, then there would be no need for life on earth so the question would be mute.
I have also thought about this, but wouldn't that mean that humanity could reach this same point simply by commiting mass suicide?
|
Belgium8305 Posts
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I'm not very knowledgeable on Buddhism (so consider this an opinion), but it seems to me that should this problem ever arise, one could simply argue that sex for the very purpose of procreation and sustainment of the species (i.e. without any erotic or lustful aspect) is perfectly acceptable. An enlightened person should be able to see and experience sex for what it is, an act of procreation.
|
On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
Buddhism does not equates to monkhood or nunhood. What the Chinese would say is that you need to have the 机缘 (opportunity and kismet) to meet with buddha and what was designated for you in life. Not everyone will have the 机会/缘份 (oppotunity/fatedness) to enter monkhood, which is why there is not a need to address population declination because it is not an idea for the masses. Some may argue there are countries such as in thailand it is customary for young men to enter monkhood but it's only for a season to devote their thoughts and cleanse their minds for the cares of the world. After which they will still live a normal life, hopefully a better person and more enlightened to live a good life.
Reincarnation is also very much within the belief system until you gained perfect enlightenment, in which case you will cease to exist and be one with the nature. This kinda tell that there is not much advocated on human population control either. Attaining the status of a deity is also possible if the purification and 修为(Refining of the heart) is extremely rare and precious. But then if you are really keen on the details read up about moksha, nirvana, samsara and bhakti. I have some mathematical problems with that one though so was never really a strong fan of these but then its just me.
I'm simply mentioning about the branch of buddhism I encountered. There are fine details in Dharmic religions that differ in some ways that you may want to read up personally. 
|
A lot has to do with how religious you want to get with Buddhism.
The thing is, the riddance of sex and extinction of the human species through it, isn't a problem in buddhist eyes. There is higher existance in being closer to "perfection" "god" etc. Physicial existance is not the epitome of existance and reincarnation beliefs.
The more superstitious and relgion-like aspects derive a lot from Hinduism and I think there is some political history behind it, but I don't care much for the stuff. I liked the original guys ideas and that's about it. This stuff I don't get into because I don't like believing in hocus pocus magic. However, it is because of this that nuns and monks will abstain from sex. Afterall, back in the day, the nuns and monks were revered and given charity by the people simply because they were monks. What I mean is, they were seen by the populace as a "grander" person. They were closer to Nirvana and maybe in a next lifetime, that monk would be that person.
However, I think after eating some food, un-highing myself, and giving it a little thought, I can put better input about meditation. It's so hard to put some buddhist concepts into modern day context or practicality.
Meditation shouldn't have a focus in my opinion. I think I can also explain the log idea better now.
Let's say nirvana is peace and trainquility in the lake, and we are the log. To be able to have a peaceful and tranquil lake, we must stay still. Afterall, if we move, we ripple out and bother things. The "one" concept is so overplayed but I think it applies here. The lake's natural state is to be still, and the log can choose to cause ripples or not, but the normal calm lake is the natural state. Anyways, that's the goal. To achieve a Nirvana through meditation, control, and living Buddhisty
So anyways, I'll just tell you what I did to meditate and why I did it the way I did it.
There's an emphasis on emptiness in Buddhism. That means it's nothing. We have no idea what nothing is honestly. It's like.. lack of existance but being conscious of the fact we exist.... I guess. This was a huge part of the thing that. I guess everyone decided would be best to leave up to the practioner or Buddha was trippin too much balls he lost himself. Nirvana wasn't just letting go of the self etc etc, but I think it was honestly attaining pure emptiness. This is not meant in a negative connotation. Western Societies have a much more negative view of "nothing" and "empty". It's a lack of substance, it's not seen as a bad thing, but more like a clear slate. It's purity. There is simply nothing. No-thing to clutter up purity. That's why you forego everything. It's that whole nothing and everything concept.
I think you have the concept of self different from how I saw fit. The way I saw it self was more or less memories and impressions. You are what you remember and learn from what you remember etc. If I am a slate, I already have set up formuals and reactions, I have pre-cognitioned responses, thoughts, a lot of mumbo jumbo messes really...
So I would simply... observe, usually with eyes closed. Listen to my heartbeat, feel my breathing, don't think... just be there. Try to be nothing... how you go about doing that is not my business since... there are a million ways to achieve it and Buddha himself was honestly a pretty vague fellow himself. Anyways, Then I'd try to simply understand what it was. Trying to comprehend nothing is very hard -_-; There is so much to myself as a person, that trying to comprehend nothing was so damn much.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if the guy even saw his ideas becoming so codefied and rigid. It sounds so stonerish of me but well, what can I say? He fits my character.
However, if you've noticed, Buddhism has had an impact on me. Now I am more egotistic and self-oriented than ever. It's so the opposite of what was preached and yet.. I think it's the way I like it.
EDIT - Travis, Buddhists don't kill. That includes themselves in mass suiciding. ~_~ lol Chobo.
And the first part was to say stuff to Cow, I took awhile typing and Yoda cut ahead.
|
On February 21 2007 08:04 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2007 04:00 travis wrote:
1.) Buddhism is about absolving the self in order to eliminate suffering, correct? And to do this, monks abstain from sex. So my question here is.. if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct? Does Buddhism have anything to say about this?
I'm not very knowledgeable on Buddhism (so consider this an opinion), but it seems to me that should this problem ever arise, one could simply argue that sex for the very purpose of procreation and sustainment of the species (i.e. without any erotic or lustful aspect) is perfectly acceptable. An enlightened person should be able to see and experience sex for what it is, an act of procreation.
i thought about this
but I think humans would long go extinct before enough enlightened people were around and willing to continue the species
|
On February 21 2007 08:51 SuperJongMan wrote:
I think you have the concept of self different from how I saw fit. The way I saw it self was more or less memories and impressions. You are what you remember and learn from what you remember etc. If I am a slate, I already have set up formuals and reactions, I have pre-cognitioned responses, thoughts, a lot of mumbo jumbo messes really...
So I would simply... observe, usually with eyes closed. Listen to my heartbeat, feel my breathing, don't think... just be there. Try to be nothing... how you go about doing that is not my business since... there are a million ways to achieve it and Buddha himself was honestly a pretty vague fellow himself. Anyways, Then I'd try to simply understand what it was. Trying to comprehend nothing is very hard -_-; There is so much to myself as a person, that trying to comprehend nothing was so damn much.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if the guy even saw his ideas becoming so codefied and rigid. It sounds so stonerish of me but well, what can I say? He fits my character.
However, if you've noticed, Buddhism has had an impact on me. Now I am more egotistic and self-oriented than ever. It's so the opposite of what was preached and yet.. I think it's the way I like it.
I can tell that you're a sharp guy. I say this because I can very easily identify with most of what you post, I remember having these exact same thoughts multiple times, and I am a very sharp guy. I have thought about what you posted in the last 2 paragrphs so much lately. I also think its the way I like it.
but back on topic
could what buddha was trying to preach be equated to basically attempting to destroy all the memes, genes, and whatever else that control how you see the world and instead see it from a clear perspective, one without "rules" that confine how we think? I hope you understand what I mean there, because this has been what I always felt enlightenment truly is but I am not sure if it actually is what buddha is preaching.
And as for the 'self'.. I agree with you on what the self is based on, but the memories, impressions, etc cannot be the actual self.. only what the self is composed of.
Man I worded that terribly but I don't know how to be more concise. Basically I agree with buddha that the "self" is the cause of suffering, but its the attention I give to these thoughts, memories, etc that truly cause the suffering - not the memories and etc theirselves.
Maybe I have that totally wrong though.
I am sorry I worded most of this pretty poorly but I am not going to try to make it better right now.
|
I get what you say at least, and I'm going to nod and say yup, I agree.
Simply because geniuses think a like.
And yeah, the self thing, you're right.
As for enlightenment, I believe it is more or less the same concept as your "clear view" idea. Emptiness is purity, and purity is un-biased, un-touched, and if we view through purity, it is the same as viewing through emptiness. Empty as in.. pure. So I believe what you believe is Buddha's enlightenment to be correct also, maybe some minor minor detail differences but the basic idea is more or less there.
It doesn't matter how you arrive at the state, as long as you simply understand and acknowledge it. I guess it's why talking about this stuff can go in circles forever.
|
Why are you interested in Buddhism all the sudden Travis? This better not be homework
|
are u joking?
have u seen the threads i make lol
|
Obviously not I guess. Why you interested though?
|
I am interested in figuring out any possible purpose to my existence.
|
There isn't any. Its all luck. Thats my take on it anyways.
It all just boils down to being happy and/or living satisfied. If helping other people or whatever reaches this goal for you, do it. If not who cares.
I have no problems with religion I just think those people to be closed minded because they don't understand things so they create or believe a religion to give themselves peace or hope. Not to brag or sound like an arrogant prick, but I can do that without reading scriptures,singing, or praying. Why do I have to fear a God or an afterlife? Thats only going to make my (short) time here on this ball of space rock worse.
I think the real reason why people believe in religion way back in the day was because they had the same difficulties as we do today. Why are we here? Why is there stars? Why can't I steal this apple when I'm hungry? Why this, why that? To which they couldn't understand so they created a set of values that they heeded like law. It kept order and peace and gave poor or unhealthy people hope. Now that we have so much scientific proof and theories of things its all just the latter part. Giving people hope or peace of mind. I don't think of life in terms of what am I here for , or why are we here anymore. (I used to struggle with this every day) I found it only made me misanthropic and somewhat depressed. Now I just take every day how it is, get it done or don't. If by the end of the day you feel good, keep doing what you're doing. If not try something else.
PS - I've been a Catholic, Christian, Mormon, and Baptist ( I know I'm leaving out 1 or 2) and they all just taught me things that I knew internally in the first place. I know my rights from wrongs. I still plan on reading the Koran and some other Jewish and Asian texts just to be more knowledgeable on the subject. So far though they all basically preach the same things with different methods.
|
It's very easy to just decide there isn't a point without actually exhausting your options when it comes to researching the question.
|
Well, that was just my current opinion about life created to help you think in a different way or maybe enlighten you a little.
I don't know much about Buddhism except what I learned in 10th grade, sorry to not be able to help with your initial questions. good luck
|
Hi, I'm CTstalker's buddhist friend. My real name is Bobby. I'm new to this place, but he tells me it's a very cool site with some knowledgeable people.
About my knowledge in relation to this, I've been a Buddhist for almost 4 years, a practicing Shambhala Buddhist at our local center for almost two years (which I've helped staff more recently). At St.Thomas University here in Fredericton, I'm finishing up a BA in a couple months with majors in Psychology and Religious Studies and a minor in Philosophy for related content, and I'm going on to more biopsych stuff at UNB soon. I took a very solid month of special Buddhist classes from the Nitartha Institute this past summer where we looked at more Hinayana content like the Lorik (classifications of Mind), debating practice, guided analytical mediation, and some more advanced Mahayana or Vajrayana schools (of thought) like Mudyamaka or Chittamantra. Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen and Lama ? Kyelsong were both there to help teach some classes (they both younger tibetan dudes, like maybe 30s I'd say)
1) Okay, remember like any relgiion there are a range of how "left" or "right" some of these stances are. Especially in the west as it is more individually discovered and not old enough yet to be handed down by family, Buddhists are more lefty and liberal in their view. That tends to push them towards Vajrayana stances, rather than more rigid Hinayana stances.
1 A) Can a Buddhist have sex?
Yes. By the base 5 precepts, yes. The closest infraction their would be to "avoid sexual misconduct". What is "sexual misconduct" normally considered? Stuff like not raping someone, or any kind of paraphilia that could in the long term harm someone (like pedophila or maybe bestiality), or getting someone drunk to fuck them. Vajrayana & Tantrists might really feel sex is necessary and demands to be skillfully balanced; denying sex for them is not very good "middle way" practice.
Monks and Nuns cannot. It should be noted here, there are Monks, and there are Lamas. Monks are devoted religious practictioners; Lama are like Buddhist theology PhD scholars. They are often very similar and commonly a person will be both. As you go up in monastic importance, you take on additional precepts, like dietary restrictions, no money handling, or limiting common conversational speech.
1 B) "...if everyone was orthodox buddhist, wouldn't humans go extinct?"
Nope. Even a very strict, exoteric, anti-desire, and xenophobic bunch of Theravada Buddhists still, by precept adherence, have no ban on sex. If it came to a choice of them having sex and repopulating the world or not and having no new generations be created, they would very much see it as compassionate to have sex. If they were very anti-desire about it (which I, as a Vajrayanist, see as a big misunderstanding of enlightened view and practice), they might be not unlike an orthodox Christian thinking "okay, I'll have sex, but I can't desire it".
In some ways, Buddhism is a big Hinduism rip-off. In the 5th century BC when Buddhism began, the Upanishads were questioning and reinterpreting central Vedic practices. Different Veda texts say a spiritual practitioner needs to be in society, have children (especially boys), and make sacrifices to keep the cosmological order of things. The Upanishads are about asceticism and renunciation, where getting away from societal patterns and objects, being disciplined and unrash in practice, and looking at and breaking down mental patterns (where meditation becomes useful).
This dichotomy between "do I leave this place or stay here", social engagement or asceticism, is an old one. More esoteric traditions like forms of Tantra, or any Vajrayana traditions, is constantly trying to strike that balance. Shambhala Buddhism has a real philosopher kings feel to it; "if the wisest people ruled over society, what would it be like?". It may sound great, but is it really that different that, in theory, the notion behind a Christian "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth"?
2) Many kind of meditation exist. As such, you need to define what you're talking about before you ask stuff like "why?" and "how?". How root or central is meditation as a Buddhist practice? Very. In fact, the long term effects of meditation can show its improvement and increase of neural activity. This is important as Buddhist beliefs say how you meditate not just to improve your own abilities and clarity, but for the sake of others. The fact that meditation actually is part of achieving something is what seem to practically elevate it to more than just praxus (though a theist would argue their prayers are received and possibly acted on by their god(s)). BUT this is not to say all meditate is awesome and perfect and enlightening; it's just a thinking practice. Look at the word literally, "to think"; if you want to be stronger, exercise your muscles, and so if you want to be a better thinker, exercise your mind. In a more clinical psychology standpoint, it can be like a little personal self-only therapy session that pokes at your fears and failings, that supports and challenges you, and that hopefully makes you clearer confident and compassionate.
2 A) Is there a goal to meditation?
Yes, almost any meditation is defined as working towards some purpose. Relaxation Meditation, AKA Shamatha (SHAM-ma-ta), is the most basic, widely used, and widely applicable mediation. You sit, open eyed (or closed eyed too for some styles), and continually focus and refocus on the process and sensation of breathing. Consciously, you try not to cling to thought and refocus as soon as you see yourself "drifting" from the breath. No jhanas are experienced because any non-ordinary experience is immediately proceeded/interrupted by returning to the breath. In the process, you're unconsicously seeing how not all your thoughts are You and you begin to identify less and less with objects, statements, ideas, as yourself. You're cultivating an egoless quality by being able to let go. Any meditation has some bit of this relaxation meditation to start with, even if it's a short "take a deep breath and clear your mind" before some other instructions begin. It's really about working with your temperment, subconsicous/unconscious, emotive/affective patterns.
Insight Meditation, or Vipisana (vip-PASH-shin-a), it about more aware and conscious working with mental contents. Any kind of guided, visual/imagery, or planed meditation is this kind, also called analytic meditation (because your judgement is needed). Because of the focused nature of it, you need to close your eyes and be in a position to be away from distractions more so. Maybe you're looking at a fear you have, maybe you're trying to cultivate kindness and love towards something, maybe going through some instructions to help see the emtpy nature of some common phenomena. Maybe it's a more personal and instructionless but aware meditation you do at 1am on your bed when everything is quiet. With insight meditation, you can sometimes experience "higher" states of consciousness, classically called jhanas; if you're ever done something like this on your own and somehow just fell into or found yourself naturally in this whole spaceless other perspective, you have some sense of this. It would have been this kind of meditation that, in the historical/mythological stories of Siddhartha Guatoma aka the "classical" Buddha (Avalekiteshvara by bodhishatva terms), that allowed him to ultimately pierce through all ignorance of reality into a truthful, clear and empty nature of existence.
2 B) Is there a super meditation, perhaps a special set of instructions to follow or guided analytical method, or multi-meditation that is better than others? Is my instruction or method flawed, am I doing it wrong?
... Sure, just close your eyes, chant "purple monkey dishwasher" 108 times, then focus so hard you get a nosebleed. You'll shatter all delusion, forever be a formless happy god (deva, hindu rip-off), and blissfully and effortlessly exist in a multivalent endless loop of karma and jellybeans.
No, there's not. If something works well, it's not a shortcut; just relative skillful means. If it doesn't work, repeating it 10000 more times won't work either. There's somehow a self-evident quality when you begin to practice; you feel it or you don't. Sometimes it can seem like real boring punch-in-the-chops being there, but you ultimately are better for having stared whatever that was in the face afterwards.
I recently saw a YouTube clip about Kabbalah were the guy says it's like you're learning to think better an better, to continually from more concrete and bounded ways of things to ever more open, interconnected, and metacognitively complex ways of thinking. You're kind of training yourself to be fully open-minded and open-hearted, and you're mind (abstract perception, not just physical brain) is the only thing you're working with and the only thing in the way of getting their. Eventually, more and more you see Samsara (the repetitive cycles of suffering) and Nirvana (perception of true, enlightened view that is indestructible) are not different and feel/perceive so phenomenologically, not just in word or construct idea. It's actually super-mundane and A Priori.
You don't meditate wrong, but we all need fine tuning that is very personal and inexpressible. If you come into it thinking "man, I can do this; I can do anything", you'll probably need to experience some low points to mellow you out and ground you more in this world. If you really think it is impossible, somehow this natural, commonplace, or downright pathetic world may be seem as naturally there, perfect, an non-attainment.
Actually, though the belief is the same, Vajrayanists describe it differently than others Buddhists. Other Buddhists seek to reach Nirvana and escape Samsara to go from their deluded ego-conception to a truth, fully realized being (an awakened being, a Buddha). But Vajrayanists believe it has already happened, it's already there and we're already in Nirvana and experientially enlightened, but we just have to realize and manifest it. A Vajrayana Buddhist is actually trying to manifest Buddha Nature as it is everywhere, in everything, and the basis for all; "I'm already awakened and I'm trying to continually, sustainably act on the truest, wisest, gentlest, fearless part of me- and you too". It is not a "something", but a nothing, a perfect basis so simple and potent there are infinite means to embody it and express it and return to it.
|
bladesinger boy thanks, fascinating post
it really covered most of the followup questions I had.
and makes me think I have been meditating for quite some time now, since before I had even known about meditation. I think it may have been something I just did to try to help me deal with my ADD.
But it will definitely help to figure out what exactly im doing.
Also, if you aren't too busy, could you tell me more about Samsara and Nirvana ?
|
awesome post bladesinger boy, really interesting stuff. i'll have to look into this more.
i like your threads travis. philosophy and such is really interesting to me too.
|
Uh, I never heard of the abstaining from sex part. Not reading through this thread now but Tantric Buddhism (the Tibetan one), actually make sex part of their religion :o
|
There is a koan:
One day Manjushri stood outside the gate when Buddha called to him, "Manjushri, Manjushri, why do you not enter?"
"I do not see a thing outside the gate. Why should I enter?" Manjushri answered.
In Zen, there is no "in" or "out". Manjushri essentially sees nothing, hears nothing, but takes his place gracefully. What better freedom is there?
Man builds the gate, then compares what is inside and outside of it. Were not they the same before the gate was built? Are they not the same now?
Thus, what is the difference after humanity is gone?
|
I think buddism is mainly about being kind and tolrent to others. And a good parts of it has to do with building up a strong well power to confront your own desire.
There are some crazy stuff that monks can do, for example:
Self-Immolation
|
In many country it is a very good compliment to say:"You have the heart of the budda."
|
On February 21 2007 23:15 Person514cs wrote:I think buddism is mainly about being kind and tolrent to others. And a good parts of it has to do with building up a strong well power to confront your own desire. There are some crazy stuff that monks can do, for example: Self-Immolation
Idols are good, idolization is not good. This monk missed the point of that legend he was trying to be. Not good Zen.
|
i have to question why so many of you randomly posted what you "think" buddhism "might be about".
|
What i understand as meditation is to forget about everything around and analyze your own mind, like if it were of someone else. So you try to fix it, you might actually make it "suffer" for the period you meditate. So, when you come back from meditation, you may have as well "fixed your mental issues" or just corrupted your mind.
Meditation makes me change personality each 6 months. Well, its the effect on me.
I always have 2 personalities, one is constant, the another one can change a lot, but somehow its always an opposite of the first.
However, this is what im used to do and i dont know if its meditation or not. Sometimes i help myself closing my room, going into dark, and just have some loud music in the back (not slow music).
Anyways, im crazy, maybe you're not :D
Edit: Sometimes i dont remember exactly what the "other me" did. I remember it but barely.
|
hi
i have little or none buddhism knowledge but i read Bladesinger Boy's post (great post btw) and i have some questions for him ; one in particular
What's the point to buddhism?
at first that question looks/is prety retarded so let me try and explain my perspective/reasoning
i assumed the following : i am a buddhist ; after years pased and through learning , mediation , thought , reasoning i was able to reach Samsara/Nirvana ; i can manifest Buddha Nature
"I'm already awakened and I'm trying to continually, sustainably act on the truest, wisest, gentlest, fearless part of me- and you too". It is not a "something", but a nothing, a perfect basis so simple and potent there are infinite means to embody it and express it and return to it.
how does that theoretical fraze translates in to reality ?what happens (practic) to the buddhist?he becomes something else?he develops superpowers?how can he prove that he is what he thinks he is?if not to other people (because they cant understand him) at least to himself. Because if all this remains at the thought level/believe only with no real/practical proof what so ever we'r back to the spaghetti monster
it's the buddhism only for making human beings better/wiser , or they can become 'gods'?
|
Thinking and acting the bhudist way is to live without prejudice and preconception. To have an open mind. JLIG so to speak. Leave your atributes behind to be more centered. To live without the mental clutter which difuses you. You can become more active this way becauese you can see the world more clearly without your ego involved. I don't believe in total enlightment in the sence of becoming one with the universe or becoming an entity in another plain of existence.
This is just my opinion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Eventually, more and more you see Samsara (the repetitive cycles of suffering) and Nirvana (perception of true, enlightened view that is indestructible) are not different and feel/perceive so phenomenologically, not just in word or construct idea. It's actually super-mundane and A Priori. whoa there, explain more about this. ^_^
is this belief grounded in a metaphysical conception of life, for example is there a conception of a mortal plane or a dualist plane, or stuff of that nature.
what are the ways one would go about doing buddhism, are you trying to force yourself to see something with suggestive thinking, as in following a rather dogmatic doctrine and believing it, although with flexibility, or is this something that can be gained as knowledge and if so in what way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
I ran down to the river's edge and stomped my feet in mud
and as I watched that river flow I wished it was your blood
I stomped my feet into the mud and dreamed it was your guts
and as I watched that river flow I dreamed it was your blood.
My head sank down upon my chest and I began to dream
a menstruating moon rose proud upon the flowing sea
I felt my hands upon your throat and heard your woman scream
I touched my blade against your heart and you began to bleed-
Dear days were those my weary friend when I could swear your tragic end
One question waits before I send
Shall we have peace or shall I let the Furies in?
|
On February 22 2007 02:47 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2007 23:15 Person514cs wrote:I think buddism is mainly about being kind and tolrent to others. And a good parts of it has to do with building up a strong well power to confront your own desire. There are some crazy stuff that monks can do, for example: Self-Immolation Idols are good, idolization is not good. This monk missed the point of that legend he was trying to be. Not good Zen.
The guy sacrifice himself to make a point by burning him self to death while silently sitting there. Crazy, No? Imagine the amount of well power that's required. Imagine putting your hands on a buring stove, or open fire. Or maybe he is just on drug, I dont know.
|
On February 22 2007 06:35 travis wrote:
i have to question why so many of you randomly posted what you "think" buddhism "might be about".
Every thing we know are "what we think".
|
On February 22 2007 13:36 Person514cs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2007 06:35 travis wrote:
i have to question why so many of you randomly posted what you "think" buddhism "might be about". Every thing we know are "what we think".
lets not go there.
if you didn't get what I meant, I'll explain it.
but im hoping you did.
|
|
|
Samsara & Nirvana: Samsara is the state or realm of continual suffering. It's like some bad pattern happening over and over again and still sucks each and every time. This concept also exists in Hinduism. Unlike most monotheistic religion which have a "bad" place and a "good" place (however you describe that dichotomy: painful and pleasant, light and dark, material and immaterial), Samsara is not a place but a perspective, point of view, method of living. The drunkard who hates his situation and so drinks is samsaric, the middle aged man who continues from loveless to loveless relationship because he can't be open and emotional is samsaric, the old grandmother who thinks no one nowadays is good enough is samsaric, the horrible boss is samsaric. The term "dukka" is sometimes also sometimes used to refer to the perspective side of being in samsara; its means "bad fit". When you're in samsara, nothing is quite satisfying, you need something something else, there is this unbridgable gap between what is and truth, power, skillful perfection, many possible things. Samsara is also the philosopher who dreams of a better world but also is disheartened that it will never be. I should say too, classically Karma is bad and is associated with Samsara; thus a Theravadan Monk would try to "remove" all of their karma.
Nirvana is the state or realm of truthfulness, acceptance, bliss, awareness. Nirvana has a self-sustaining quality to it, that it's somehow more whole, holistic, fully integrated. The term "sukka" is sometimes used to describe the perception of nirvana, meaning "good fit" (contrast to dukka above). Here we also see fruition of a Non-Dual perspective of the world. The world is one, all things are one, together somehow. Rather than seeing the world as still in this "oneness" kind of way, think of it as always moving and dynamic; the world if a continuum, and in that continuum they are all one. No underlying "power", just a constantly shifting dogpile of forces that affect everything else. From the personal side about this view point, Nirvana is about total awareness; you, as an individual, are clear of your distortions when perceiving reality and thus become a kind of cosmic mirror that only reflects truthfully what is.
I mentioned Vajrayana before too and how Samsara and Nirvana are the same. This also re-examines the notion of Karma. Rather than seeing karma as a kind of fate or causal network that pulls you along, a vajrayana buddhist seeing karma as more the principles of causality and causality that are always at work and unescapeable. To be at all means to deal with, work with, become one with karma. Samsara is a repeating cycle or causal patterns; Nirvana is about breaking out of patterns and being acausal. Do you see how these could both work together? There's no "out there" and no "in here"; trying to overcome nonduality. In that sense, having a conception of what Nirvana is could be a big hurtle to cross.
Zen: Speaking of concepts that are hard to understand, Zen. Another thing that makes it hard is that Zen has almost no theology, metaphysical description, whatnot, about it. Zen so much wants to get out of patterns, it's often very surreal and absurd their methods. Confusion, non-conceptuality are the most promissing, Nirvanic states for them... leave everything behind, ideas and habits, and just expereince. In fact, Zen has an added term to how enlightment (or an enlightened view) is reached: Satori, which is an enlightenment expereince. Stories about it often describe disciples trying very hard to achieve a zen mind with their masters being seemingly dickheads about it and asking very odd things of then, only to have the disciple have a satori experience while sweeping the floor or tasting tea or getting a smack on the head. A Zen buddhist does a type of meditation called Zazen, or sitting meditation. It's kind of like a Samatha that sometimes employs the use of mudras and mantras (hand gestures and repeated expressions).
Manjushri: was an Indian sage from early on... I can't remember when right now, probably 2nd to 5th century sometime. He's was known for his incredible intellect and discernment; thus, when Manjushri is supplicated in chants or whatever, it's to say stuff like "oh Manjushri let us mentally cut through matter to see the subtle impermanence of things". Awareness and Focus are sometimes contrasted when dealing with concentration (Samadhi). They are actually opposite: awareness wants to include and broaden, and focus wants to lessen and take away and become specialized upon and target fewer things. Manjushri is more about focus here. Others, like descriptions of the bodhissatva with 1000 eyes, are about awareness. Just like figures in other religions, because they lived so long ago and from the mythologizing of their deeds and lives, they are told to be super-humans semi-enlightened or enlightened beings.
3 Vehicles: Okay, a brief run down of the three vehicles, or really viewpoints, in Buddhism. It should be noted within each vehicles are still many contrasting views and slighting hairs between the various schools. Also, these schools do not "progress" from worst to best; they're all interconnected and serve different roles, though Vajrayana is the most recent by time.
> Theravada or Hinayana ("lesser vehicle"): deals with the causal, cosmological aspects of buddhisms. It can be the most dogmatic but also the most scientific and ontologically questioning. Concepts like the 12 nidanas (chain of dependant origination) or Karma or the 10 Bhumis one progresses through to reach enlightenment or taking on precepts are all iconify Hinayana style. It's called "lesser vehicle" in constrast to "greater vehicle" to show that it can help one individual become fully realized in relation to their own perspective towards reality, but not be able to skillfully aid others or their enlightenment (self-realizers).
> Mahayana ("greater vehicle"): all about compassion, openness, acting selflessly, acting to put others ahead of yourself. Concepts like Sunyata, different types of compassion, or perspectives involving many people at once are Mahayana. "Greater vehicle" refers to the fact that you want to get enlightened so that you can help others get enlightened, kind of hold the door open before deciding not to return to physical incarnations.
> Vajrayana ("adamantine vehicle"): Takes the rules, throw em out the window. Everything is possible means, possible energy to propel you towards enlightenment. We there's no good or bad so let's do everything we can right now to act enlightened and be our true selves. Contains concepts like Skillful means, or (as I said in my first post) Enlightened Society, and is much more prone to work with emotion, desire, mental events and view them in sometimes anthropomorphic ways (similar to hinduism with it's variable polytheism).
Proof of Enlightening? Is it all just mental with no other effects? Well, from the buddhist perspective, everything is mind. The world does not, in a way, exist; only a pluralism of perceptions. Changing your mind IS changing everything. Jeez, I just realized I haven't described the 4 Noble Truths (like a medical diagnosis of suffering):
1) There is Suffering. I think these all have a single word name too, and this one is Samsara.
2) There is a Cause of Suffering. Karma
3) There is an End of Suffering. Nirvana.
4) There is a Cause to an End of Suffering. Dharma, which is teaching that aid enlightenment. This term actually has many possible definitions, and Hinduism again uses it too, but in a Buddhism sense it just means enlightening teachings.
Some Bodhisatva are said to be able to do funky things like fly or teleport or create duplicate images of themselves or other such fancy things. But that possibly isn't true and most certainly is not the point of this. Actually, there's a term for a being that goes through the enlightening processes but retains or inflates their ego: a Rudra. Just as a Buddha is enlightened but egoless, a Rudra is a big, smart, selfish, egoful mother fucker.
In buddhist cosmology, there are six worlds of beings: animals, hungry ghosts, angry gods, humans, happy gods, and maybe the other one is insects. Each has their own strength and own probable weakness. As a Vajrayanist myself, I see them as more psychological states; angry could just be a drug dealer, animal could be an actual animal or some ignorant hick. It's kind of important that there is a supposed realm above humans so we don't get too high and mighty about ourselves. The flaw of the happy god realm is that they are really wise but they actually think that, because they are so wise and may know about emptiness, they "are" something. Humans are considered to have the ebst shot at enlightenment, with their flaw being desire with discipline as the possible remedy.
You know what I'd say the proof is? Getting some degree of happiness in your less, letting go of crap that is just not you, not getting all pie-in-the-sky about actually being good right here right now. Having a steadiness that lets you ride through anything with an openness that lets you still be in the moment and unclinging to the past. If you become a dogmatic buddhist, might as well call yourself a monotheist... theism or atheism is not the point. Those terms deal with an "out there" or nothing "out there" quality; but why, why is that needed? See the world and let yourself just be.
|
SM Goenka's vipassana meditation centre's are in several countries around the world and offer a 10-day meditation course free (except for whatever donation you feel appropriate at the end) . You stay at the centre and take a vow of silence for 9 days that includes no media and spend most of every day practicing meditation.The advantage of doing such a long course is that it gives you a chance to get to a deep enough level that you may be motivated to continue in your daily life. I've done the course twice and both times found it to be useful (though I haven't managed to maintain the practice). Anyway if anyone's interested check the link:
http://www.vri.dhamma.org/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/kama-sutra/magical-power-of-vishnu.jpg)
