Buddhism

I don't think athiests are a group. At least, they aren't a very good one. I'm still waiting to be sent on my athiest mission, to tell Africans there is no God. Was that bad to say? I'm working and it's 11 on Sunday night, so whatever.

I am nominally Buddhist. I say that because unfortunately I don't believe many of the major tenants of Buddhism as it is practiced now. Reincarnation is unlikely and at any rate not useful. I don't remember my past lives, so they don't do anything for me. As for the idea, common in Tibetan Buddhism for one, that you can obtain Buddhahood and then never experience ANY pain because your karma is cleansed - I don't think that's true either, and many Buddhists have elevated Buddha Shakyamuni and Amitabh into God-figures, whom they worship, which I think is anathema (sp) to what the Buddha taught.

Still, meditation is great, and I enjoy that aspect of the community, since discursive thought is not the fastest road to letting go of the things you should ... I can't go here. It's too late. But as long as I am letting go into something that doesn't require "faith," I'm comfortable with that.

Christopher Hitchens doesn't like Buddhism either.

xpost Well, it's all relative, isn't it? I mean, for one thing, I would never go on a mission to preach about the fact there is no God. I don't need anyone else to join my group, nor realize that there is no God. (I don't want to debate the fact the difference between knowing and believing. I don't think it is relevant that *I* or anyone else believes there's no God. Doesn't change the fact that s/he is absent.) Still I belong to a group anyway. I'm not expressing myself (or rather what my husband considers) very well. I wanted to say that he (and I, as I agree with him) also have some set belief and in a sense am not that different from someone who does believe (in a God). Shit, does that make sense?

Anyway, deep down I always sense that I could swing the whole other was: to devote myself to Buddhism (or any other belief). I tend to be radical but try not to push that on others (anymore). I can't really talk about my experience (yesterday) being in that shinto buddhist temple. I did, I talked to my mom about it, and I fucking cried again. How fucking weird is that? I do believe it's also the fact I am in Japan: it always makes me *weak in the knees*. It's as if there's some mysticism that is lacking (for me anyway) in Europe.

In a sense I also realize that I am bad in the sense that I don't want to join in belief because it requires (it would for me anyway) some energy and input. I would not want to be... lazy about it. Does that make sense? I don't like being half-arsed about (these things). I like to be obsessed about my interests. (See music, knitting,...) I'm a bit anal about things. And I would not want to give this up if I would commit myself to it. I did when it came to music, but, fuck, buddhism is something entirely different.

I'm babbling sorry.

hey stevie - why not just try meditating, maybe study a little dharma, practice with a sangha and see how you like it. no point in making a big deal out of things before you even begin (or ever really).

anyone ever tried the kind of buddhism where you chant out loud? whats that called?

well all schools have chanting, but you're probably thinking of Nichiren - known in the west for having many celebrities in the fold. considered by many to be somewhat theistic.

KASUNG REPRESENT

HAI!

Oh it's Nathalie. But nevermind. I should try it out. Maybe read a book first. Take it slow.

Christopher Hitchens doesn't like Buddhism either.

-- Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 4 June 2007 08:36

The Atheist Pope has spoken.

(I realize you're not suggesting he's an authority etc)

Hey Nath, Shunryu Suzuki (Zen Priest & author of one of the most widely read texts on Zen Buddhism in English) wrote that after a long absence from the monastery, hearing the chants moved him to tears too! You're in good company.

xposts

I notice Mr. Hitchens says a great many things. It is his forte.

jhoshea r u a vegetarian

no

ok jus wonderin

i am about to check out

the way of liberation (watts)
this is it (watts)
the training of the zen buddhist monk (suzuki)

none of the other books that you recommended (e.g. by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche) were available.

this library BLOWS

Whenever clouds gather, the nature of the sky is not corrupted, and when they disperse, it is not ameliorated. The sky does not become less or more vast. It does not change. It is the same with the nature of mind: it is not spoiled by the arrival of thoughts; nor improved by their disappearance. The nature of the mind is emptiness; its expression is clarity. These two aspects are essentially one's simple images designed to indicate the diverse modalities of the mind. It would be useless to attach oneself in turn to the notion of emptiness, and then to that of clarity, as if they were independent entities. The ultimate nature
of mind is beyond all concepts, all definition and all fragmentation.

"I could walk on the clouds," says a child. But if he reached the clouds, he would find nowhere to place his foot. Likewise, if one does not examine thoughts, they present a solid appearance; but if one examines them, there is nothing there. That is what is called being at the same time empty and apparent. Emptiness of mind is not nothingness, nor a state of torpor, for it possesses by its very nature a luminous faculty of knowledge, which is called Awareness. These two aspects, emptiness and Awareness, cannot be separated. They are essentially one, like the surface of the mirror and the image, which is reflected in it.

-Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

jhoshea i have questions

Impertinency!

me too.

that quote appears contradictory to me. I mean presuposing there is such thing as "mind" of course , but if the mind is "beyond all definition, conception etc" why is this person attempting to define and conceptualise it?

no the quote made sense, i have other questions

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

oh, Buddhism

"no the quote made sense"

Care to share? Pls dont be INDIFFERENT! Im real!

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000J6AS.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

2/10 points for effort mind.

http://www.forumspile.com/Flame-Bring_it_(Western).jpg

why not just enlighten me dude

re: Brad Warner - he's the real deal

I may be one of the few people on the planet who's sat with both him and Kapleau. Different styles, same Zen.

all the advice i've seen about meditation time is pretty similar. it's better to start really short and to build up. don't try to sit for so long that it's a chore. like 5 minutes everyday consistently is better than 3 hours today and nothing for months. kinda like exercise.

that quote appears contradictory to me. I mean presuposing there is such thing as "mind" of course , but if the mind is "beyond all definition, conception etc" why is this person attempting to define and conceptualise it?

ha you have just hit the krux of the difference between the 2 major schools of thinking on emptiness in tibetian buddhism. you are rangtong, river wolf is shentong.

any questions i will happily answer - my apologies for not noticing this was updated yesterday.

lolita gives excellent advice imo xp

I've been especially exhausted lately due to my schedule, so morning zazen has been a real challenge. Difficult to sit without dozing off. I'm trying to follow the advice of the Roshi at my local center and just "open my eyes wide" when I feel myself drifting, but it's difficult. To compensate I'm trying to do mindfulness breaks throughout my day, though I'm sure 'compensation' is the wrong way to think about it.

I may be one of the few people on the planet who's sat with both him and Kapleau.

Cool. Have you read his newest book? Quite good...haha excuse me, 'skillful.'

that quote appears contradictory to me. I mean presupposing there is such thing as "mind" of course , but if the mind is "beyond all definition, conception etc" why is this person attempting to define and conceptualise it?

I think you will find that, upon closer reading of the quotation, the author of it was not attempting to define and conceptualise "mind" so much as using a process of elimination to name some misconceptions one might have about "mind". Likewise, when the author says that "the nature of the mind is emptiness", he is not so much attempting a definition as he is using a finger to point at the moon. You should not mistake the finger for the moon, nor should you understand "mind" to be the same as "emptiness".

The author is trying his best to use an inadequate tool (language) to give useful hints and indications, while warning you that, in the same way that the map is not the territory, you will have to supply a leap of understanding to get from one to the other.

Most bright children quickly figure out what might be called "the dictionary problem" - that dictionaries purport to define words, but can only define words by using other words, which are in turn defined by other words, which require further words for their definition, and so on. I'm sure this hasn't escaped your notice.

Buddhists do not dismiss this problem as a silly children's paradox that one quickly learns to ignore. To a buddhist, this conundrum helps to reveal a basic fact about human suffering. Knowing this fact, they feel compelled to teach it to others, but because of this fact, they must learn how to tie knots in smoke. If it seems a bit tortuous sometimes, it is not because they are more flawed than the rest of us, but because they are compelled - by the iron law of compassion - to impart what cannot be spoken, mimed, or pictured. If that seems easy to you, try it sometime.

well done.

i'm a have to look up shentong now

while i think the point abt language is valid and relevant it doesn't totally address the question - if emptiness is free from concept how can it be said to be imbued w/the qualities of buddha nature: wisdom, compassion and strength.

this question has for a long time been a fault line the buddhist world. and emptiness is generally considered to be the most intellectually challenging buddhist topic. so i doubt we're going to arrive at any definitive answers here.
but i will go ahead and recommend this book:

http://www.snowlionpub.com/data/img2/prstme.jpg

PROGRESSIVE STAGES OF MEDITATION ON EMPTINESS is a clear, brief (unusual for the genre) exposition of five different views of emptiness with corresponding contemplative meditations. written by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche one of the truly great meditation masters and buddhist scholars in the world today. so so good - lots on shentong and rongtong.

Shentong...is a philosophical sub-school found in Tibetan Buddhism whose followers hold that the nature of mind is "empty of other" (i.e., empty of all qualities other than an inherent, ineffable nature), in contrast to the “Rangtong” view of the followers of Prasangika Madhyamaka, who hold that all phenomena are unequivocally empty of self-nature, without positing anything beyond that. According to Shentongpas, the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena.

its not really good beginner general overview type of book - but if you're interest in a manageable introduction to madhyamika - it is great.

xp

Cool. Have you read his newest book?

I have not, though I should. I'll add that I grew up Zen Buddhist and have a pretty severe allergic reaction to the way Zen has been appropriated in the american marketplace (zen spas, zen candles, $350 zen massages etc etc), so when I caught one of my earnest-LA-yogini friends with a book called HARDCORE ZEN a few years back I was pretty scornful. Oh great, another 200 pages of bandwagon-jumping BS and yoga journal platitudes dressed up as rebellion etc etc.

So then I started flipping through it, and I was all like damn if this guy doesn't actually get it. Turns out he's a really good guy, too. And a total dork, which is a really valuable lesson in itself.

yeah, i've really liked a lot of what i've read by warner so far (just online articles).

i've knocked out two watts books in the last four days, but i think i need stuff closer to the source

fwiw, it seems to me (a total rube) that making the distinction between shentong and rangtong is itself a bit of a koan --- actually teasing out the differences between the two schools hardly seems elementary (to me), but that undertaking the effort to do so would probably prove fruitful

yeah progressive stages of mediatation on emptiness approaches it from that point of view like this is the shravaka approach to emptiness why dont you try to understand it?

obv tho khenpo tsultrim is firmly in the shentong camp.

Oh great, another 200 pages of bandwagon-jumping BS and yoga journal platitudes dressed up as rebellion etc etc.

So then I started flipping through it, and I was all like damn if this guy doesn't actually get it.

Ha this has been the reaction from literally EVERY person I know that's seen it, scorned it, THEN read it (myself included).

Hey guys did you know the British Library offers pretty, high quality pictures of their copy of the Diamond Sutra (printed in 868!)? Check it.

Hi AImless contrdictions dont rly bother me --in the name of the father, son and holy spirit-- as for the paradox I guess dictionary words can be seen as invisible social realities, at least as long as they are diffused and accepted, but I dunno, if you hadnt nticed words arent really my ting, never have been.

jhøshea I have a few more perhaps naive questions but I know nothing about Buddhism beyond the letting go notion. My reply up thread to river wolf was a poorly disguised dig bout perceieved indifference towards the external world by buddhists, do buddhists have a negative view of external reality and what are the consequences of this? xcuse any probable miscontruction-- Im thinking the " lol caring bout shit" stoner zen sterotype.

ALso in general terms can you tell me about salvation and nirvana as you see it?

I might venture that Buddhists don't have a "negative" view of external reality, but hold that the distinction between internal and external is an illusion that should be shattered. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the external world to be negative about. There is only "thus."

Put another way (and of course speaking strictly within my own limited understanding of the soto zen tradition): it's not that I don't care about the external world or believe that it doesn't matter. The aim of my practice is to realize (ie live out the fact) that from moment to moment there is no division between "me" and the material world. There is just the quiet hum of the Moment itself. As I understand it, the concept that the material world is illusory is a way of pointing at the truth that, in the Moment, there isn't any disinction between "internal" and "external."

Ha, I hope this has clarified rather than confused the issue for you, my limited understanding makes all this more difficult to put into words.

thnks BH, bear with me, is this "quiet hum" seen as an end in itself or a means for something else, if that makes sense?

thnks BH, bear with me, is this "quiet hum" seen as an end in itself or a means for something else, if that makes sense?

In the beginning of your search, the mountain is just the mountain. In your search, the mountain is no longer just the mountain. Once you obtain the way, the mountain is just the mountain again.

Paraphrase of something I like.

If I may inject my own interpretation into the conversation, it's like this. Buddhism is about realizing, on an everyday, every moment basis that you have no separate self from everything else. It is this notion of separate self that causes pain - jealousy, fear of death, etc. So obtaining the here and now in practice is a means to deeply understanding this. To deeply understand this, you have to let go of conceptions of understanding, and just practice. In the end, the practice itself is the end.

This is why in Soto Zen they say that as soon as you sit to meditate, you are already enlightened. My interpretation.

before you even begin to meditate you are already enlightened

we are all enlightened but we dont even know it

work hard to clean off the no-mirror? no thanks

i'd rather dance and sing and burp my way to truth

master go ahead and try to hit me with that stick, i'll show you the wood sutra and be on my merry way

xposts

Yeah I'd be strongly inclined to agree with humansuit there: meditation is enlightenment. We are all already awakened, we're just so burdened with judgements, confusion and fear that we don't normally realize it. In meditation we realize (ie "make real") our awakened state.

I look at it like this: meditation is preparation for standing up and living life. In meditation you realize your essential unity with the moment. Fantastic, but only the one who is fully open to the Moment in daily life is truly Awakened (ie a Buddha, Enlightened Person, though I don't really like those terms because they suggest there is a singular "goal" for meditation rather than presenting it as the ongoing process that it is).

The struggle in meditation comes in learning how to sit with our quiet minds. The better we get at it in meditation, the better we will be at it in our daily routine. The better we get at living in the Moment in our daily lives, the clearer life will be.

I suspect Jhoshea might provide answers very different from mine, I'd be interested to hear them.

^^^ i think i agree with this, but that's mostly because i've only really been reading zen things lately (v. the Tibetan stuff jhoshea is into).

i think what bothers me about non-Chinese/Japanese Buddhism is the apparent reliance on karma and reincarnation to motivate people to live compassionately. A literal belief in reincarnation seems totally incompatible with what I understand to be Buddhism. Unless the concept of "rebirth" is meant to convey an understanding of impermanence. I am continually reborn with each passing moment, etc.