Buddhism

i thought that was damo suzuki!

that would be an interesting twist

I see that Bob Six asked about Brad Warner upthread: I picked up Warner's new book yesterday. I'm learning from it, and I must say it's VERY refreshing and eye-opening (having only been familiar with Kapleau, Watts & "the two Suzukis") to read someone whose metaphors illuminate a point for me rather than disguise it. I've always had a level of difficulty with the naturalistic metaphors born of a monastery-dweller's mind, but Warner's reference points are accessible and clear.

i went to a temple with my mum and a friend. i am very much non-spiritual (and atheist) but i started crying when they were praying ( is that how you call it)? really weird.

You can be Athiest, Buddhist, and spiritual too.

i thought pregnant ladies cried basically all the time, though

Sometimes they don't. When they're beating on you.

KASUNG REPRESENT

humansuit otm both times

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

chantric buddhism

thanks, i'll be here all night. and in the next life.

just a bit of fun, you guys

Hahaha. :-) Yeah, I guess the *preggership* does weird trix on me. ;-)

You can be Athiest, Buddhist, and spiritual too.

I realize that. What I wanted to say is that I am very wary (?) of *letting* go. I realize I'm in the wrong, not wanting to join anything. But I know that by admitting I am atheist, I am also joining a group. Still it's a very interesting form of Buddhism that my friend practices. She's very serious about it. My mother now also joins them occasionally and even knows how to recite in Japanese.

Seriously though, it was extremely weird. From the moment I heard them recite out loud in group, I had to hold back tears. And then suddenly I cried. Only for a few minutes.

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.