Rev R Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I finally noticed the "Common Misconceptions" thread has disappeared, so I'm starting this one. Questions, comments, thoughts, book recommendations, practice suggestions- hopefully all of it will be here. Have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Not that I have many questions...but I thought I would share this. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Buddhism There are several religions under the religion section. It provides general information and also seeks to counter many of the stereotypes associated with different religions. I know I mentioned this before, it seems that the Sohei in feudal Japan were more politically motivated then religious. Their actions seem to be at odds with the tenants of Buddhism. What justification did they try to use? Barring that, Would you opinion that it would be similar to Christian justifications for brutal and political behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzytheterri Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 If I may add this - a dharma talk in regards religious superstitions as well as discussion about different Buddhist sects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzytheterri Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? I don't have an answer per say, but if I had to take a guess it would be for the same reason we have mental health, physical health, dietary and fitness suggestions. To keep the organism as healthy as possible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Book suggestion: The Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones by Patrul Rinpoche with commentary by Dilgo Khyentse. Simply great. Its always right there on my bedside table - things will get crowded there and I will take it downstairs, but then it gets moved back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Izzy: Sorry, I could only do 15 minutes of Ajham Brahm. It gave me much the same feeling as I got when listening to a Baptist preacher condemn Catholics for having statues and burning candles. No, I am not a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzytheterri Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 To each his (or her) own. I'm a huge fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? That's an interesting question. I would say that everything is one, but not everything experiences unity. To experience unity you must be consciously aware of others. The more you are able to see others as yourself, the more of that unity is experienced. If you are focused only on yourself, you are blind to that unity, you will feel separation. So ethics then become the practical expression of that experience of unity. It is the behavior structures supporting unity consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? hmmm. how to approach this... Remember that the "goal" of Buddhist practice is to overcome dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering). The cultivation of the three branches of the Path are like the medicine that soothes the affliction of dukkha. Wisdom and Mental Discipline helps soothe dukkha on the personal level. Wisdom and Ethical Conduct helps soothe dukkha on an interpersonal level. "All is one" is not exactly true in a Buddhist sense. There is an idea called "two truths, one reality". When you view things from an "ultimate" perspective something like an ethical code is not needed (neither is wisdom nor mental discipline for that matter). From the "relative" perspective (where we spend a great portion of our time) such things are needed as means of cultivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? Remember that the "goal" of Buddhist practice is to overcome dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering). The cultivation of the three branches of the Path are like the medicine that soothes the affliction of dukkha. Wisdom and Mental Discipline helps soothe dukkha on the personal level. Wisdom and Ethical Conduct helps soothe dukkha on an interpersonal level. I thought the "goal" of Buddhism was to reach nirvana? Why is it that you want to overcome suffering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 I know I mentioned this before, it seems that the Sohei in feudal Japan were more politically motivated then religious. Their actions seem to be at odds with the tenants of Buddhism. What justification did they try to use? Barring that, Would you opinion that it would be similar to Christian justifications for brutal and political behavior? First off, I love tv tropes. That site is just plain fun. Secondly, sure we've discussed it before but it is a favorite topic. From my study of the subject, there doesn't appear to be a specific class of monk one could call "sohei". Ronin, criminals, and spies often disguised themselves as monks to avoid suspicion and so they could move around relatively unimpeded. Monasteries and temples as landholders would sometimes employ fighting forces in order to protect their interests. Temples fought each other over land since the amount of rice an area could produce was a measure of its wealth. Monks would also take to the streets and riot against political policies. All of these actions do seem to me to be against the Precepts, marks of a corrupt system, and, yes, no better than similar actions of Western religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 "All is one" is not exactly true in a Buddhist sense. There is an idea called "two truths, one reality". I like the way that's put. It's really speaks to me of duality and nonduality. As you say we spend the majority of our lives navigating a dualistic reality, and in that space ethics plays a part in interpersonal relationships. Nonduality is "One" from a dualistic perspective. Experientially within nonduality itself there is no 'other'. It is truth that perceives no distinctions. Ethics is irrelevant at that point as all differentiations are fulfilled. So, 'two truths, one reality". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I guess I got a couple of questions now that you ask I guess one trouble I have with Buddhism is that it is fragmented into various "denominations" just like other religions and each one has similarities with the rest but of course it has its own distinctions. Alongside this, each one is filled with various degrees of mythology and it really seems like picking and choosing if you disregard the more out there parts while still holding onto the rest (I mean even without that, I assume reincarnation is an integral part of Buddhism?). So, I guess my question in this regards is, empirically, what makes you think Buddhism has any validity to it? Or, am I looking at this all wrong? Are people coming from a pragmatic approach (this feels right and has changed my life for good et cetera)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 Making me actually work at this. I thought the "goal" of Buddhism was to reach nirvana? Nirvana is the state where dukkha is extinguished. Same thing, more practical language. Why is it that you want to overcome suffering? This is going to require more time that I have at the moment. Will get to it tonight. Excellent questions Jaded. Will get to them tonight as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Secondly, sure we've discussed it before but it is a favorite topic. From my study of the subject, there doesn't appear to be a specific class of monk one could call "sohei". Ronin, criminals, and spies often disguised themselves as monks to avoid suspicion and so they could move around relatively unimpeded. Monasteries and temples as landholders would sometimes employ fighting forces in order to protect their interests. Temples fought each other over land since the amount of rice an area could produce was a measure of its wealth. Monks would also take to the streets and riot against political policies. All of these actions do seem to me to be against the Precepts, marks of a corrupt system, and, yes, no better than similar actions of Western religions. So it would seem then, like anything that gives a hint of power it eventually gets corrupted by people to control others. Not that it's a condemnation of Buddhism, just an observation. Given the highly militarized culture of Japan at the time it seems that had the temples not gotten involved in politics would have been seen as strange. I guess it would not be unexpected that a repentant Ronin might join a temple but still cling to the weapons training they grew up with. Thus, perhaps giving rise to the idea of warrior monks. I would also comment on the practicality of having a temple garrison especially during the Sengoku Jidai period. Basically if they didn't defend themselves there is strong possibility of having the temple raided or destroyed if the ruling Diamyo perceived them as a threat. Especially those in Oda realms. As a complete side note, The game Shogun 2 has monk units. These units are used for inciting revolts, calming the populous, inspiring/demoralizing armies, and converting other agent units, which takes the enemy out of play as they leave to contemplate the tenants of Shinto Buddhism. I thought it was rather humorous when you level up a monk you get retainers. One that came up was the Bo. The caption read: "You wouldn't deprive a monk of walking stick?" and the bonus was a "5% increase against assassination attempts". Peace and love with a really big stick. While I know we have discussed it before, there are many times when the Micheals have been discussing a topic and stated toward the end that "Buddhism has much to say on the matter" or something similar. I have never heard them say that for any other major religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzytheterri Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I guess I got a couple of questions now that you ask I guess one trouble I have with Buddhism is that it is fragmented into various "denominations" just like other religions and each one has similarities with the rest but of course it has its own distinctions. Alongside this, each one is filled with various degrees of mythology and it really seems like picking and choosing if you disregard the more out there parts while still holding onto the rest (I mean even without that, I assume reincarnation is an integral part of Buddhism?). So, I guess my question in this regards is, empirically, what makes you think Buddhism has any validity to it? Or, am I looking at this all wrong? Are people coming from a pragmatic approach (this feels right and has changed my life for good et cetera)? As with all things cultural, people have different traditions based on their society. Most "denominations," or sects, are born from different societal preferences, more than anything. When you get to the basis of Buddhism, it's a form of psychology. It's letting go of suffering, misery and attachment and embracing openness and peace. All the pomp and circumstance to it is really just extra frill, in my opinion. True Buddhism will say, take what works for you, and leave the rest. So as far as the validity is concerned... validity is your own personal experience. If you do not experience truth and peace, then it's not for you. You don't have to buy into everything, or even really any of it. But if you do learn and practice it, you're most likely to get something from it... and as far as I'm concerned, that's valid enough for me. The cool thing is you don't have to believe in reincarnation. You don't have to believe any of it to gain something from it, just put some of it into practice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 Why is it that you want to overcome suffering? Why would anyone not want to overcome suffering? OK maybe a masochist...but I digress. Really though that is a big part of many religious ideas. Rather than waiting for some god to remove it, or hoping for some heaven of eternal bliss to take it all away, the Buddha's path is one where we use our own effort to examine and attempt to cut out the very root of dukkha for our personal benefit as well as the benefit of all beings. <aside: I prefer the term dukkha because it encompasses much more than "suffering".> I guess one trouble I have with Buddhism is that it is fragmented into various "denominations" just like other religions and each one has similarities with the rest but of course it has its own distinctions. Not exactly fragmented. "Buddhism" is a term invented by Westerners to cover all the different practices and philosophies that hold the Buddha's teaching as a core. There was never an established orthodoxy to fragment. But, like anyone else, Buddhists gripe and grumble about who has the best path to Truth. Alongside this, each one is filled with various degrees of mythology and it really seems like picking and choosing if you disregard the more out there parts while still holding onto the rest(I mean even without that, I assume reincarnation is an integral part of Buddhism?). So, I guess my question in this regards is, empirically, what makes you think Buddhism has any validity to it? All I have is my own practice- that is my own observations of existence and my mind- to convince me of its validity. Put simply, in my life it works pretty well. But it appears that the question is what can I offer you as an empirical demonstration of its validity. To that I can only offer myself. Pretty shitty demonstration huh? Or, am I looking at this all wrong? Are people coming from a pragmatic approach (this feels right and has changed my life for good et cetera)? Can't speak for anybody but me, but it seems that a pragmatic approach is about the only one we can take with any honesty. Wouldn't you say that your own skepticism is pragmatic in nature? A note on reincarnation. The term is more accurately "rebirth" and there is no set in stone interpretation. Many Western Buddhists appear to ignore it or instruct people to come to their own conclusions and focus on more here and now concerns such as ethics. My own thoughts on the matter are that since there is no permanent or intrinsic self nature what is "reborn" is the fruits of our actions, meaning that we create the conditions for future lives here and now. These future lives are not mine, but they are lives the same as mine both directly and indirectly influenced by the results of what I do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 I guess it would not be unexpected that a repentant Ronin might join a temple but still cling to the weapons training they grew up with. Thus, perhaps giving rise to the idea of warrior monks. I would also comment on the practicality of having a temple garrison especially during the Sengoku Jidai period. Basically if they didn't defend themselves there is strong possibility of having the temple raided or destroyed if the ruling Diamyo perceived them as a threat. Also it was a time in which the idea of separation of church and state was unheard of. Abbots were often appointed by the government and were more adept at administration than Dharma. On top of that, ordinations were also controlled by the government. There is evidence that ordinations were sold in China and the Japanese government attempted to control the number of monks ordained at any given time. Casts a lot of doubt on the lineage system in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? I don't have an answer per say, but if I had to take a guess it would be for the same reason we have mental health, physical health, dietary and fitness suggestions. To keep the organism as healthy as possible. I agree. A "nice car" can sometimes be a shallow desire, but a car that is well-maintained and in good working order is a more efficient vehicle. A body is likewise a vehicle for life. So repeatedly doing stupid things that break it down is counter-productive, and doing things that harms the vehicle someone else is using is about equivalent to slashing their tires. IMO. Also with regards to the link stryper posted... I don't get why in Buddhism there are no "souls", the way *I* conceptualize the "soul", there certainly are, by the language and theology of many sects of Buddhism itself. It's perhaps true that it's all some illusion but it's a persistent illusion and to me, until one is actually OUT of samsara and has reached the highest merging point (my own language, not saying this is a technical Buddhist term or anything), then the language of "souls" is more helpful than harmful. At least IMO. Right now, I'm an individual human being. It may also be so that I am a part of a larger consciousness and it is only my perception that makes me feel separate (i.e. like how when we have a dream at night and interact with all the dream characters, it's a splitting of our own consciousness so we have something to interact with), but that is still my experiential reality. And it may be my experiential reality in future lifetimes and on higher planes for sometime to come. (And the Buddhists here who don't believe in any kind of literal afterlife or continuance of consciousness can feel free to ignore my babbling here. ) One thing that I disagree with is that it's some ideal for everyone to "merge" or that everybody will. Obviously if the universal consciousness thought a state of solipsism was a fun idea, we couldn't even be having this conversation. It seems to me that the point of existence is experience itself. There is a wide range of experiences and suffering is a possibility inherent in the set-up. And obviously there are levels. I don't think MINOR suffering in exchange for great experiences is something i should seek to extinguish. At this point... I don't "want" to extinguish personal identity. I LIKE the experience of personal identity. Yes, that means some suffering, but at this point my goal is to move up out of the ghetto (this crappy planet) into the suburbs (someplace nicer than this). At some point I may be all about the merging, but that's not even an immediate goal at this point. Something I find interesting... in the myth of the original Buddha (and I'm saying 'myth' here because it seems with certain specific thematic ideas and other things that make little sense as "literally true", that we've entered the language of myth and metahpor here)... The Buddha is said to have sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days. Likewise, in Tibetan Buddhism after death, you are said to be in the bardo for up to 49 days. So what is the deeper significance of the number 49 here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Oh... book recommendation: "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe" by Robert Lanza M.D. with Bob Berman Chopra blurbed the book which annoys the crap out of me because it attempts to undermine it. But the publishing industry is such that they don't really care about that, they just want to sell books and Chopra's name can sell books to the public. This book isn't "Buddhist" per se, but there are definitely some Buddhist ideas here. This book means a lot to me because it's basically a story of what I think. LOL. No one had so lucidly set out my personal perception of the world I find myself in before this. So I don't "believe" in this book like some kind of faith statement. It's merely a very accurate reflection of how I already saw the world laid out in a different format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I guess I got a couple of questions now that you ask I guess one trouble I have with Buddhism is that it is fragmented into various "denominations" just like other religions and each one has similarities with the rest but of course it has its own distinctions. Alongside this, each one is filled with various degrees of mythology and it really seems like picking and choosing if you disregard the more out there parts while still holding onto the rest (I mean even without that, I assume reincarnation is an integral part of Buddhism?). So, I guess my question in this regards is, empirically, what makes you think Buddhism has any validity to it? Or, am I looking at this all wrong? Are people coming from a pragmatic approach (this feels right and has changed my life for good et cetera)? I wish I could remember who said it... I want to say Ghandi, but that feels wrong so I'll leave it alone as far as authorship goes... but SOMEBODY awesome said: "There are as many different religions as there are people." Likewise I think there are as many different Buddhisms as there are Buddhists, as many different Christianities as there are Christians (though we seem to see only one breed here, LOL), as many different Atheisms as there are Atheists. Even within atheism you have some who simply lack any "supernatural beliefs", then you have others who don't believe in god, but DO believe in survival of consciousness. You also have atheists who also consider themselves Buddhists--or something else (and there are sects of Buddhism that line up just fine with a totally metaphorical interpretation of everything). Then you have atheists who believe nothing BUT materialism exists. So there are just as many different ways of seeing/being atheist as there are of seeing/being Buddhist. This leads me to believe this isn't about the philosophy we hold but about being human itself. I also don't think anybody has a "one true truth". Even the wisest Buddhist teacher is still limited by his OWN subjective experience (even of oneness) and his own limited perception and intellect (wherever that limit is, I think we all agree that as humans we have limits.) I don't think that any human being can say: "This is truth. This is the whole truth." They can say: "This is my perception of truth. This is how I see reality" but to say as a human being that you understand in any real way the whole of reality is kind of wacky and to my mind automatically discredits you. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but this is how I see it. In this way Buddhism appeals to me because I see in Buddhism things that are "me" and agree with how I naturally perceive the world around me. I actually find it quite comforting that there are so many different sects and flavors of Buddhism because it means I will not be forced into someone else's box of what reality is or means or what my goal should be in any of it. Without a ONE Buddhism, I can be free. I am allowed to let my experience and understanding unfold as it will without being in a race with others and without trying to force myself to view things exactly as others view them. If all those different kinds of Buddhism can co-exist, then my personal Buddhism can exist just as well. And of course I'm always learning and growing and in many ways I am a "baby Buddhist" my perspective will evolve over time. Some ideas I currently have I may keep, and some I may discard. But to me what is appealing partly about Buddhism is that in general there seems to be a respect toward letting each person find their way as they are ready rather than forcing people to develop on someone else's timetable. And Buddhism also has a very practical set of tools that any of us can apply to our lives to see where it leads us. For some Buddhists it's merely a practical philosophy with no "woo" For some it's a working framework and a way of conceptualizing, in however limited a way, the nature of things. If you're atheist, your atheism is probably not exactly like everyone else's. Your way of seeing it and reason for seeing it is going to be different. I could say: "Since all atheists don't think exactly the same way, then where's the value and validity?", but if you're atheist, you obviously see the value and validity in the label. Either way, I see all philosophical and religious labels as merely that... ways to try to put people into categories where we can relate to them. In reality I think we all think somewhat differently. The problems, IMO seem to come in when we forget categories are merely for organizational purposes and not meant to be edicts everyone must force their mind in line with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzytheterri Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 City Dharma. Hard to find, good to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 If everything is one, then why an ethical code? hmmm. how to approach this... Remember that the "goal" of Buddhist practice is to overcome dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering). The cultivation of the three branches of the Path are like the medicine that soothes the affliction of dukkha. Wisdom and Mental Discipline helps soothe dukkha on the personal level. Wisdom and Ethical Conduct helps soothe dukkha on an interpersonal level. "All is one" is not exactly true in a Buddhist sense. There is an idea called "two truths, one reality". When you view things from an "ultimate" perspective something like an ethical code is not needed (neither is wisdom nor mental discipline for that matter). From the "relative" perspective (where we spend a great portion of our time) such things are needed as means of cultivation. Rev, Two implications seem to follow: higher states of consciousness--states in which people have capacities above and beyond the "usual"--may be available to us all. And our usual state of consciousness, which we usually assume to be the best, is actually, for the lack of a better word, sub-optimal. Thus, what is learned or understood in one state of consciousness may be less easily comprehended in another (state specific limitations). Even profound understandings gained in an alternate state (brief but extremely intense, beneficial experiences of expanded identity and union with self, other and the universe) may be incomprehensible to someone who has never accessed the state. What say you? Oh, how's the gig going with The Examiner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Rev, I'm curious for your thoughts to this since you identify as Buddhist. You said something sometime back that provoked me into a way of thinking that I see as valuable. You had spoke of theism as having a role in that path of enlightenment. I've come to see the power of that in that in valid dualistic approach to Self realization. I'm wondering could you expound on your views of the various 'deities' used in certain forms of Buddhism, how those differ from the common Western conceptualization and practices surrounding deity, and finally the sticky subject of the meaning of the word "God" in the Eastern mind versus the Western Mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts