Back from Buddhaland

[fearfaoin]

This is evidently the thread where the gentlemen hang out.

Agreed. Certainly the most civilized religion-ish thread I've seen.

[herbivore12]

Far as I'm concerned, he was operating out of habit. More to the point, I think, is this question: were the students in the class trying to resolve the Great Question, or were they just taking a class? Only the former might stand a chance of the abbot's technique having an effect. Context, context. Easy for me to say, though...

No, we were just taking a course on Japanese religion. The teacher had studied at this seminary, and so every so often the professor would go over there to teach and their abbott came and taught for a couple of weeks at our school. He was sort of a minor celebrity, judging by the number of Zen practitioners from the area who showed up for his lectures. So yeah, probably just force of habit.

The guy was pretty funny; lots of good jokes and laughter in class. It was a weird way to experience humor though, since the fellow had little English, so had a monk with him to translate. He'd say something, then break into a big grin or start very quietly laughing -- or maybe his shoulders would sort of start to bounce up and down with silent stifled laughter -- while the translator struggled to give us his words in English, and then we'd start to laugh and he could finally let loose. I'm embarassed to say how little I remember about that class, however; and I think we spent more time on Shinto and its history than we did on Buddhism.

[Nanohedron]

Shinto's fascinating, and has a lot to be studied. Seriously, though, when you get down to it, there's really not a lot to say or cover concerning Buddhism; after a while it's just putting different schools under the microscope. The Joy of Sects, if you will.

[herbivore12]

The Joy of Sects, if you will.

Oy . . .



I know a fair amount about non-Zen forms of Buddhism, and though I'm not a believer in some of the dogma (e.g., reincarnation, etc.), I do practice mindfulness and find much wisdom in Buddhist philosophy and thought. If anyone's interested in an agnostic take on Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is a pretty good primer (IMO, of course). I think Batchelor originally came from a Zen tradition. His book on the problem of evil -- "Living With The Devil" -- is pretty fine, too. (Just throwing that educational content out there to make up for Nano's groaner being repeated here. )

[Nanohedron]

My apologies. Heh.

Haven't read those, but I think your recommendations can be trusted, Herbi. They sound like good studies, and especially, for me, the second one.

[Loren]

Seriously, though, when you get down to it, there's really not a lot to say or cover concerning Buddhism......

Now we're getting somewhere.

As Shunryu Suzuki said:

"For us there is no need to understand what Zen is. We are practicing zazen, so for us there is no need to know what Zen is intellectually. This is, I think, very unusual for American Society."

Just as true all these years later, and on the same track I was headed down earlier.

Loren

[jim stone]

Sometimes you are simply too quick to judge me Dale, I think I've played very nicely the vast majority of the time over the last 3-4 years, but no credit for "time served and good behavior" I fear.......

Loren

Just as you say you mean no ill will toward Jim, I mean none toward you and I am entirely sincere. I do apologize if I seemed ungrateful. You have in fact been a good citizen on this board and I regard you as a friend. No less today than yesterday.

Dale

Briefly to thank Dale for chiming in in my behalf, and also to say
that I agree with Loren that his post didn't flow from ill-will
toward me.

[jim stone]

Moo. Erm....Mu.

Bessie didn't quite make it over, eh?




(Never could quite hang with the Zen school; the abbott of the Tofuku-ji seminary (if I'm remembering right) taught one of my classes in college for a couple of weeks. Sometimes it was fascinating, but then he'd, say, suddenly smack the table really hard, or throw something, or actually smack *you* -- I got a good slap on the back once: it stung! -- and it was just too startling for l'il old me.)

Speaking entirely personally, I don't like this stick business.
It seems to me ungentle. It's quite hard enough sitting all day
without getting whacked. I've been in one sesshin in the USA
where it wasn't optional, I don't think it's optional in
Japan--plenty of stories of monks coming out of meditation
with bruises, going in with doubled robes as protection...

The Buddha didn't hit people.

But I have similar problems with most every tradition.
The Buddha forbade images of himself, and for several
centuries I believe he was only depicted by footprints--
the Thus Gone. He said that rites and rituals falling away
are a sign that one is making spiritual progress.

But at my Theravada retreat the nuns did pujas to
the Buddha image, and the chants bordered on
worship.

So I guess one has to accept the traditions, seek the
core that is preserved in each.

What matters most, IMO, isn't the particular brand of
Buddhism being practiced, but whether people are
wanting to sit in silence, practice in silence. And there
I've found some excellent Zen groups, excellent Tibetan
groups...

[Dale]

I wish I knew more about Buddhism. I've read some, and learned some from jim stone. I know this kind of vagueness is not helpful: But whenever I have been exposed to it, there is some sense I get that I always know I'll do violence to by trying to express. So consider these entirely undisciplined, grossly generalized, and maybe not a bit true:

As a Christian, my sense is that Buddhism permits a way of life that is happier, healthier, and....better...than the parallel lives of practicing Christians.

That if I (by "I" I mean me) could live the Buddhist idea of nonattachment, I would be happier for it and no one else would stand to be less happy because I am more happy.

That the Buddhist idea of compassion is central, but hard for the outsider to see. It is of the heart, of the hand, or both?

Please: Compare and contrast the buddhist and Christian ways of compassion. I am prepared to smack you with this Low D I'm holding whatever your answer may be.

[rh]

http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/thihan/part4.shtml

http://www.plumvillage.org/teachings/Dh ... others.htm

[Doug_Tipple]

http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/thihan/part4.shtml

http://www.plumvillage.org/teachings/Dh ... others.htm

Thank you for causing me to pull this book from my library shelf, where it has remained mostly unread for a number of years. From the the front jacket of the book, I quote:

"When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa." Thich Nhat Hanh

[herbivore12]

Please: Compare and contrast the buddhist and Christian ways of compassion. I am prepared to smack you with this Low D I'm holding whatever your answer may be.

I've sometimes thought about this (maybe not deeply enough to avoid that low D you're holding).

There certainly are parallels. When I was growing up, my primary exposure to religion was to Catholicism, through my maternal grandparents -- I was baptized, not confirmed, but often attended Mass with them -- and it seems to me I heard more often of love and charity, rather than of compassion. Is there a difference? Sometimes I think maybe that Buddhist "compassion" implies a bit more of putting oneself in the place of the other, or recognizing the other as part of whatever it is we're all part of (including part of our self, or no-self), whereas Christianity's emphasis on love and charity might lend itself to recognizing a clear distinction between self and other. I don't know that one view is superior to the other, in the end.

Where a Buddhist might do right by another because he sees no distinction between the two beings involved in the transaction, a Christian may do right, moved by love, *despite* the acknowledged separateness of those beings. (Maybe this is why Buddhists are more likely to tend toward vegetarianism, too, since the concept of compassion extends to all living beings? Because in harming another being, we perceive harm to all, including "self") Again, I'm not sure what difference there is in essence, if both are doing right.

I think Christians talk more about desire and passion (again, IME). Desire to do as God wishes, a real passion for coming to God through Christ. I don't hear about desire and passion so much from Buddhists; in fact I often hear the opposite, a seeking to be as free of them as possible, free of grasping. But does seeking to be free of grasping mean we're not reaching far enough? Again, I'm not sure.

Certainly I'm puzzled by certain fundamentalist Christian positions, which seem to me to be far removed from compassion (the revilement of some sinners, and/or their sins; the emphasis on punishment and repeated warnings of same, ultimate or proximate). I totally, totally understand that the extreme positions are not held by all Christians, by the way. There are Buddhist texts and pamphlets out there that approach that level of intensity in opposing some things that seem to catch fundamentalist Christian ire, too (homosexuality, for one), though I think I've never read such a Buddhist writing that came close to some of the most powerful Christian examples I've seen. I've seen the word "hate" in far more Christian writing than in Buddhist texts. I personally find it hard to think of people holding those positions as "compassionate", though the fire-and-brimstone types on the Christian side might argue that they're practicing a purer compassion in submitting such warnings and perceived justice; and those on the Buddhist side may simply say they're warning one away from certain behaviors in an effort to keep you on the path to enlightenment.

I see that I've not clarified a darned thing.

I only know that extending compassion as far as I can, to as many beings as I can, and feeling so much a part of the world that I don't feel distinct from it (I've had this experience only a few times, while practicing mindfulness) has felt more "right" to me than has feeling myself a distinct individual striving to do right to other distinct individuals in the name of a God that is Himself a distinct person of sorts. But I'm pretty happy seeing people doing right, being compassionate and/or loving and charitable, however they get there. I just know which path seems right to me. And maybe my perception of whether Christians make these clear distinctions is wrong (is it? I'm happy to be put right, if so!)

(As an aside, I've felt less "lonely" -- I don't think "lonely" is right because I didn't really feel an "I" with which to feel lonely, but I can't think of a better word -- when I've felt the loss of self, briefly,as opposed to the scarier kind of feelings Jim described above w/r/t the same experience. He's been practicing much longer than I have, so maybe I don't really know what it's like, or haven't really experienced the phenomenon, but if it's something like the same feeling, Jim and I have perceived it rather differently. So I could be totally wrong about everything above. Probably am! And I'm telling youthis *after* you've read the above - hah!)

Plus I get to more comfortably be a practicing skeptic as an agnostic Buddhist, I think, and that's a plus for a guy who works in the sciences . . . Also, I've just realized it's really hard to talk about Buddhism, and a *lack* of self, in English. It is for me, anyway.

[djm]

This stuff just becomes circular word games. How can you verbalize a non-verbal experience?

People worry that if they were to work towards a Buddhist version of enlightenment that they would no longer feel joy or passion or have goals or whatever. Of course you would still have these things, these feelings. But these are none of them your natural state. They come and go. They are not sought after, nor are they clung to. You do not stop being who you are. But you are working towards not dwelling on any one aspect of yourself.

You do right by others (compassion) because it is clear to you to be the right thing to do, not because someone else told you it was right, and certainly not using someone else's misfortune as an opportunity to "convert" them to your religion (one of my buggaboos with some Christians).

It is sitting.

djm

[rh]

Is Shin Buddhism the same as Christianity?

[jim stone]

Here's the Buddha on metta (loving kindness), which
is actually distinguished from karuna (compassion)--
but we're in the same ball park, plainly.
This describes a meditation practice, in fact,
in which one spends days, even weeks, going
through the part of this sutta in quotes, below.

What should be done by one who's skilled in wholesomeness
To gain the state of peacefulness is this:
One must be able, upright, straight and not proud,
Easy to speak to, mild and well content,
Easily satisfied and not caught up
In too much bustle, and frugal in one's ways,
With senses calmed, intelligent, not bold,
Not being covetous when with other folk,
Abstaining from the ways that wise ones blame,
And this the thought that one should always hold:

'May beings all live happily and safe
And may their hearts rejoice within themselves.
Whatever there may be with breath of life,
Whether they be frail or very strong,
Without exception, be they long or short
Or middle-sized, or be they big or small,
Or thick, or visible, or invisible,
Or whether they dwell far or they dwell near,
Those that are here, those seeking to exist-
May beings all rejoice within themselves.
Let no one bring about another's ruin
And not despise in any way or place,
Let them not wish each other any ill
From provocation or from enmity.'

Just as a mother at the risk of life
Loves and protects her child, her only child,
So one should cultivate this boundless love
To all that live in the whole universe
Extending from a consciousness sublime
Upwards and downwards and across the world
Untroubled, free from hate and enmity,
And while one stands and while one walks and sits
Or one lies down still free from drowsiness
One should be intent on this mindfulness-
This is divine abiding here they say.
But when one lives quite free from any view,
Is virtuous, with perfect insight won,
And greed for sensual desires expelled,
One surely comes no more to any womb.

The Buddha's words
Sutta Nipata