|
Post by Brandybuck on Oct 28, 2005 19:11:04 GMT -5
~THE FOUR IMMEASURABLE THOUGHTS~
When practicing Dharma, Four Immeasurable Thoughts should areise. These are:
1. IMMEASURABLE EQUANIMITY~being free of the bias of liking some and disliking others, so remaining tranquil and unattached. 2. IMMEASURABLE COMPASSION~ wishing that all beings are freed from suffering. 3. IMMEASURABLE JOY~ in the highest happiness and liberation of all beings. 4. IMMEASURABLE LOVING KINDNESS~ wishing for the happiness of all living beings.
Buddhism does not believe in a supernatural and omnipotent Creator God. Salvation does not come from the intervention of a divine entity. Instead, Buddha's teachings advocate the practice of compassion and loving kindness toward all living beings, combined with meditation practices to develop wisdom. It is the union of compassion and wisdom that leads to liberation and awakening.
Prayers to the buddhas are supplications to receive the wisdom to understand the true nature of reality--what are referred to as "realizations". Every living being possesses buddha-nature. It is by living a moral life, practicing compassion, and meditating on the steps that lead to the awakened mind that can be developed in the high levels of concentration and wisdom, leading to enlightenment.
There are different schools of Buddhist practice, but all traditions focus on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path in order to acheive liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Mayahana Buddhism particularily emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment for the sake of all beings. Compassion and love for others represent the selfless, altruistic attitude that is paramount if you are to reach enlightenment.
~THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS~
1. All conditioned existence is suffering. 2. The causes of suffering arise from the afflictive emotions in our minds (attachment, anger, and ignorance). 3. There is a state in which all suffering has ceased. 4. The way to cease all suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path.
~THE EIGHTFOLD PATH~
1. Having the right understanding. 2. Having the right aspiration. 3. Having the right speech. 4. Having the right conduct. 5. Having the right livelihood. 6. Making the right effort. 7. Developing mindfulness. 8. Developing concentration.
My ending quote for the night comes from Lama Kyabje Zopa Rinpoche, and I dedicate it to Laurasia:
To find happiness and avoid suffering We should learn about those factors that bring happiness so we can practice them, And those factors that bring about suffering So we can avoid them.
|
|
|
Post by Laurasia on Oct 28, 2005 20:30:54 GMT -5
Hi Artanaro & Brandybuck. Thank you, both of you. I think that I understand now. It was just worded ina way that troubled me I suppose. The whole "winning the lottery" analogy really cleared it up for me. I'm reading through everything that you guys have been puting up & all I can say is...wow! This is great stuff, keep it coming. ;D Sincerely, Laurasia
|
|
|
Post by Brandybuck on Oct 28, 2005 21:16:06 GMT -5
Laurasia, Well that is good. I have been trying to find simpler explanations of Buddhism, because a lot of what is written is written with analogies, or written too simply for a beginner trying to understand. Glad I could help.
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Oct 29, 2005 19:56:45 GMT -5
Here is part 1 of the commentary given by Brad Warner on the The GReat Heart of Wisdom Sutra:
Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva
Avalokiteshvara, also called Guanyin or Kwan Yin in Chinese , and Kannon or Kanzeon in Japanese ( Chenrezig in Tibetan, by the way), is one of the main characters in the longer sutra from which the Great heart of Wisdom Sutra is derived. A bodhisattva, in addition to being the subject of songs by both Steely Dan and The beastie boys, is a being who has vowed to put off becoming a full-fledged Buddha until he ( or she, but I'll stick with "he" for now - apologies again to Mom) saves all the beings in the universe. There are loads of legendary tales of Gautama Buddha's supposed previous lifetimes and in those he is often referred to as the Bodhisattva. In ancient Buddhism, it was commonly held - though very much mistaken- belief that only a monk or nun could become a full fledged buddha, and so the category of bodhisattva a being devoted to freeing others rather than just attaining enlightenment for himself, was created as something regular folk could aspire to. Notice that a bodhisattva is, if you really think about it, way cooler than a buddha. It might be said that a buddha selfishly enjoys the pleasures of buddhahood while a bodhisattva puts them off until every other being in the universe enjoys them as well. Which would you rather think of yourself as? The bodhisattva ideal became an important aspect of Mahayana Buddhism. Mayahana means "great vehicle" This movement was a more all encompassing Buddhism than the monastery bound tradition that had developed in the first centuries following Gautama Buddhas death. With the idea that regular folk could become bodhisattvas, the Mahayana sects were able to attract a greater number of followers than the older Buddhist sects which the mahayanists derisively called Hinayana, or "puny girly-man vehicle". Almost all Buddhist sects that still exist today are part of the mahayana tradition. The notable exception is the Theravada school which flourishes in southern asia and has recently made significant inroads into the West. Avalokiteshvara was originally conceived of as male, but representations of him became more and more androgynous until the modern Chinese and Japanese depictions in which almost always Guanyin/Kannon is female. A Buddhist sex change!! She/he/it is the bodhisattva of compassion. Compassion, mind you, isnt the same as mere love. Religions always talk about love. But to a Buddhist, love is second rate - if that. Compassion is far more important. Compassion is the ability to see what needs doing right now and the willingness to do it right now. Sometimes compassion may even mean doing nothing at all. Lots of loving people in this world go way out of their way to "try to help"- but often they do more harm than good. Stupid helpfulness is not compassion either.
More to come....enjoy! Artanaro
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Oct 29, 2005 22:00:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brandybuck on Oct 30, 2005 19:43:37 GMT -5
Artanaro That link you put up was indeed interesting..I never thought of Frodo in those perspectives. I agree with what was said about compassion ...because showing compassion is always good for your karma.
|
|
|
Post by Laurasia on Oct 30, 2005 20:00:49 GMT -5
Hi Artanaro. I also want to thank you for putting up that link, very interesting. Sincerely, Laurasia
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Oct 30, 2005 22:24:32 GMT -5
Commentary cont. Prajna Paramita As mentioned above, this little verse is actually a part of a much longer sutra. personally I've never read the whole thing. In fact, aside from the really geeky pocket protector academic types, you'll find very few Buddhists have actually personally read the entire sutra. This section is called the Great Heart of Wisdom Sutra, or just the Heart Sutra for short. It's called the heart because it contains the core teaching of the whole sutra. It's written in traditional Mahayana sutra style, namely as a purported dialogue between Avalokiteshvara adn Gautama Buddha's disciple Shariputra, with Gautama himself hanging out in the background meditating and only emerging toward the end of the piece to say "Right on 'bro!" Actually , though, its commonly agreed by scholars that the sutra did not appear until about 500 years after Gautamas death, and Avalokiteshvara in this context is a completely mythical character. By today's definition, we would have to classify all the Mahayana sutras as works of fiction. This is another major point where Buddhism differs from religions. All religions firmly insist on the historical accuracy of their texts, however dubious that insistence may be. Buddhism, however, doesnt care either way. It is the meaning of the texts right here and now in our lives that is important- and that has nothing to do with mere historical veracity. Prajana is intuitive wisdom, and it has nothing at all to do with knowledge. Prajna aint about book learning. The word intuition is used a lot these days to refer to a kind of gut feeling, and thats something like what prajna is - but its more than that : its a direct knowing. Youre thinking with body and mind together. Regular thinking is only mental action, but prajna includes the physical as well. Its also a mistake to regard prajna as emotional. Emotion itseld can often be a kind of confusion. Once a feeling becomes so strong we start calling it an emotion, its already become too powerful to deal with in any clear eyed manner. Prajna includes feeling, but its feeling on a more subtle level. Think about anger. Everyone experiences a flash of anger welling up in some circumstance or other. But anger can only continue to grow when its fed by thought. Prajna is the wisdom to notice anger befor it becomes a problem, to see clearly why you feel angry and what that feeling of anger really is (and is not). This goes much deeper than just saying " I'm angry because he called me a panty-waste with carburetor breath." [shall that be censored ?! ] Why does an insult make you angry? Who is the "you" that has been insulted? What is the "you" that can get angry. Prajna is the wisdom to get at the very root of any emotional response. Prajna is developed through the practice of zazen (meditation). The word paramita essentially means "highest" (though it has other meanings as well), so in this context we simply read "prajna paramita" as the highest wisdom, the highest prajna. Shariputra Shariputra, as Ive said, was one of Gautama Buddhas most advanced students. He was a guy with such a particularly clear grasp of the subtle teachings about "emptiness" so lots of sutras have Buddha addressing him or answering his questions. Many of the earliest sutras from the ancient Pali canon compiled after Gautama's death are almost certainly trascripts of actual talks between the two men, but in the Mahayana sutras both Gautama and Shariputra have basically become legendary figures, characters in the unfolding of the dialogue. by Brad Warner I love his style ...A very unique way to present the dharma I think... More to come..... Enjoy Artanaro
|
|
|
Post by Brandybuck on Oct 31, 2005 15:10:06 GMT -5
LOL! I laughed so bad when I read this line. I too love this guy's style when discussing the sutras.
|
|
|
Post by Laurasia on Oct 31, 2005 16:17:55 GMT -5
Hi Artanaro. LOL! Brandybuck is right, that tickled me as well. ;D I've often been told to deal with my anger in similar ways as looking for the actual root cause of my anger. However when I become angry I'm simply not able to step away from it enough to do that at that time. It is usually only later on that I can reflect & think about the real reason for my anger. No, that's fine sweety. Sincerely, Laurasia
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Oct 31, 2005 23:12:14 GMT -5
Five Skandhas
Buddhists do not accept the existence of a soul, some unchanging thing that is somehow "the essence" of a person. Instead they see a human being as a composite if five skandhas. The word skandha literally means "heap". Imagine a heap of junk : take away all the individual pieces of junk that make up the heap and the heap is gone. There is no "heap essence" or "heap soul" aside from the pieces of junk on the heap. In Buddhism, the five "heaps" that make up a person are these : form, feelings, perceptions, impulses toward actions (and the actions themselves) and consciousness. The denial of the idea of a soul is central to Buddhist understanding. Gautama Buddha was responding to the Indian idea of atman. This idea says that a little piece of God, called the atman exists within each one of us, and that this atman is eternally seperated from the body. The JUdeo-Christian idea of a soul is pretty much the same except that the sould is seen by the Jews and Christians as being eternally seperate not just from the physical body but from God as well. It can go hang out with God, but can never merge with God as can the atman in the Hindu view. Gautama Buddha looked carefully and exhaustively and could see no reason to accept the permanent existence of anything that could be called self or soul or atman. This is the basis of the teaching of anatman "no self" - which has been verified by generation after generation of Buddists for 2,500 years. Nothing in the universe is permanent - and the thing we call "self" is no different. by Brad Warner
That was part three
Namarie Artanaro
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Nov 1, 2005 11:16:21 GMT -5
Form is Emptiness
Emptiness is the single most misunderstood word in all of Buddhism. The original Sanskrit word for this is shunyata, which ultimately points to the as-it-is-ness of things, the state of things being as they are without being colored by our views and ideas. But really, no matter how you define this word, it is still used to express something for which there simply were and are no adequate words, definitions, or concepts. The set of tools were given to write about Buddhism are simply not up to the task. Nor were they up to the task 2,500 years ago. Emptiness is not a nihilistic concept of voidness. Emptiness is not meaninglessness. Emptiness is that condition which is free from our conceptions and our perceptions. Its the world as it is before we come along and start complaining about the stuff we dont like.
Nishijima translates the famous line "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" as "Matter is immaterial, the immaterial is matter". John Lennon expressed te same idea is Everybody's Got Something to Hide EXcept for Me and My Monkey.: "Your inside is out and your outside is in". The world we perceive and the thing that perceives the world are one and the same. Another modern Indian teacher, a guy named Krishnamurti, was fond of saying "The observer is the observed"
This all sounds pretty weird to most people who begin to study Buddhism;it sounds so bizarre as to seem meaningless. But it is really a ver concrete statement. I may , in fact be the most concrete, most clear statement you can possibly make. This book is you, you are this book. Reality is you , you are reality. It's like the scene in David Cronenberg's movie The Fly. Having subjected himself to a scientific experiment involving teleportation, Professor Brundle (played by Jeff Goldblum) gets his molecular structure combined with that of a fly that gets into the machinery. Brundle becomes progressively more and more flylike both physically and mentally. As he comes to terms with this, even begins to revel in it, he starts referring to himself as "Brundlefly". He understands the two - the fly and Brundle- are really one, but language cant handle that concept. Same deal here. Its not "you" and the "universe". Its "universeyou". The matter of matter and its relationship tomind is one of the most interesting aspects of Buddhism. Buddhist ideas about mind and matter are at once very much at odds with most Western philosophy, as well as the "commonsense" interpretaion, and also similar in many ways to the notions being expressed by cutting-edge physicists and neuroscientists. I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune called "All in your head" by science writer Ronald Kotulak. In it , he says " The starting point for consciousness may be the universe, which many physicists believe is made of information. The things we see as matter and energy are really information being transformed from one state to another." The human brain cant deal with all the information available, the article continues, so it transforms sensory input into what scientists call neural correlates of consciousness (or in the lingo NCC'c) , symbolic forms that it can work with more easily. He goes on to quote Piero Scaruffi, a lecturer at Caltech, who says, " Consciousness is no more magic than electricity. We can study consciousness if we can study the particles that give rise to it." In effect what Scaruffi is saying is simply "emptiness is form". But the understanding that form is emptiness seems to elude him - as it does most scientists. In the same article Kotulak mentions that in order for scientists to investigate consciousness, "They must first work their way through the thicket of the unconscious mind. It sees things before we are aware of them. We duck a surprise blow, jump out of the way of a speeding car......Some experts estimate that 90 percent of the brain's workings are at the uncouscious level" In fact, as nueroscience is beginning to realize, we can never really seperate the conscious and the uncouscious. Science is at the verge of understanding the problem, yet, by and large scientists are unable to make the intuitive leap that Gautama Buddha made millenia ago to see how to resolve the contradiction. As a culture we're beginning to see that we cannot comprehend the universe through the symbols of the conscious mind alone. Yet the idea that the practice of zazen can directly allow a true understanding of the universe to emerge is somehow too strange for Western science and philosophy to come to grips with. It seems to mystical, too weird. The insights to be had through the long, boring practice of zazen, though, are available to anyone at all who commits to the practice - including you. These insights have been empirically confirmed by the process of Dharma Transmission from teacher to student for thousands of years. "Dharma Transmission" sounds like fanatical religious conversion, doesnt it? Maybe even brainwashin : Your teacher believes it, you listen to him long enough and you begin to believe it too. But seeing reality is not a matter of absorbing a set of beliefs that have been handed down to you. Hers's an analogy (its a little far-fetched but the point is there so bear with me) : Imagine a person who's been blind since birth suddenly gaining the ability to see. Now the formerly blind person and any sighted person can immediately agree that , for instance, oak leaves in summer are basically the same as the color as grass. But another blind person listening might assume that they'd just arbitrarily agreed upon a shared, groundless belief. A real Buddhist teacher is like someone who is no longer blind. Practicing zazen is like gradually (or maybe not so gradually) getting you sight back. Dharma Transmission is what happens when you sight clears enough that you can see what your teacher and the Buddha have already seen : things as they are. The major difference between the ideas proposed by scientists and those proposed by Buddhists stems from the fact that scientists want to understand things through analytical thought alone. Buddhists realize that any true understanding of the relationship between mind and matter must include intuitive understanding that involves the whole mind - couscious and subconscious- as well as the body and ultimately every piece of the universe itself. This kind of understanding cannot be expressed symbolically in words used in the usual way. To the extent that it can be expressed symbolically, the phrase "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form"really is as clear as it gets. by Brad Warner
Wow that was quite a bit... I love the way Brad expresses and explains Dharma ....its very down to earth..
Namarie Artanaro
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Nov 1, 2005 18:32:21 GMT -5
Here is more:
Suffering, Origination, Stopping, Path
This phrase represents the four noble truths outlined by Gautama Buddha in his first talks after his own enlightenment experience. The usual understanding is that the first truth is that all life suffers. Gautama Buddha actually used the word dukkha, a word in the Pali language meaning something more like "unsatisfactory experience". The second noble truth is traditionally interpreted as saying that the origination of suffering is desire. The third truth is usually understood to say that stopping desire leas to the stopping of suffering. The fourth is the truth of the Right Way, leads to the stopping of desire. The eight "folds" are these : right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Lemme give you my takes on these truths.
The first noble truth , suffering, represents idealism. When you look at things from a idealistic viewpoint everything sucks. Nothing can possibly live up to the ideals and fantasies youve created. So we suffer because things are not the way we think they ought to be. Rather than face what really is, we prefer to retreat and compare what we're living through with the way we think it oughta be. Suffering comes from the comparison between the two. Even physical suffering works like this. I saw this fact clearly for myself about a year ago when I passed a kidney stone, allegedly the most painful experience a person can actually survive. I dont know about that, but I can tell you that the pain was astoundingly bad. And yet when I stopped comparing what I thought I ought to feel like (namely, free from pain) to what I actually felt like (namely, in enormous pain), things became far better. It still HURT, dont get me wrong. But if youre not trying to run away from the unavoidable he** of suffering, if you just let it be, your whole experience is transformed utterly. The Buddhist author and nun Pema Chodron calls this transformation "the wisdom of no escape".
This leads to the second noble truth, the origination of suffering : our wish that things be different from what they are when they cannot possibly be. Things can never be other than what they are. This moment can never be other than it is. So the "desire" often spoken of by Buddhist teachers isnt just the fact that we desire that big car or that busty redhead with the nose-ring or that hunky guy who delivers for Domino's. Everyone has desires. We cant live without them . Nor should we. The problem isnt that we have natural desires and needs. Its that we have a compulsive (and ultimately stupid!) desire for our lives to be something other than what they actually are. We have a world in our minds that we call "perfect" and a world in front of us (and within us) that cant possibly match that image. The problem is the way we let our desires stand in the way of our enjoyment of what we already have. Is this confusing? The world within can be quite distinct from what our brain wants it to be. The brain is often in conflict with itself. Youre depressed but you want to be happy. Youre horny and you want to have self control. Youre scatterbrained but you want to be focused. The second noble truth was never supposed to be taken to mean that our natural desires are evil and should be eliminated. Gautama had already tried that path as a ascetic yogi. After trying to abstain from all of his desires (including the desire to eat), he found himself thin and weak and miserable- and no closer to enlightenment than he had been when he started out (although he was way closer to Corpseville). He broke his fast by accepting a bowl of rice from a milkmaid who was taking it to the temple as an offering to one of the gods. Only after acknowledging and accepting his natural human desire for food and regaining his natural strength was he able to embark upon the practice that culminated in his enlightenment. Such a person would not be likely to preach that natural desire itself is the cause of suffering.
The third noble truth, stopping suffering, represents action in the present moment. its not that we force ourselves to stop having desires. Taht wouldnt solve anything and its impossible anyhow. Trying to force yourself not to desire just brings up more desires (not the least of which is the desire not to desire). Youll often hear religious-type people saying "The only thing that I desire is desirelessness" Sinead O'Connor has an album called I Do Not Want What I Havent Got. The only state in which you dont want what you dont have is death. Maybe Sinead was trying to start a "Sinead is dead" rumor. You desire a Jaguar XKR but youve got a Chevy S***box (this is a car Chevy made awhile ago - it wasnt very popular at the time, but a lot of people drive them now) . When you want to go to the supermarket, what makes more sense: sitting there and wishing you had that Jag or getting in you S***box and actually driving? If you have desires, leave them as they are and do what needs to be done. Maybe you wish youd bought that new Ken Wilber book instead of this one. Well, theres no accounting for taste, but this is what you spent your money on so you may as well finish it. Ultimately, the noble eightfold path is reality itself. To act according to the noble eightfold path is to act in accordance with reality. And thats all. By Brad Warner
|
|
|
Post by Brandybuck on Nov 1, 2005 18:55:04 GMT -5
artanaro,, Thank you so much for helping me with this thread..I see that between the two of us, this thread has become the success story that I intended it to be. People are learning the real story of the Buddhist religion, and are no longer seeing it as having no emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Lomelindo on Nov 1, 2005 18:57:44 GMT -5
indeed...And I love the way Brad Warner just blasts those misconceptions out of the water ..... Buddhism does not equal nihilism..
namarie Artanaro
|
|