You Cannot Step into the Same River Twice Options

[0Oneiros0]

Atheists make people irresponsible. They make people synonymous with vegetables.

Really? Come now, this does not tally with what we experience in real life.

[0moksha0]

Atheists make people irresponsible. They make people synonymous with vegetables.

Really? Come now, this does not tally with what we experience in real life.

I'm not sure if I agree with that line 100% myself, sorry if that hurt your feelings. however having been an atheist myself for a number of years and having read a ton of atheistic literature I find that most are hung up on disbelief in the same manner as theists are hung up on belief, disbelief and belief are two sides of the same coin. the buddha's efforts were to free you from both and to become a gnostic, a knower on your own through direct experience and perception without belief or disbelief. until you see with your own eyes you are hung up on one of these sides not really knowing. and I may add that an agnostic is much more honest than an atheist in my opinion. belief and disbelief in god is hypothetical. when you know something directly an hypothesis is not needed, I don't hypothesize that the sun exists, I don't hypothesize that this forum exists. belief and disbelief both are really guesswork even if they contain elaborate philosophical doctrines surrounding them.


metta

[angrezi]

Buddhism doesn't offer you an outlook on life for example say someone is looking for an outlook on life, so they go read a shopenhauer book and then that is their outlook. Or they read Prabhupada's ideas about the meaning of life and the correct way to live, and then that becomes their meaning, and every prabhupada disciple has the same answers to these big questions: the meaning of life is to serve radha krishna. So if one is looking for answers to the big questions buddhism is not the place to go. Buddhism even considers getting attached to those big questions as an obstacle to the path and a materialist approach to religion.  .

I both agree and disagree with this.

Admittedly I am not well versed in Buddhism, but I do know enough to say that anyone who says 'this is the Buddhist philosophy' or 'that is the Buddhist outlook' is probably wrong. It is akin to saying 'this is the Hindu philosophy' on such and such a topic. It's just not possible to deduce. There are a myriad of approaches in Buddhism. And each offers a definite and unique outlook, practice, and lifestyle.

Tibettan and Vajrayana is admittedly influenced by Hindu Tantra, Yoga and B'on. Ch'an by Taoism, Shinto in Japan, Thervada likely by Samkya, Pureland by who knows what (I have read Christianity), and some in some regions by mixtures of two or more of the above. THere are even sub-sects of the above that are extinct or mostly extinct, some involving Chineese tantra (imported from India) and more animist beliefs.

I just wonder how those of us who have not formally studied within one of the actual Buddhist traditions can confidently say what Buddhism is, and if we have, still if we could confidently say what Buddhism is, if you get my meaning. Not that what people are saying is wrong, I like what Eva and Moksha say, it just makes me wary because "Buddhism" (in actual practice) is just as varied as 'Hinduism' although unlike 'Hindusim' I guess it's not supposed to be in theory.

I have a friend and neighbor who is a Vietnameese Buddhist monk. He says Americans think they practice zen, but zen is a complete lifestyle practiced by monks, not once a week meditation and book reading. He declines offers to speak at the local zen center. I personally wonder if there is a 'western Buddhism' in formation wherein the lack of set doctrine, ultimate freedom, and other concepts being discussed are more the emphasis, rather than ritual and practice. Not that it is a bad thing. I just wonder if particularly western people are attracted more by their own intellectual understanding of what Buddhism is, than what has been actually practiced in Asia for the past roughly 1500 years, and how (or if) those are connected.

I'm not trying to knock western Buddhists at all. They are certainly no more bogus or bonafide than western Hindus. These are just some thoughts on the subject.

[evakurvan]

Angrezi if you look you will see I had edited out the last two sentences in that thing you quoted from me because I don't like them, so you can remove them!

P.S. What was the Buddhist forum?

[angrezi]

Angrezi if you look you will see I had edited out the last two sentences in that thing you quoted from me because I don't like them, so you can remove them! (More later).

P.S. What was the Buddhist forum?

OK I edited em out. The forum is E-sanga : http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=idx
,I think.

[0moksha0]

He says Americans think they practice zen, but zen is a complete lifestyle practiced by monks, not once a week meditation and book reading

that sounds a bit far fetched to me, the buddha himself had lay diciples, that's like saying gaudiya vaishnavism is only for renunciates. I'm surprised you even took that seriously. most lay buddhists I know practice meditation twice a day or at least one a day.


metta

[angrezi]

He says Americans think they practice zen, but zen is a complete lifestyle practiced by monks, not once a week meditation and book reading

that sounds a bit far fetched to me, the buddha himself had lay diciples, that's like saying gaudiya vaishnavism is only for renunciates. I'm surprised you even took that seriously. most lay buddhists I know practice meditation twice a day or at least one a day.


metta

If you read Zen stories such as the book "zen flesh, zen bones" they are all concerning monks and the occasional nuns. I have never read any traditional zen story regarding a layperson.

I (nor he) never said that laypersons do not practice meditation. That is the whole point, zazen is a name for meditation. Zen is a lifestyle that was traditionally monastic, and envolved communal meals, walking meditation, gardening etc. 24/7. I have been on three day zen 'retreats' and that was the lifestlye, all the way down to cerimonially washing one's eating bowl with tea after each meal. In Vietnam laypeople practice a mixture of Pureland and "mindfulness" meditation.

On the contrary I would compare zen to astanga-yoga, and GV to Pureland, as more suitable for laypersons.

To say someone who is practicing a few minutes of meditation every day is practicing zen, is like saying that someone who takes a yoga class a couple of times a week is a yogi ....

This post has been edited by angrezi: Sep 14 2005, 04:30 PM

[0moksha0]

To say someone who is practicing a few minutes of meditation every day is practicing zen, is like saying that someone who takes a yoga class a couple of times a week is a yogi

whoever said they were practicing a few minutes a day? many people are very regular in their practice for 1/2 hour up to an hour at a time, twice a day with weekly satsang as well. I think that is a very practical realistic practice for westerners who have families and who have to work. your saying they receive no benefit, that it is not positive for their life to sit twice a day? is that funny too?

what is your practice?

[angrezi]

To say someone who is practicing a few minutes of meditation every day is practicing zen, is like saying that someone who takes a yoga class a couple of times a week is a yogi

whoever said they were practicing a few minutes a day? many people are very regular in their practice for 1/2 hour up to an hour at a time, twice a day with weekly satsang as well. I think that is a very practical realistic practice for westerners who have families and who have to work. your saying they receive no benefit, that it is not positive for their life to sit twice a day? is that funny too?

what is your practice?

I think you are reading alot into what I say to argue... and that I think is funny... .

My friend's point was that to attain enlightenment in the practice of zazen one must spend many hours daily in meditation. Pureland is the Buddha's mercy for people who are busy with families, work, etc. and will go to commune with Budhhas in their next life to complete the voyage.

You seem a little irratable moksha, maybe we should take a meditation break . I never bashed meditation, I do it myself. The only difference is I understand that I will likely not achieve enlightenment in this life by my brief meditation, and that is the aim (essentially) of zen practice. metta

[0moksha0]

not irritable just confused by how many times in this thread you say how you don't know much about buddhism and now are explaining it to us.

Pureland is the Buddha's mercy for people who are busy with families

what do the theravadins or tibetan's think about that or dogen for that matter.

[0moksha0]

Atheists make people irresponsible. They make people synonymous with vegetables.

Really? Come now, this does not tally with what we experience in real life.

Oneiros sorry to bring this up again, don't want to hurt any feelings. but I looked at this statement by osho once more and it made me laugh out loud real hard. he has that effect on me. sometimes he just said things to engage you in some reaction. a real shock jock buddha.

metta

[evakurvan]

I sometimes feel Prabhupada is doing this too. I posted a video clip somewhere on the forum where I think he is doing this.

[0moksha0]

I sometimes feel Prabhupada is doing this too. I posted a video clip somewhere on the forum where I think he is doing this.

thanks evakurvan sometimes we need high voltage jolts and the ability to laugh a bit at the absurd.

[evakurvan]

Don't thank me, I was talking about Prabhupada!!

[0moksha0]

I thank you anyway.


metta

[angrezi]

not irritable just confused by how many times in this thread you say how you don't know much about buddhism and now are explaining it to us.

Why the confusion? I speak what I have heard and yes, I don't feel like it is much, but maybe that is just my humility attained through realization metta

[evakurvan]

I will write something when my head is clear because I feel if I write anything now it will be embarassingly long in length and I sensed the upcoming turmoil but please don't remain with this shallow interpretation of the posts that Buddhism must therefore be an anything-goes free-for-all. I have already spoken against this on another thread, one name for it is Beat Zen. Even the contemptible Alan Watts (!) the most non-Asian and popularizing of them all speaks against this (even though he is a Beat Zennist himself)! It is just that when talking to Gaudiya-backround people or others of similar backround or people with product-oriented or computer-coding approaches, who take religion as a puzzle, the very real and very *indigenous* 'no set doctrine' aspect of Buddhism tends to get lost that's why it needs to be emphasized.

This is not a motivated condescension I have said something like this before and it was taken wrongly I do not intend to place people in fixed boxes, almost everyone including me tends to approach this wrongly because that is how we learn new things in school and are trained to think about things in our everyday lives .

However, when talking to general people about buddhism what needs to be emphasized is the extreme discipline and rules behind it because they tend to have these free-for-all notions very ingrained from reading too much Jack Kerouac, so they turn the Fourth Noble Truths into their own melange of personal philosophy without much care for the phenomenology of Buddhism.* I have even made a joke about this in that thread of funny Buddhist terms there is an actual term for such self-made Western Buddhism. Buddhism if anything has more rules than even the apparently more conservative Gaudiyaism, and I would have to say it is because there is so much nonstop sadhana involved that without these kind of rules as supportive anchors you will not be able to function.

[ To add, it seems there was a misunderstanding that 'no set dogma' refers to the fact that there are many schools of Buddhism. This is not the mood of that teaching though I guess you can also apply it to that. ] Will resume later...
______________________
* Dharma = Teaching.
* Phenomenology of Buddhism = Understanding Buddhism within its cultural milieu as opposed to interpreting it using analytical paradigms that are foreign to its culture.

I am directly reacting to a recent particular post that prompted me to respond now it has been removed or something because I can't see it anymore so if at places I seem to be responding to ghosts this is why.

This post has been edited by evakurvan: Sep 15 2005, 10:23 AM

[evakurvan]

Just about this puzzle-like approach of aims, ends, goals, answers and product (over process). No the aim is not to attain enlightenment in this life, in fact if you have this aim when you meditate your zazen eventually becomes completely useless.

[evakurvan]

Yes I am obviously aware there are many schools of Buddhism but I am still going to say Buddhism. Most Buddhist practitioners do not get hung up on that because the point you are trying to make is an obvious given to them and this is just one convention, like the commentators and poets who write "the Dharma* is..." or "Original Mind is..." The intention or mood is automatically understood by the audience although I can see why such a way of speaking appears as wrong and generalizing to another kind of audience.

Of course when I was studying Buddhism in university I had to take an intro survey class the class was divided into many different parts each part representing one school of Buddhism, and then you learn the next school and how that next school differs. The teacher who taught this way edited an encyclopedia of Buddhism this is why I tend to call this style encyclopedic. It is one way to talk and good to know but not that fun and not generally a practitioner's cup of tea . You can probably understand all Buddhisms better by going really deep into any one of the schools as opposed to trying to sort out the differences and similarities in the doctrines between each school.

So if I have to say which school I am speaking from it is the Mahayana Zen flavour. To illustrate, nothing that I am saying here is even remotely close to how a Pure Lander would say things. Nevertheless, Pure Land and Zen are subschools of the same school:Mahayana! Isn't that funny the two most opposing schools are under the same Vehicle. And you will find Zen people conversant with Pure Land, there is no question of not associating with another Buddhist school in case it contaminates your mood. In fact being unable to hear a philosophy that contradicts your own because it agitates you is most likely not going to be considered a good thing. Although I understand why this is necessary at certain stages in Bhakti it is like being married but going on dates with other people.

[evakurvan]

He says Americans think they practice zen, but zen is a complete lifestyle practiced by monks, not once a week meditation and book reading. He declines offers to speak at the local zen center.

It is true Zen is a total lifestyle that takes over, not something to fit into slots and pay for when needed which is why I reacted so uncomfortable in the questions for Subal thread since that motif does not agree with my own conditionning. Also Zen is not something to go into to make your life sublime and feel bliss, or improve your productivity at work, or relieve stress during especially stressful periods. You go out of desperation not because you want to but because there is no other choice, no other way. In the tradition it is not the adherents who try to get people to practise by saying how great it is but it is the people who seek out and ask to be taught by an adherent who usually says something to discourage them and describe it as boring hard work that leads no where. You are not there to pine for wisdom, even if you may start out that way. It is not because there is no joy in Zazen it is just a matter of approach. Many Zen centers are lame just because a place calls itself Zen Center doesn't necessarily mean anything, even if there are Asian monks there.