How do I begin being a better Buddhist?
lobster
Veteran
Every system has its own template. Even within a particular tradition there may be a particular systematic methodology - a template for potential development or rather an infrastructure that encourages the conditions for alignment with a path. Bring it on.
Can we find the virtuous emulation of a central figure, prophet or legendary grandee? In Christianity the stress is on the attributes and examples of Christ, in Islam the last Prophet, in Buddhism the Buddha and Sangha. Within a tradition, stylistic templates of practice, behaviour and core values are developed. Well that is what I find . . .
The practice of meditation is often central to the core practice of Buddhism, especially as it is developing and reinvigorating in the West. From this central teaching, the priesthoods, specialised teaching, sangha and dharma inspirations and insights can reinforce and evaluate stages that we individual practioners encounter. The potential progress of the individual becomes dependent on their effort, application and assimilation.
I suppose we can start with honesty and personal integrity. Hypocrisy and meagre efforts are for the other gals and boys . . . We are after all interested in truth, not deluding ourselves. So for example I have a low tolerance for stress. When stressed I get angry. Not good. What do I do? Everything I can; diet, exercise, avoiding toxic situations, people and experiences. This of course also means increasing the real or virtual interaction with good, kind, non angry or anger perpetuating people. If people want to be angry, I do not have to play with my and their buttons. That after all would be unskilful but hey, sometimes I push or get pulled . . .
Or if like @zombiegirl I like playing zombie games, saying OM MANI PEME HUM whilst dispatching them to their next programmed rebirth might be a personal plan . . . Actually I rarely play games at the moment, a better example would be using a mala whilst doing [insert mindless activity].
So what is your practice tip, I am sure you can do better . . . ? 
Comments
Better??????
I am returning to maintaining some attention on my breathing throughout the day.
I do this periodically when I start repeatedly finding my theme less zazen meditation, parked on a chaise lounge.
Acting instead of reacting.
If anger is your besetting sin, breathe deeply twice rather than let the autopilot go ballistic and bite back.
It might fail once, twice, but in the end the notion that anger or any negative emotion as it is should not dictate your agenda will sink in.
At this point, for me, the aspect of “diet and habits” is important.
In the monastery – they say - the cook, right after the Roshi, is the main contributor to the success of a retreat.
Eating healthy, not over-eating, not drinking, sleeping well; they are the simple things that make me more energetic, more relaxed and more stress-tolerant.
When I feel better I am less of a ticking bomb of frustrations.
When I get stressed or tired, I tend to find that an excuse to get sloppy on the habits that are important to me.
I can find myself sometimes in a downward spiral of being stressed and dropping self-discipline en getting stressed even more. Finding back the self-discipline can turn that around.
For me anger is a positive expression BUT not skilful. In other words the suppression of anger was far more unskilful and problematic. Emotion, even primitive emotion has to have its maturing, which I find does not always happen . .
.
What you talk about; 'dictate your agenda' is most relevant, in other words not being master of the option or arising is not the most skilful expression.
So for me it would be better if I could be more attentive, rather than allowing an uncontrolled demon to hurt others or myself. That would allow a more balanced and enabling option. Something I need to work on.
This is where the return to the breath that @how describes would be more skilful and a better option . . . I iz work in progress, just a beginner . . .
One if the mantra’s I picked up and cherish is:
"A statement is only true if the opposite is also true."
It is my antidote to one-sidedness… I hope.
Just in case, it's not about repressing negative emotions, @lobster, either.
As you say, it's about finding the way to make the response skillful.
I have often said that my anger has had more effect on the person that has triggered the emotion when I have taken the time to respond skillfully than when I simply go ballistic and lash out.
But recently, I have retaken a book by Lama Zopa and Lama Yeshe, and they advise you to simply put the Dharma into practice.
It sounds easier said than done, but I'm personally taking baby steps towards that.
Not a huge New Year resolution, rather live it a minute at a time, a problem at a time.
Can you say some more about his please? You may be understanding it slightly differently to me . . .
. . . what you say is useful because positions that can be stated from diametrically opposed positions but considered the truth by the veracious, are not the same as the Middle Way . . . maybe that is partly what you mean?
. . . Perhaps a true statement does not have an opposite?
What I mean is - I suppose – the same thing Ramana said: Don’t believe a single thought.
The truth- without-opposite (the Truth if you like) is not a statement, not a rational claim, not something we can cling to.
My brother was in relation therapy. The therapist asked him about the color of the table (which was clearly white). When my brother told him so, the therapist insisted that the table was black.
When he didn’t succeed in convincing my brother he told him: “Do you understand? This is your problem.”
Knowing anything (or worse everything) absolutely sure is the root of suffering, it is the cause of wars and the reason marriages break up.
A True statement is one that has been verified.
Form day one you are being taught. Then you go to school and they teach you with books. You want the truth in a book. It may even be in the book but you may not understand it. You must verify and give meaning to everything. It is your right. Do not take anyone else's word for it.
I have spent years on sutras. Reading them, then reading them in Sanskrit. Then comes the commentaries. Not one but many different ones. They are from Gurus who are considered high enough to know.
In the end it has to be your commentary. If it is wrong you have to change it. Only your commentary will work for you.
But isn't the whole thrust of Buddhist teaching that suffering arises because we don't see things as they really are? Because we make incorrect assumptions but don't really know the reality?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html
But isn't the whole thrust of Buddhist teaching that suffering arises because we don't see things as they really are?
“Seeing things as they really are” can refer to three or four complex teachings that I can think of instantly:
Seeing the three marks of existence: anicca ,dukkha, anatta.
Having a realization of emptiness.
Realising the identity of relative and absolute.
Suchness (tathata).
“Things as they really are” can easily turn into the subject of scholarly debate; like the color of the table.
“Things as they really are” can easily turn into the subject of scholarly debate; like the color of the table.
Yes it can, but I'm struggling with the table example. If the table is in fact white, then saying it's white doesn't seem like distorted perception or attachment to views or whatever.
@SpinyNorman Yes you're right. The table is white.
I'm chewing on this one too.
The actual color of the table is not the point, it is the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge your perception as crude and limited. I think. @Zenff, I hope you'll chime in
.
Besides, 'color' doesn't exist except as retinal-optical interpretations of the various wavelengths of light. We have no choice but to rely upon our eyes and brain structures to have any awareness at all through our bony skull. It doesn't lend a lot of credence to knowing ANYTHING 'for sure'.
To me, this is a parallel process alongside 'typical relations' to every day life. Of course the table is white, you know? You insist it's black? Yeah, whatevs. The parallel running alongside relaxes my grasping grip, so to speak. Debating white versus black starts seeming . . . very uninteresting, at least to me.
Sorry if I was unclear.
We always think we are right for a good reason (the table really is white).
It takes a masochist or a complete loser to agree with the opposite of what he absolutely knows to be the truth.
I’m talking about the courage to be that masochist and that complete loser.
It may serve the purpose of saving a marriage, or preventing a war.
I think though that the need to be sure about at least some fundamental thing is a need of my ego.
If I lose that, the bottom falls away from under my world, from under me.
If I admit the table is black, I lose my sense of identity, my sense of self.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
You will never be with out the Ego. The Ego is the connection between the self and the illusion. The Ego must see that what you believe will keep you alive. This can either be the body or the self. once it sees it is going to the self it will help rather than hinder.
This is a little confusing @Gregg911, as once you've seen through the ego illusion, you cannot return to the view you once held, as physical/material and spiritual views are not necessarily consistent, and may lead to conflict.
However, in this very moment you are existing in both a physical and spiritual form. How wonderful is that - really? You are essentially the emergence of a physical form in a world that negates everything about you yet accepts that you are a necessary requirement for it's existence - now that is amazing!
Really it is....
Yes it is amazing. The Buddha went into the self with the ego and returned. break though but still more.
no he didn't see anything more than you or I can witness or understand, just sit and see what arises...
...\lol/...
But we both know we can't rely on anything the 'buddha said' because there really is nothing recorded to relay this information on to us, other than what we receive from others!
No so my friend. The record of everything that ever was is written in the self.
eons and eons That is how we can see in the future we just look at the last creation. If you think we are just in a loop you are wrong. We have the power to change the future anytime we want. We change the creation all the time. But it is harder than it sounds.
What the heck does that mean?
No No no - we can only see the now my friend @Greg911 - otherwise you are just in a fruitless loop. There is no self - that is the illusion! eliminate it, and you are truly liberated...
Change is easy; yes, of course you can turn your life around in an instant in some circumstances - its how we deal with the emotional upsets that arise because of the decisions we make that cause problems!
Are you so really in so much control that you can become or change anything ...\lol/...
look forward to being there when you do it! date/time/place grid reference
It means you need to take Buddha's words for truth until you prove it otherwise. Everything else need to be prove first.
Nope. Did that kind of thinking in the Methodist and Catholic Churches. That's why I like Buddhism much more as a philosophy than a religion.
>
Yes you can. Everything we do affects everything. What about the Buddha, Christ the president of the federal reserve. ....
Your Ego will find you. and what is the thread? karma
Thanks guys for the crazy as a fruitcake interlude . . . :cookie:
. . . and now back to the better rather than mind battering . . .
. . . now you are talking. You are referring to personal diplomacy and humility. We are not referring to fruitcake David Icke conspiracy fruit-caking BUT knowing the colour of the table and engaging with the fruit cakes who have masochistic insistence . . .
Perhaps a practical example. It is not unusual for me to deal with the spitually lost, deluded and frankly crazy. They of course feel they are insightful, enlightened, well on the way and seriously un-mad. So for example certain new age, or Buddhist groups (no names to protect the guilty) will propound a sometimes group accepted doctrine that in a clinical setting would be grounds for compulsorary treatment. A tactic I often use is to merge with the absolute extreme implications of their stream of consciousness, sometimes at a tangent . . . for example agreeing the white table is black and asking what is underneath the black tablecloth. Just as the table is not black it has no tablecloth . . .
Another example, perhaps nearer to people's experience: 'no you do not look fat in that' is always the better answer. No exceptions.
We all have these intransigent either/or certainties that @vinlyn has mentioned in other threads. Is the customer always right? What if they are consumers of ignorance? Is it our internet duty to insist on right view?
Goodness! A new thing to do to be a better Buddhist.
When someone is wrong, do nothing. Say nothing.
Then hide around the corner and wait for all the reasons you CAN'T not say or do something to parade by. In my case, it really is a parade. Even has Martin Luther King in it, chiding me for collusion with evil for staying silent. I have a helluva time standing up to Martin Luther King . . .
That is an excellent cartoon, man! (*)
So what is your practice tip, I am sure you can do better . . . ?
Practice, and when you think you've done enough...practice some more!
>
You really don't know what initiate means do you lobster? Would you care to take a stab at it?
I am not lying to anyone.
I must have missed a posting. Where did someone accuse you of lying?
Tee Hee
Challenge accepted!
In most cases it means to barely begin. As in 'she initiated the climb'. It often means, an 'initiate of the mysteries', usually referring to nothing more than cult and club membership . . . [yawn]
An initiate in the real sense, knows who is who and what is hoo ha. Hopefully I failed your knowledge 'test' . . .
. . . and now back to reality . . . just not yours . . .
Wrong, initiation is when they give you the experience. not a book to read not what they think it is. That is all they do you have to find a way to get that experience for yourself. The advantage is you know what you are looking for.
I can see a lesson on attachment to views here, but I'm not sure that primary colours are a very good example. Years ago I was an electrician, and you really do have to be sure about the colour of the wire you're about to cut.
For the purpose of saving a marriage, yes, she is right.
For the purpose of preventing a war, that is too much as it would be a war against truth.
Admitting we're wrong when we are is a very good trait I think. That goes even more so for the emperor fooled into thinking he isn't naked. Eventually some kid is going to yell out "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Then what are we supposed to do with the Galileo's?
Hopefully not burn them like we did with Giordano Bruno...
Oh yeah.
It is for me the central template of overcoming rather than perpetuating personal ignorance and cultural karma. Without independence from our existing template, we reinforce and expound ignorance . . . of varying degrees.
Agendas, affiliations to [insert alignment of choice] and so on. The thrust you mention is engaging an independence from this 'little me' circle we perpetuate through ignorance of the wider being. It is the capacity of introspection, examining our being and holding it to an accountability that is better than our existing mind set. Some of think of this as taking refuge independent of limitations.
@Greg911 why are you here? You seem to not be aligned with Buddhist thinking at all.> @Greg911 said:
That sounds like Akashic records which, in my experience, has nothing to do with Buddhism or Buddhist school of thought.
_ /|\ _
Is it my understanding or yours? It is all right. You doubt the Buddha's words. Because they were not written by him? That is fair. Where do you think the Buddha saw his past? Call it what you like.
It's not that we don't want non-buddhist stuff on the forum, it's that it's a forum for Buddhists and it would help to hear a bit about your sources @Greg911 when what you bring up is from a different school of thought. Actually, people already do this fairly well and of course, within reason. Without explaining a little context, it just sounds like a person who loves to listen to themselves sound vague and mysterious. Perhaps just a word or two such as 'you probably wouldn't understand this anyway' to let us know to not bother trying?
Well my friend what do you think? Do you believe the Buddha saw his PAST? If you don't what you are saying makes sense. If you do then what you are saying doesn't make sense.
If you are saying it doesn't really matter. I would agree. But that is not you position. You are upset because another religion may have found that truth?
@Greg911, when you're asked a reasonable question -- like about your sources -- why not just answer the question instead of turning the question around to evade it?
Which religion are you representing when you say, "You are upset because another religion may have found that truth?"
I don't know much about Buddhist scripture but I seem to recall that at some point Buddha remembered all of his past lives.
It's just stories to me.
But, if one is a believer in scripture, one will have to have a way to explain to themself how he did that.
Now, those memories obviously weren't stored in Buddha's brain, so they must have been somehow imprinted in an individual stream of consciousness that "belonged" to him, or they would not be memories of his lives. I can understand how one could see that as the self containing all memories of that self.
I don't see how that translates into a record of everything that ever was.
That part needs some more backing up IMO.
The truth.
"It's very, very simple: all of samsara and suffering is never more than your current empty thought... That is the essence of Prasangika Madhyamaka liberation."
~Jackson Peterson
There is only one self. We are all the same self. Why do you need a book or any one to prove it? Can't you think for your self?
@Greg911 scripture says that our karma is individual. That is actually an antidote of anger. If my karma is separate than someone else (say 'Bob') then I only have to worry about my behaviour and 'Bob' is responsible for his own karma and outcome. From this example I would say that my anger or karma does not belong to someone else.
@Greg911, 2 more posts and no answers. Until you start actually answering questions that are asked of you, personally I'm going to discount everything you say. If you want to be credible, please answer the questions. No one is refusing to listen, we are just refusing a runaround.
It is. There is no-self that belongs to you, only the Karma. Your Ego does the rest. This is what I think. What do you think?