Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
To those who wonder about the basics of Buddhism
Mountains
Veteran
Great quote:
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Please don't spoil an otherwise good thread with your excessive editorializing.
How does the abuse involved in "destroying the ego" fit in with that?
Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche, the Bhutanese filmmaker, when asked about that particular source of abuse, chirped cheerfully in an interview with "Enlightenment Not" mag, that once the ego is eliminated, there's nothing there to experience the abuse. How convenient for the abusers! Where is this legendary religion of kindness? I only see it in the Dalai Lama. (And in our members here.)
(Sorry SherabDorje, but it's true in my experience. The DL is the only apple in the barrel who demonstrates kindness.)
He ( Dalai Lama )is who he is , of what might he think he is , of who might he believe he is but to associate him in Buddhism in any possible way , of all possible manner is perhaps not appropriate .
To regards his talk , his act , his cry as referral to what a Buddhist should do is wrong . He is a human searching well in his own purification can be learned by me or you but NEVER in any possible way makes him think he is a teacher .
I respect Dalai Lama as a living same as other human or virus but to place him greater than other living ...in my current awareness I still cant ....I am sorry sir
Just learning from someone that I want to believe is ONE OF MY MASTER.........
no one believes me when i say this but ive been saying this for many many years before i even knew the lama said it..
its good though. cheers for the post.
@caz Good point. It's oversimplifying it to call it a religion of kindness. It's also a religion of mindfulness. A religion of non-attachment, and a lot more. On the other hand, how do we know that some of the people going around practicing the simplicity of kindness aren't great realized beings? Maybe they're bodhisattvas. I think Jeffrey's onto something. Practicing compassion and kindness purifies the heart and prepares the mind for acceptance of no-self, and higher realizations.
Yes, people who practice at home and study on their own aren't affected by misconduct issues in the sanghas, that is true. That's why I'm back to studying/practicing on my own.
Kind regards
it is not easy to _really_ practice kindness (metta) with utter integrity of intention, thought and sincerity (not just superficial acts for show or when one feels like it) - its work and requires serious practice and development. it is as much a practice of discipline and attention as any other and has deep and profound effects on the flexibility of the personality - changes therein make the impermanence of identity obvious in direct experience. try sometime to be sincerely kind to and really _like_ (without faking it or kidding yourself) someone you , eh, don't like.. the dynamics of this practice will quickly be clear and hopefully its power as well.
in sharing this (and the practice of dana) i have begun to realize that it is probably the most important thing for the self-centered western psyche as well as the most beneficial for society at large (and hence all living beings); this is to say that not only is it a possible path to nibbana, but it may even be the best one for the west. imho
for a particularly scholarly look at the same idea that i ran into a couple of days ago, here is a paper by one of the foremost scholars of the pali canon: Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism also by Richard Gombrich.
peace.
reading this carefully i find not the usual interpretation (which i believe to be a tibetan philosophical tool adopted later) that one must experience "emptiness" (i have heard this called the "highest teaching" ..) but rather i find a way to use the notion that experience that is in the mind does not have substance, ie. it is empty. the sutta suggests a method of employing this attitude first to remembered events/experiences and realizing that they are not directly perceivable whereas the current physical "reality" _is_ - they can thus be dismissed and the attention focused on current sensory data. in the next step one applies the same process to various levels of conceptual perception of the current experience until ... well, everything conceptual is eventually eliminated. eh, i am being a little brief here - but it seems to me that here "emptiness" is used as a commonly understood concept that can be employed to reach "abiding in emptiness" .. this implies that there is no real esoteric meaning here - the average person must understand the concept to be able to employ it in the technique. this, to my mind, is a far more practical and accessible practice that is described (as they are so often in the pali) in detailed recipe-like fashion such that a normal person can go through the steps and experience the result (and therefor the ineffable experience of "abiding in emptiness") for themselves.
in this interpretation, "entry into emptiness" is merely another way to try to point towards the moon, if you will - to guide the student towards a direct experience of release and direct perception. this is in contrast to the idea that "direct knowledge of emptiness" is some sort of magical necessity, highest teaching or requirement - on this view, in fact, some may experience nibbana and never even have the word "emptiness" associated with that experience; this is merely one contemplative technique that may work for some, may not for others.
as for the assumption that metta and dana are insufficient for fully uprooting the mental habits - this is controversial and opinions differ; i only state my own tentative opinion as based on my own experience and what support i find in the record of dhamma. i believe, based on practice, that these are very powerful practices that are frequently overlooked - and dismissed as sort of "formalities" that one might do for for "good merit" or such. in fact, i have noticed in my own person how sincere dedication to these practices _does_ change and uproot mental habits (kilesa) - in fact i have kept journals detailing the developments to be sure that my observations are not a current delusion
in closing i would say that debating doctrine, while it may help clarify concepts and approaches will not settle the matter - sincere experimentation is what is called for and then observing the results of the experiment for oneself. this alone can cultivate confirmed faith.
peace, i wish you well.
DD - you are well versed in dhamma, i notice this in many responses - i am surprised that you have not encountered and/or deeply considered the second factor of awakening: dhamma-vicaya - analysis of phenomena or inquiry into dynamics. this is a critical function and necessary to avoid delusion, misunderstanding and contributes to awakening. ... do i detect a touch of aversion to intellectual effort? according to very good sources, this will hinder your progress; i encourage you to investigate this matter further.
all in kindness.
Unfortunately, "educated" people all across the world have proven that simple teachings from any field (especially religion) can be made into long and complicated arguments.
"...no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy..."
I don't always agree with HHDL, but this quote is solid.
"...the philosophy is kindness."
No physics degree required to understand or practice that.
Great thread topic, Mountains!
when Gombrich said DN 13 (Tevijja Sutta) describes the path the Nirvana, he had no idea about what he was talking about. the Tevijja Sutta describes the path to Brahma or the heavenly world, which is also described the same way in MN 97 but also differentiated from the path to Nirvana in MN 97
Richard Gombrich is not a Buddhist nor a practising Buddhist nor has correct understanding
with metta
thus emptiness is similar to anatta (not-self), albeit being more profound
as the Buddha instructed in his 2nd sermon, the realisation of not-self is a prerequisite for nibbana. similarly, the realisation of emptiness is a prerequisite for nibbana
of the many Pali suttas about emptiness, only MN 121 departs from this definition. only MN 121 offers the literal meaning of 'emptiness'.
however, MN 121 does not say "all things are empty". MN 121 separates what is "empty" from what is "not empty".
thus MN 121 is not a definitive discourse on emptiness because the Buddha has taught all things whatsoever are empty. rather, MN 121 is simply employing a teaching device the Pali suttas unambiguousy state emptiness is something experienced. for example, in MN 151, the Buddha questions Sariputta about his meditative abiding and Sariputta answers he was abiding in emptiness (sunnata vihara)
emptiness is certainly the "highest teaching" (amongst similar "highest teachings"). for example, MN 43 lists four kinds of liberation of mind, namely, loving-kindness (limitless), nothingness, signless and emptiness. however, the end of MN 43 states the unshakeable liberation of mind via emptiness is the highest and best
similarly, MN 121 states the final emptiness is "unsurpassed" (the highest) MN 121 is not about eliminating 'conceptuality'. it is about entering more subtle states of non-conceptual (immaterial) concentration until the mind reaches "unsurpassed" voidness, namely, void of sensuality, void of becoming (self-views) and void of ignorance
the purpose of MN 121 is to differentiate the 'non-conceptual' from genuine voidness. it is to show 'non-thinking', 'nothingness', etc, are not genuine voidness
its purpose is also to show voidness does not mean a 'vacuum'. it shows in voidness, there still remains the "non-emptiness" of the body, life and sense spheres sure there is no esoteric meaning in MN 121. and yes, as i already said, MN 121 is a "technique". but MN 121 is not a definitive discourse about emptiness. emptiness has its meaning
as for whether the average person can entered into the various immaterial absorptions descibed in MN 121, i trust you are beguiled here the paragraph above is just more word salad. emptiness is synonymous with Nibbana. the mind empty of 'self' is the experience of Nibbana. the mind empty of greed, hatred & delusion is the experience of Nibbana. the mind empty of sensuality, becoming & ignorance is the experience of Nibbana
it sounds like you have been reading Thanissaro's essay on MN 121. again, like Gombrich, Thanissaro gets carried away here, attempting to make definitive statements about emptiness using an obsure sutta there is nothing controversial about metta. metta cannot uproot the mental habits. metta can provide temporary liberation from the mental habits but it cannot uproot them.
none of the discourses (SN 35.55, SN 45.42, SN 48.62, SN 54.17) about "uprooting" state metta can uproot the mental habits. they all say the realisation of not-self, the fulfilment of the 8FP, the fulfilment of the faculties (ending with wisdom/insight), the fulfilmnent of mindfulness with breathing (ending with vipassana insight) can uproot the mental habits.
you are certainly incorrect here. further, you have declared above you are an arahant, in that you have uprooted the mental habit. again, this cannot be correct because you posts must be read over & over again to be intelligible.
thus, to be an arahant but to be unable to explain the Dhamma clearly is not possible lol
i have known Caz Namyaw for many years and his understanding is not only clearer than yours but it is appropriate you take to heart what Caz has to offer rather than believe you can instruct him
oh dear :-/
You guys who have turned this simple post into an endless (and endlessly tedious) thread about the finer points of Buddhism, please go make you own threads elsewhere, okay? That was not the intention of my starting this thread. I just wanted to put that lovely quote up there for potential newcomers to read. You've turned that into a fortress of unintelligible gibberish that would have sent me as a newcomer running for the hills (and even as a practicing novice, I may still run for the hills).
Please feel free to discuss this stuff, just do it somewhere else, okay??
Tks