What Makes You ( Not ) A Buddhist...

karasti

I have a (hopefully) related question. I don't know much about the Jhanas and only recently began reading about them, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But isn't at least the first Jhana, about pleasure? Or is it pleasure in a different context than the statement that all pleasure is pain? Is it fair to say ALL pleasure is pain, even if it is experienced in this context?

"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal."

Citta

Not something I can address personally karasti..Jhana states are not not part of the currency of Dzogchen..but I am sure someone can give you a reply.

_/\_

David

There is an old saying about enlightenment being like looking for our glasses which are on our foreheads.

We have a good laugh at ourselves and move on. Possibly being more mindful.

I don't think the suggestion is what would get a rise but the implications.

To be emotionless... To not have the ability to be amazed or find the humor in things... To me it seems more like an attempt at running away from life instead of dealing with it.

I don't really think that is what it means but it could sound that way.

Citta

If you watched a video of DKR you would quickly realise that he is full of humour and fun.
Or if you watched the best known of the movies he has directed 'The Cup' which is about soccer.
The result of resting in original mind is not less emotion. It is emotion which does not depend on a narrative of self. Which always has an element of pain.

David

Cool. That's one thing I like about videos. We can capture the spirit of the moment.

person

I've read many great masters of the past and present when asked about their qualifications say that they can barely call themselves a Buddhist.

To me this says they aren't judging their status by an identity label but by the extent they have put the teachings to effect in their own minds.

We can certainly follow the teachings and learn about them without meeting such high criteria so why should we feel the need to be called a Buddhist more than trying to incorporate the teachings into our lives.

That seems to be the essential point here, don't worry about what you call yourself just make the effort to understand.

Jainarayan

vinlyn said:

Very good post, Karasti!

Or let's say a noted Theravadan teacher were to say, "If you don't agree with Theravadan teachings, then you are not a real Buddhist."

In many aspects of life, I respect self-selection.

Agreed. There's too much "My way is the only right way" in circulation these days. Maybe it's because of instant communication and instant access to information, articles, papers, and even e-books.

Like you I also respect a person's right to believe whatever they want, form their own belief system, live their own life and adhere to it as long as I'm not told mine is wrong. Someone (a bible literalist fundamental Christian) elsewhere said he respected my right to my beliefs... as "off" as they are. :rolleyes:

person

Jainarayan said:

vinlyn said:

Very good post, Karasti!

Or let's say a noted Theravadan teacher were to say, "If you don't agree with Theravadan teachings, then you are not a real Buddhist."

In many aspects of life, I respect self-selection.

Agreed. There's too much "My way is the only right way" in circulation these days. Maybe it's because of instant communication and instant access to information, articles, papers, and even e-books.

Like you I also respect a person's right to believe whatever they want, form their own belief system, live their own life and adhere to it as long as I'm not told mine is wrong. Someone (a bible literalist fundamental Christian) elsewhere said he respected my right to my beliefs... as "off" as they are. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm seeing this differently but I don't think its about anyone telling anyone else they are right or wrong to believe whatever it is they want.

It is saying that there are certain qualifications for a belief to be Buddhist though. If there weren't we could say that any belief is Buddhist, which is obviously not the case.

Citta

The book is not about an identity. Its about what undermines our habitual self- referencing narrative.

vinlyn

person said:

...

We can certainly follow the teachings and learn about them without meeting such high criteria so why should we feel the need to be called a Buddhist more than trying to incorporate the teachings into our lives.

...

To me, the issue is that someone else is judging whether or not we -- as individuals -- are Buddhists.

I think that most of us in the forum would be critical of the Pope or the Catholic Church excommunicating people. Same basic principle.

Cinorjer

Chaz said:

Cinorjer said:

Chaz said:

Cinorjer said:

Agreeing with all the points would certainly make you a Tibetan Buddhist. The "all emotions are pain" in particular would get a snort or two from many Buddhist Teachers.

Which ones?

Oh, just about any Zen Buddhist will be told to treat emotions similar to thoughts.

That doesn't answer my question. In fact, I'd consider you're response to be evasive.

I'd like to know, specificlly, what teachers you are refering to here ......

would get a snort or two from many Buddhist Teachers

I would also like specific citations of other teachers the offering "a snort or two" over the teaching Dzongsar Khyense Rinpoche offers in his book.

If other reputable teachers are teaching against DKR's offering, I want to know who they are and what they're saying about it.

Do I sound evasive? Don't mean to be, but if you're looking for a Dharma Duel where we throw quotes from the Masters at each other, I'll declare you the winner right now because I lack the energy and motivation to wade through a bunch of teachings. What I can do is offer up a summary of what my own Teachers spent many hours drumming into me.

Emotions are one of the skandhas, the heap of processes that combine to create a mind. You cannot treat emotions as something separate from your mind. In Zen we deal with emotions like we deal with thoughts or any other activity of the mind. For us, to say all emotions are pain is to say all emotions are bad. What's bad is allowing emotions to control you or get in the way of a clear mind. Thus in Zen we talk about the "Ordinary Mind" instead of imagining enlightenment to be an elevated state of consciousness that can exist without emotions or thoughts or even a body.

I invite you to do a quick google and you'll read all sorts of Masters teaching this basic Zen 101. I really don't want to cut and paste a bunch of paragraphs.

However, I think you misconstrued my slightly flippant comment about the Teachers snorting. It's not because the statement is wrong, but because it stops too soon. All emotions are painful when we cling to them and let them control our minds.

Chaz

ourself said:

I think the reason they snort is because it could seem as if happiness is a bad thing.

Taken in that context, it does seem a bit funny, no?

Happiness is neither a good nor bad thing.

Everyone agrees that all things that are compounded are suffering.

Happiness is compounded. Happiness is suffering.

We cling to our happiness because we are afraid of loosing it.

That's why we suffer.

Who would teach otherwise?

To try to draw some distinction between pain and suffering, is merely futile quibbling over semantics.

David

If we cling to anything we suffer.

Being happy doesn't have to depend on anything that will pass one day except that which chooses to be happy.

Knowing something is temporary allows me to cherish it all the more.

It's just the way things go.

Citta

My intention when posting the OP was simply to draw attention to a book which I and many others found helpful. It was not to start a flame war or to set schools against each other.
I have asked for the thread to be closed.
Given the nature of the forum..which is a generalised one, and has great strengths as a result, I will post no more discussions on this forum.I will stick to posting topics only on Vajracakra.com and on New Buddhist will respond to the posts of others only.
Thanks to all who participated.

_/\_