Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Trying to find the diplomatic words for the following scenarios

matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
in Buddhism Basics
From Bringing Home the Dharma, Kornfield
Some monks spend their lives in caves in the Himalayas ceaselessly radiating compassion for the world. Other run orphanages for children whose parents have died of AIDS. Which is the right way? The spiritual path does not present us with a preselected, pat formula for everyone to follow.
Anyone have pairs of words for describing the two scenarios above? I think the later one is "engaged Buddhism," but if one is to believe there isn't a "pat formula for everyone to follow," there must be some way to describe the former scenario.

Also, a closely related issue, what is the politically correct way for describing the "lets-save-everyone-from-samsara" vs "I'm-going-to-go-sit-alone-and-meditate-until-I'm-enlightend" paths without bringing up medieval, SE Asian, sectarian name calling fights.

Comments

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    The problem is that if you are going around saving people you are thereby not going on retreats and things. So the center of the mandala with you at the center gets sick because you are not letting time for yourself and your own practice. By learning non-harm, non-ego, and non-grasping eventually that time spent you can help others on the path to enlightenment. Anyways that's something resembling what I am trying to say. I found it hard to have words. Basically we cannot fix samsara, but we can attain awakening for ourselves and to give to others.
    robotEvenThirdlobster
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    The dreaded H- word! :eek2:

    :D
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    I think both aspects are necessary. It shouldn't be either one approach or the other. These represent two different ideals, but the reality is its a mixture, with different emphases for different people at different times of their practice.

    Perhaps they could be called "introverted" and "extroverted" approaches to the dharma.
    matthewmartinEvenThirdlobster
  • NeitherNeither
    edited October 2013
    I agree with riverflow. An example of their mutual dependance is that the aids orphans monk needs an example of the mindset that embodies the greatest peace and deepest wisdom for the sake of his orphans. So that he can remember how act in the chaos and dispair of the ward. The cave monk needs the orphan monk so that he can remember the value of developing compasion and the inevitable results of its practice.

    The kicker? The practice of either monk would not exist without the orphans. So who is helping who?
    riverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I was always pretty satisfied with what I found in Thai Buddhism. One of the exceptions was that in most Thai temples there's a lot of just plain old sitting around and doing nothing by many, many of the monks. I know the difference between meditating and sitting around doing nothing. And I always felt that they ought to get up off their butts and do more in terms of humanitarian work for the needy public. And in Thailand there are a lot of needy people. You don't learn compassion was sitting around doing nothing.
    riverflow
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    Some monks spend their lives in caves in the Himalayas ceaselessly radiating compassion for the world. Other run orphanages for children whose parents have died of AIDS. Which is the right way? The spiritual path does not present us with a preselected, pat formula for everyone to follow.
    Anyone have pairs of words for describing the two scenarios above?
    May I suggest: Right Way vs Wrong Way?

    For a well-balanced person with boundless compassion working in an orphanage would be right vocation, for a weaker person with historry of child abuse and sexual obsession, working in an orphanage without great self-scrutiny would most likely be wrong vocation with some more child casualties along the way.

    Likewise, for a person with high aspiration to reach spiritual goal and needing no distraction, going to Himalayan cave would be right vocation, whereas putting him or her in the midst of chaos might very well imperil spiritual progress.

    In other words, who are we to judge? Every path has to be unique because each life and person is unique. If we are to judge people's spiritual paths, may we not also judge the well-off for hoarding good things and the poor for hoarding poor things?

    JeffreyEvenThird
  • robotrobot Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    The problem is that if you are going around saving people you are thereby not going on retreats and things. So the center of the mandala with you at the center gets sick because you are not letting time for yourself and your own practice. By learning non-harm, non-ego, and non-grasping eventually that time spent you can help others on the path to enlightenment. Anyways that's something resembling what I am trying to say. I found it hard to have words. Basically we cannot fix samsara, but we can attain awakening for ourselves and to give to others.


    Thanks Jeffery. I finally got what it means when you talk about mandala. Slow learner.
    Jeffrey
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    I'm sorry but this question is really just a silly dance around the Arhant/ Bodhisattvic comparison which has yet to really come up as a practical consideration in my 40+ years on a zafu.

    IMO...Those that engage in such tussles have never really had to worry about either condition.





    poptart
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    I agree -- though somewhat less delicately -- with @how:

    Cut the crap and get to work.
    lobster
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    how said:

    I'm sorry but this question is really just a silly dance

    :clap:
    @genkaku
    . . . gangham style . . .
    image
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    matthewmartin said:

    From Bringing Home the Dharma, Kornfield

    Some monks spend their lives in caves in the Himalayas ceaselessly radiating compassion for the world. Other run orphanages for children whose parents have died of AIDS. Which is the right way? The spiritual path does not present us with a preselected, pat formula for everyone to follow.
    Anyone have pairs of words for describing the two scenarios above? I think the later one is "engaged Buddhism," but if one is to believe there isn't a "pat formula for everyone to follow," there must be some way to describe the former scenario.

    Also, a closely related issue, what is the politically correct way for describing the "lets-save-everyone-from-samsara" vs "I'm-going-to-go-sit-alone-and-meditate-until-I'm-enlightend" paths without bringing up medieval, SE Asian, sectarian name calling fights.

    That quote probably doesn't actually illustrate Kornfield's point because it's needlessly dualistic. Who says the monks running orphanages aren't also ceaselessly radiating compassion? Not to mention, compassion is not radiated like photons. Compassion is a state of mind. It doesn't do the universe a damned bit of good unless acted upon.

    Here's a zen koan for you: if a monk in a cave radiates compassion but there's nobody around to receive it, does it make a difference?

    I've listened to enough of Kornfield's talks to realize that wasn't his point. I have nothing against monks who retreat from the world. I respect their dedication. It's not the same Buddhist path I follow, though.

Sign In or Register to comment.