Why do westerners prefer to read books more than practising meditation?

Chaz

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

David

Chaz said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

You're enlightened without reading any dharma books?

Good for you.

Nevermind

Chaz said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

You can question dogma, you just can't disagree or you'll be expelled.

David

Chaz said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

I thought you were one that claimed a guru is needed... But now, no guidance is necessary.

Funny that.

robot

ourself said:

Chaz said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

I thought you were one that claimed a guru is needed... But now, no guidance is necessary.

Funny that.

You gotta be kidding.

pegembara

Looking at the length of this thread, I would agree with Ajahn Chah. To much reading leads to overthinking which leads to mental proliferation (papanca).

'But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.'

Proliferation (papañca), according to Comy., generally means mental activity governed by craving, conceit and views, but here only craving and views are intended.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

David

robot said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

ourself said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

No, it's more like dogma is unproven, authoritarian doctrine that should be questioned.

What if I've questioned it and as a result come to agree. That ok?

And that's questioning according to the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

I thought you were one that claimed a guru is needed... But now, no guidance is necessary.

Funny that.

You gotta be kidding.

50:50

Nevermind

pegembara said:

Looking at the length of this thread, I would agree with Ajahn Chah. To much reading leads to overthinking which leads to mental proliferation (papanca).

'But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.'

Proliferation (papañca), according to Comy., generally means mental activity governed by craving, conceit and views, but here only craving and views are intended.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

If you actually believed you wouldn't proliferate.

pegembara

The Buddha's teachings is to be tested out. Don't believe what you read in books. Do so only when you have tested them and found them to be true. In other words, "Don't believe, know it."

In the time of the Buddha there was one disciple who was very wise. At one time while the Buddha was instructing the monks on the Dhamma, he turned to this monk and said: "Sariputta, do you believe this?"

Then Sariputta replied: "I don't yet believe it."
The Buddha liked his answer. He said: "Oh, that's very good, Sariputta. You are one who is endowed with wisdom. One who is endowed with wisdom should not believe too readily. They should listen openmindedly, and then consider the validity of that matter before believing or disbelieving."

Now this is a fine example of good Dhamma practice for a teacher. What Sariputta said was true, he simply spoke his true feeling. Some people would feel that to say that one didn't believe would be like questioning the Buddha's authority. They would be afraid to say such a thing; they'd simply go ahead and agree.

The world is like this, but the Buddha said that you needn't be ashamed of those things which aren't wrong or bad. It's not wrong to say you don't yet believe what you don't believe, so when Venerable Sariputta said: "I don't believe it," the Buddha praised him: "This monk has much wisdom. He carefully considers before believing anything" This is the right course for one who is a teacher of others. Sometimes you can learn things from small children. Don't blindy cling to positions of authority.

http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/09/living.htm

DairyLama

robot said:

Oh, traditionally that's the function of the Temple Master who decides which monk gets the official Dharma Transmission or becomes the Dharma Heir, even. The ideal is that we have an unbroken string of enlightened Masters. Like the Tibet system, it certainly fails to live up to the ideal.

But mostly it refers to the practice, which is almost all meditation and mindfulness and perhaps chanting the Heart Sutra and such. A monk might know less about the Buddha's actual words according to the old Sutras than you or I, yet still be considered to have an advanced understanding of the Dharma.

Yes, I see. So in Zen are people entirely dependent on the words of the master, and are they discouraged from reading suttas, sutras etc?

DairyLama

Nevermind said:

SpinyNorman said:

jll said:

dogma is not a bad word, .

Yes, it's really a neutral term, and I think people often confuse "dogma" with "being dogmatic". Like when people confuse "making judgements" with "being judgemental".

So how many bad judgements does it take to be judgmental?

My point is that "judgement" is a neutral term. We make judgements all the time, it doesn't necessarily make them "bad". And you could say that developing Right View is a process which involves making judgements.

DairyLama

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

Yes. Also a knee-jerk reaction against any statement that appears to be authoritative.

robot

SpinyNorman said:

robot said:

Oh, traditionally that's the function of the Temple Master who decides which monk gets the official Dharma Transmission or becomes the Dharma Heir, even. The ideal is that we have an unbroken string of enlightened Masters. Like the Tibet system, it certainly fails to live up to the ideal.

But mostly it refers to the practice, which is almost all meditation and mindfulness and perhaps chanting the Heart Sutra and such. A monk might know less about the Buddha's actual words according to the old Sutras than you or I, yet still be considered to have an advanced understanding of the Dharma.

Yes, I see. So in Zen are people entirely dependent on the words of the master, and are they discouraged from reading suttas, sutras etc?

Somehow I wrongly got credited for that quote.

BhikkhuJayasara

pegembara said:

Looking at the length of this thread, I would agree with Ajahn Chah. To much reading leads to overthinking which leads to mental proliferation (papanca).

'But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.'

Proliferation (papañca), according to Comy., generally means mental activity governed by craving, conceit and views, but here only craving and views are intended.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

way too much Samphappalapa in this thread :P

seeker242

Nevermind said:

Then how do you explain the diverse interests demonstrated by libraries?

If you need or want knowledge of worldly things, the library is to place to go!

David

SpinyNorman said:

Chaz said:

SpinyNorman said:

seeker242 said:

Dogma is no longer dogma when it's actually true.

How very true. Sadly the word "dogma" is much abused, it now often seems to just mean "Stuff I don't agree with".

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

Yes. Also a knee-jerk reaction against any statement that appears to be authoritative.

Only to those that don't understand what the word means or like to pretend their dogma has somehow been proven.

Cinorjer

SpinyNorman said:

robot said:

Oh, traditionally that's the function of the Temple Master who decides which monk gets the official Dharma Transmission or becomes the Dharma Heir, even. The ideal is that we have an unbroken string of enlightened Masters. Like the Tibet system, it certainly fails to live up to the ideal.

But mostly it refers to the practice, which is almost all meditation and mindfulness and perhaps chanting the Heart Sutra and such. A monk might know less about the Buddha's actual words according to the old Sutras than you or I, yet still be considered to have an advanced understanding of the Dharma.

Yes, I see. So in Zen are people entirely dependent on the words of the master, and are they discouraged from reading suttas, sutras etc?

Depends on the particular sect of Zen, and on the Teacher, and on what culture the center is serving. I've heard a few ex-monks make remarks about reading being discouraged and that the temple library in once case didn't contain a single copy of the old Sutras. There were lots of copies of the writings that Zen does use, however. Koans and such. Zen traces its lineage back to the Buddha silently holding up a flower, and that one moment is supposed to encapsulate everything the Buddha taught before that.

First, in a classic Zazen center, your time is considered too precious to waste on anything but meditation and maintenance of the temple so people could have someplace to meditate. From early morning until you drag your tired body to bed, every moment is supposed to be focused on your inner struggle. There's no class or discussion group where you discuss what the Sutras say.

But classic Zazen is modeled after the Japanese military boot camp and often the Masters in charge were retired officers. One thing all Zen schools have in common is, discussion and the open exchange of opinion on the Dharma inside the walls is forbidden. If you are not officially advanced enough to be given the Inka or teaching authority by the school, and someone asks you what you think about gradual versus sudden enlightenment in the center, you'd better tell them to ask the Teacher, who will usually tell you to sit down and meditate and not worry about it. The Eastern respect and demand for authority being recognized is very evident. One reason I don't belong to even Kwan Um anymore. It still has not gotten the idea that even the rank beginner walking in off the street might have something important to contribute.

David

That's why I like Thich Nhat Hanhs style of Zen much better. He knows there is more to it than sitting.

anataman

Reading books can be meditative and open your heart to others ideas and experience of the world. I'm reading book called 'The curious incident of the dog in the night-time'.

It gives some insight into the mind of someone with Asberger's - theres a few here that are on the spectrum if you ask me! I give it 5 *****. 5 is the third prime number, and a prime number is defined as being divisible by 1 and itself. 0 and 1 are not prime numbers. The first is 2 and the second 3... They often travel in pairs with 1 between them like 5 and 7 and 17 and 19.

People with Asberger's can sometimes be perceived as lacking compassion. I don't think they do they just see the world as it is. Did Buddha have Asberger's - I wonder. But that's neither here nor there. There are lots of reasons to read, and one of them is for inner pleasure!

Chaz

SpinyNorman said:

Chaz said:

It's like, "I don't like dogma so dogma is always wrong."

Yes. Also a knee-jerk reaction against any statement that appears to be authoritative.

A sad state of affairs, especially when one considers that the teacher/student relationship is the closest thing there is to the "original form of Buddhism" some folks are so keen on practicing. Also, an authority in both scripture and practice is in complete accord with the Buddha's instruction to the Kalamas.

So, much of this can be seen as a recalitrant anti-authority mindset.

DairyLama

ourself said:

That's why I like Thich Nhat Hanhs style of Zen much better. He knows there is more to it than sitting.

I spent some years with an Interbeing sangha and found it very useful - a good practical approach to mindfulness. I quite liked the mindful listening thing, where you don't interrupt somebody until they clearly indicate they've finished speaking - though it didn't work too well because we had somebody in the group who was very garrulous and would rabbit on for ages....maybe they missed the class on mindful speech. I admit I started looking at my watch in a very obvious way.

Chaz

In the Shambhala tradition, they practice Oryoki, or mindfull eating. I think it's something CTR borrowed from Zen. Very ritualized. I have friends who do it as a retreat practice. After listening to their description of it, I think I prefer to eat in a less mindfull way.

Nevermind

SpinyNorman said:

Nevermind said:

SpinyNorman said:

jll said:

dogma is not a bad word, .

Yes, it's really a neutral term, and I think people often confuse "dogma" with "being dogmatic". Like when people confuse "making judgements" with "being judgemental".

So how many bad judgements does it take to be judgmental?

My point is that "judgement" is a neutral term. We make judgements all the time, it doesn't necessarily make them "bad". And you could say that developing Right View is a process which involves making judgements.

Dogma isn't a neutral term, but that's okay, isn't it? Or is that not ok to say?

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

Then how do you explain the diverse interests demonstrated by libraries?

If you need or want knowledge of worldly things, the library is to place to go!

You answer a different question. Go to the library and look up subject substitution, in the psychology section.

seeker242

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

Then how do you explain the diverse interests demonstrated by libraries?

If you need or want knowledge of worldly things, the library is to place to go!

You answer a different question. Go to the library and look up subject substitution, in the psychology section.

Ok, I must have misunderstood your question then. You can elaborate if you wish. I was intending to answer the question you asked. What do you mean when you say "libraries demonstrate interest"? As I see it, people demonstrate interests and libraries try to meet that interest by having books on a diverse range of topics. But I don't see what any of that has to do with getting enlightenment. You get enlightenment by experiencing what Buddhist books talk about, not from reading a description of someone else's experience.

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

Then how do you explain the diverse interests demonstrated by libraries?

If you need or want knowledge of worldly things, the library is to place to go!

You answer a different question. Go to the library and look up subject substitution, in the psychology section.

Ok, I must have misunderstood your question then. You can elaborate if you wish. I was intending to answer the question you asked. What do you mean when you say "libraries demonstrate interest"? As I see it, people demonstrate interests and libraries try to meet that interest by having books on a diverse range of topics. But I don't see what any of that has to do with getting enlightenment. You get enlightenment by experiencing what Buddhist books talk about, not from reading a description of someone else's experience.

You should really read about subject substitution

anataman

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

robot

anataman said:

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

Nah. He's just trolling seeker. That's his thing.

David

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

Then how do you explain the diverse interests demonstrated by libraries?

If you need or want knowledge of worldly things, the library is to place to go!

You answer a different question. Go to the library and look up subject substitution, in the psychology section.

Ok, I must have misunderstood your question then. You can elaborate if you wish. I was intending to answer the question you asked. What do you mean when you say "libraries demonstrate interest"? As I see it, people demonstrate interests and libraries try to meet that interest by having books on a diverse range of topics. But I don't see what any of that has to do with getting enlightenment. You get enlightenment by experiencing what Buddhist books talk about, not from reading a description of someone else's experience.

Now that makes sense and is a far cry from banning books. Just because somebody reads anothers experience doesn't mean they will mistake the finger for the moon (so to speak).

how

I wonder what spawned so much inertial energy in this thread?

anataman

robot said:

anataman said:

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

Nah. He's just trolling seeker. That's his thing.

That's new to me - a 'trolling seeker'

Please elaborate!

Chaz

anataman said:

robot said:

anataman said:

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

Nah. He's just trolling seeker. That's his thing.

That's new to me - a 'trolling seeker'

Please elaborate!

robot is suggesting that Nevermind might be behaving like a forum troll towards seeker.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum+troll

Just to be clear, I'm not saying, publicly, that Nevermind is, in fact, a forum troll, nor will I say that Nevermind's behavior approximates trolling (what forum trolls do). I'll leave such judgements to the mods.

Here's what a Forum Troll is supposed to look like:



If the shoe fits .....

seeker242

Nevermind said:

You should really read about subject substitution

Or, you could just explain your question better but you don't want to so alright.

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

You should really read about subject substitution

Or, you could just explain your question better but you don't want to so alright.

I've already asked it twice. Somehow I don't think a third we be any more charming.

And yes, it's attribute substitution. I'm glad someone is paying attention.

Nevermind

robot said:

anataman said:

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

Nah. He's just trolling seeker. That's his thing.

You must have a low opinion of Seeker to think he'd fall for a troll.

My point was sincere, and as yet uncontested.

robot

Nevermind said:

robot said:

anataman said:

I believe you are talking about 'attribute substitution'- I had to look it up and it was not very accessible to me in the sense of being a stimulating subject, talking of which I am going to read a book instead of a post!

Nah. He's just trolling seeker. That's his thing.

You must have a low opinion of Seeker to think he'd fall for a troll.

My point was sincere, and as yet uncontested.

My opinion of what you are up to stands.
I have a high opinion of seeker.
I think he is Buddhist through and through.

Nevermind

My opinion of what you are up to stands.

On what? Trolls don't explain themselves, because they are lying.

Being shown that you're mistaken about something is not to have been trolled.

lobster

robot said:

I have a high opinion . . .

My opinion is higher than yours. My library has more books. My trolling is better than your trolling. My meditation is more authentic than yours.

In short I am above it all.
[ . . . wait I think I just spotted my mistake . . .]

ah yes . . . where was I . . . my mistakes are better than your rectitude . . .