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.
@federica - I'm sorry if my post came across as defensive or irate - my response was neither. I was trying to say (and possible epically failed to) that at the end of the day, we can't know 100% because we weren't there to hear the Buddha. And really, why waste the energy when we could be practising?
Metta.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Citta said:
And what of this from the Samyutta Nikaya 4
"Women with their two-fingered wisdom( i.e. limited ) cannot fully understand my teachings ".
My point is to suggest that we cannot expect any human figure, even the wisest, from the ancient world, to conform in every respect to our cultural norms..and we had better get used to that.
Sounds good to me. I'm a woman, in case that hasn't been clear. I'm grateful that at least so far, I don't NEED to know FER SURE what EXACTLY the Buddha said or meant or the EXACT context within which to PERFECTLY interpret the most subtle innuendo of his teachings. They are mostly beyond my current comprehension anyway, and I consider myself a serious student of meditation and him.
And even if we could determine veracity very precisely . . . is our comprehension SO PRECIOUS that lack of surety rocks the apple cart?
To me, there are important questions that condition the question of literalism's value. If those pre-existing questions were 'adequately' answered, maybe there would be no question of literalism's value at all.
@federica said:
I have stated my personal opinions already in this thread and elsewhere; however, there's no point in any of us lady members getting defensive and irate about a teaching of this kind.
We can't demand retrospective equality, neither does it actually do anything to insist it should have/could have existed in the Buddha's Sangha.
There is actually no way of knowing whether this was absolutely, definitely without question, a direct first-hand teaching of his, or whether words were put into his mouth, even a short while after his death.
I suspect the latter.
But even so, it was what it was; and we can't change that.
What is, is; but we can change that.
For what it's worth, I think it's understandable and even desirable to turn a critical eye towards things like this, whether sutta passages or contemporary attitudes, in order to clarify our understanding of them and to challenge them if they're something we discern to be blameworthy.
In the case of the OP, I agree that the wording seems rather harsh and startling; but I understand the meaning to be, "It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a black viper than to break your vow of celibacy," not that women are bad. The monk in question did just comeback from a romp in the woods with his wife, after all.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
PS: If where you stick your penis weren't an issue to begin with, this argument would not exist.
So obviously, sticking your penis somewhere is important, and the importance of where you stick it is the true dilemma here, not some scholarly issue of literalism.
PSS: I don't have a penis, which does prevent a bias necessary to continue this discussion.
@Citta said:
And what of this from the Samyutta Nikaya 4
"Women with their two-fingered wisdom( i.e. limited ) cannot fully understand my teachings ".
My point is to suggest that we cannot expect any human figure, even the wisest, from the ancient world, to conform in every respect to our cultural norms..and we had better get used to that.
I'd say that illustrates the problem of taking things out of context. If one were to read the entire sutta, one would see that this is a line from Mara who, desiring to make a bhikkhuni named Soma 'fall away from concentration,' voices an ancient bias, saying:
That state so hard to achieve
Which is to be attained by the seers,
Can't be attained by a woman
With her two-fingered wisdom
But Soma's response shows not only her wisdom, but counters this bias by replying:
"What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
>
One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address."
A rejoinder that, in the words of Bhikkhu Bodhi, "is a forceful reminder that enlightenment does not depend on gender but on the mind's capacity for concentration and wisdom, qualities accessible to any human being who earnestly seeks to penetrate the truth."
@dhammachick said:
Not if you're smart............. :P
Being smart is just a matter of circumstance; using them is a matter of wisdom. If I cannot make a beneficial decision in this, does that mean the entirety of my intelligence could be accurately labeled as 'not smart'? Perhaps we should deem me socially inept...
Am I wrong or is there a whispered premise in all of this that in order to be a Buddhist (or anything else for that matter) you must believe?
True, belief charts a beginner's course: How else to plot a change of direction or an improvement? Somehow, there has to be something to believe in and in that belief there are bound to be a few hard-to-swallow facets.
But am I wrong again to think that with practice (in Buddhism or anything else) a willingness and capacity and faith kicks in ... something along the lines of "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify?"
And with this as a yardstick, the need to argue or dissect or elevate or dismiss seems to fall away and belief is not so necessary ... it's the exercise of verification that counts, and past pronouncements -- good, bad or indifferent -- lose their allure. Not overnight and not all at once, perhaps, but maybe it just makes better practical sense: "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify." Others can believe what they like -- no matter. Whether you agree with them or not, still, without verifying in your own life, it's all pretty much holy hot air, don't you think?
@Jason said:
I'd say that illustrates the problem of taking things out of context. If one were to read the entire sutta, one would see that this is a line from Mara...
Mara can be or represent whatever one interprets him to. It's certainly true that, in some cases, he's portrayed as an actual being who tries to tempt and torment those on the path. That said, looking at the texts more critically, it's evident to me that, in most contexts, Mara is used as a personification of death; the psychological clinging to the aggregates that gives rise to suffering; the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion; and in this case, psychological doubt and temptation (i.e., I see him as representing Soma's doubts and the cultural bias that women were intellectually and spiritual inferior). For a more in-depth look, I suggest checking out the entry for Mara in the Dictionary of Pali Names.
Let's say Beethoven was a bad person. Doesn't mean one couldn't learn about music from the master....Buddha could've been misogynistic. Doesn't mean he couldn't teach us a thing or two about enlightenment.
@vinlyn said:
no need for me to, I long ago decided Mara was not an actual being
but including fictional beings in what are supposed to be real teachings...i do find problematic...and Buddhism is full of that
If we judge ancient cultures and their stories and myths by our modern scientific standards, and take everything literally, then it can definitely be problematic. But I think that's a mistake, which is why I've spent a great deal of time trying to dig deeper into these stories and myths in an effort to understand the symbolism behind them, and then share what I learn with others.
" Worthless man ! It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a Black Viper than into the vagina of a woman "
Oh--kay.
So what do we make of this...
Generally there are a few typical responses to passages of this type.
1) I must be celibate, sex is dirty.
2) He couldn't have really said it..its a later interpolation.
3) He did say it, but he was a man of his time.
4) It was only meant for monks.
The trouble with 3 and 4 is that even if it reflects the times, and even if it only for monks...He doesn't seem to have a high regard for women ..does he ?
The trouble with 2 is that it appears to be genuine.
The trouble with 1...is obvious.
Thoughts anyone ?
This is obviously about the monks since we are talking Patimokkha. Putting your penis into a vagina or any other hole is of course a defeat... you can no longer become a monk again in this life.... hence you may as well of had your penis bitten off before becoming defeated, failing at the holy life, doomed to spend more time in samsara suffering.
It has nothing to do with " women are evil and dirty" imo. In fact it's the same thing for a women, however they are not penetrators so you may say allowing penetration is a defeat, may as well of allowed a snake to penetrate you or some such.
@Jason said:
If we judge ancient cultures and their stories and myths by our modern scientific standards, and take everything literally, then it can definitely be problematic. But I think that's a mistake, which is why I've spent a great deal of time trying to dig deeper into these stories and myths in an effort to understand the symbolism behind them, and then share what I learn with others.
the problem with mixing symbolism with straight talk is that one always gets to the point where some believe something is symbolism, while others believe it is straight talk.
For example, if the kingdom in the center of the earth is symbolic, then perhaps nibanna and enlightenment are also symbolic.
All religions seem to play this game, and frankly, at least for me, they lose credibility when doing so.
@vinlyn said:
the problem with mixing symbolism with straight talk is that one always gets to the point where some believe something is symbolism, while others believe it is straight talk.
For example, if the kingdom in the center of the earth is symbolic, then perhaps nibanna and enlightenment are also symbolic.
All religions seem to play this game, and frankly, at least for me, they lose credibility when doing so.
I can sympathize. I used to have similar thoughts myself, being critical of things I found too much for my sensibilities to swallow in the Suttas, the Bible, etc. But now I think that maybe I was just being intellectually lazy, taking things too literally; and I've since found that my appreciation for ancient literature and religious texts continues to grow as I dig deeper into the cultures they come from and the rich symbolism underlying them. I've learned how to 'read between the lines' as they say.
My readings and interpretations may not always be correct; but I'd rather have a little chaff in my wheat than no wheat at all. (P. S. I'm not actually talking about wheat.)
Oh, I agree, it's fascinating. I love the Thai fables surrounding Buddhism, for example.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I have always thought of Mara as being a composite of psychological afflictions, a symbolic representation of what ails us, from day to day - Moment to moment, even.
And I actually thought that when I very first encountered the story of the Buddha; the allegorical imagery shouted out at me....
Same with the different Realms of existence... which is why it is said that your moment of Death is so important: Your Mind-State is what will open the door, and select the realm of your next existence at re-birth.
If you subscribe to such matters, that is....
Note: Realms are not the discussion, neither is re-birth. I'm referring to the method of transmission of teachings, and how we absorb them...
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2014
@vinlyn said: the problem with mixing symbolism with straight talk is that one always gets to the point where some believe something is symbolism, while others believe it is straight talk.
For example, if the kingdom in the center of the earth is symbolic, then perhaps nibanna and enlightenment are also symbolic.
All religions seem to play this game, and frankly, at least for me, they lose credibility when doing so.
It's not a game.
It's a way of transmitting things in a way when people were perhaps not so educated or able to read; we are surrounded by allegorical works of Art which transmit stories and lessons, and as they say, 'a picture paints a thousand words'. Giving people an image, a picture of what the story, lesson, sutta or teaching actually expounds or relates, helps people understand better what the complexities are, and how to better evaluate them.
The Black Viper is a pretty nasty piece of imagery, as is Mara, as is Yama - but they get the point across.
if you can view them as a teaching aid, instead of "a game", it may help....
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@dhammachick said: federica - I'm sorry if my post came across as defensive or irate - my response was neither. I was trying to say (and possible epically failed to) that at the end of the day, we can't know 100% because we weren't there to hear the Buddha. And really, why waste the energy when we could be practising?
Metta.
No problem, It was a good post.
But I think it natural for us to prickle a little....
@Federica, here's the problem. Go to Thailand. There are people there who believe that imagery is real. Just like the people that believe Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and loaves of bread.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Look, I'm sorry. I can't go to Thailand even if I wanted to.
And I'm not focusing on Thais, or any other cultural tendencies.
I'm talking about what the Suttas, teachings and methods of transmission are viewed by us.
Jeesh, @Vinlyn, I'm sorry you take issue with it, but I can't address your problem on a global scale, I'm keeping it real and just talking here, about things which affect us, directly 'where we are', ok...?
Miracles are a bit different to allegories. That's what the 'Loaves and Fishes' tale is...
In all my years studying and practising Catholicism, the miracles were never referred to as allegories...
My reason for posting is because without addressing these issues in a balanced way they can ( and I have seen this happen ) become a roomful of elephant.
At which point some people just drop the whole thing..I have seen it.
Or simply assume a simplistic position of always putting 'Buddhism' in quotes...which is a cop out.
Or they can adopt a fundamentalist position...there is at least one website where you will see many people who have gone down that route.
They interpret the passage to mean that any sex for anybody is fatal for their meditation life..
And that women are suspect, at least.
Which is probably why that website has about three active members ( no pun intended ) who are female, and one of those is a mod.
And ( of course ) I have no problem with the population of Thailand or Myanmar or Nepal, but I was not addressing folk belief.
You love to use the "c" word (control, not choice). But apparently, control has led you to think you can't change anything. For such a dauting word, the illusion of control would seem to leave you a toy of circumstances.
Acceptance and choice don't.
We don't have control of what thoughts come up, but we do have control if we are going to get lost in them or not. And the latter is a limited amount of control. In meditation we always go off of the breath sometimes just because awareness is always drifting around.
@Jeffrey said:
We don't have control of what thoughts come up, but we do have control if we are going to get lost in them or not.
Or we can choose if we are going to get lost in them or not, @Jeffrey.
It sounds different. Control sounds like striving.
Just noticed that @Grayman often uses the verbs "control" and "manipulate," which in a Buddhist context struck me as misplaced. And unrealistic and contrived in a wider context, anyway.
But maybe that's just me.
The point is that you cannot change the world by ignoring your thoughts. You cannot help women get more rights without some kind of influence. We cannot control the physical world but there is something within us we can control or at least within me. I don't really beleive I can control my own arm but with influence it still moves.
Although I believe see it this way, people are not really going to understand why I say I influence/manipulate my arm instead of control my arm. I might as well just say it normally.
I still tend to use control when speaking about myself and manipulate when referring to the world or the process of my emotions and tboughts because any interaction with these is through indirect means of manipulation or influence.
Yes striving is accurate. Wanting to change womans rights is striving. Intention is striving. Where does Buddhism say you cannot have a thought or opinion or goal?
You most certainly can and probably should have goals, for your practice and for life in general. It'd be hard to retire and afford to live without some planning and goals, afterall. It'd be hard to send kids off to college or do a budget. Striving tends to have a negative connotation as far as an attachment to an outcome. It (around here anyhow) has a connection to perfectionism. Set goals, work towards goals. Don't be attached to the goals or to the exact outcome of your "striving."
@federica said:
I have stated my personal opinions already in this thread and elsewhere; however, there's no point in any of us lady members getting defensive and irate about a teaching of this kind.
We can't demand retrospective equality, neither does it actually do anything to insist it should have/could have existed in the Buddha's Sangha.
There is actually no way of knowing whether this was absolutely, definitely without question, a direct first-hand teaching of his, or whether words were put into his mouth, even a short while after his death.
I suspect the latter.
But even so, it was what it was; and we can't change that.
What is, is; but we can change that.
A very wise approach.
We can wish otherwise, but the indisputable fact of their own writings proves the early Arahants, at least, had a definite bias against women. It was that whole lustful desire for sex thing and they had to have strong rules and words against it because...damn it, this thing between our legs seems to have a mind of its own. What do we expect? They were a celibate exclusively male group. One way is to flip out completely and begin to detest even the thought of a naked, glistening, soft...
Ahem.
That doesn't mean we have to buy into the "Yuck! Cooties!" teaching. For one thing, even the Arahants didn't expect the lay population to be celibate. They just didn't believe it was possible to live any sort of normal household life and reach the lofty heights of purity required to join their ranks. Maybe they were right. I have no desire to be an arahant. They were a stuck-up bunch in general.
They were what they were. And did Buddha really believe it was better to wave his tallywacker at a snake than engage in a bit of the bumpy? We have no way of knowing. The early Buddhists believed that's what he said. He did allow female monks into the club, although reluctantly.
According to the neptic fathers of the hesychast tradition of the Eastern Church if it be true that it is impossible for the mind not to be approached by thoughts it is true that we can choose to engage with thoughts and also influence the kind of thoughts that arise through the actions we choose to engage in. If we habitually engage in sinful or negative actions what types of thoughts do you think are going arise?
“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”- Matthew 6:21
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2014
NEPTIC (Adjective) Nepsis is a greek word which means to be watchful, alert, vigilant and to basically 'keep a look out'.
HESYCHAST (Hezi-Kast)
one of an Eastern Orthodox ascetic sect of mystics originating among the monks of Mount Athos in the 14th century and practicing a quietistic method of contemplation for the purpose of attaining a beatific vision or similar mystical experience
Origin of HESYCHAST
Middle Greek hēsychastēs, from Late Greek, quietist, hermit; Greek hēsychazein, to be still, keep quiet; from hēsychos quiet;
@federica said:
It's not a game.
It's a way of transmitting things in a way when people were perhaps not so educated or able to read; we are surrounded by allegorical works of Art which transmit stories and lessons, and as they say, 'a picture paints a thousand words'. Giving people an image, a picture of what the story, lesson, sutta or teaching actually expounds or relates, helps people understand better what the complexities are, and how to better evaluate them.
Right, it's means way of transmitting knowledge and wisdom, one that partially evolved out of a culture of oral storytelling. And ancient Indian literature is full of allegory and symbolism.
In The Celestial Key to the Vedas, for example, B. G. Sidharth notes that the Mahabharata "refers to an old lady who spins a fabric with 360 black threads and 360 white threads while a white horse stands by. The old lady is of course time. The black and white threads are night and day, and the white horse is the Sun. Incidentally, the origin of this symbolism is in the Vedic hymns of the Rig Veda. (1.64)" (53).
There are undoubtedly myths and superstitions involved in allegories such as this, but I imagine that this would make complete sense to an ancient Indian, whereas today we might not make the connections right away. And taking it literally, without digging any deeper, we run the risk of tossing it aside unexamined, thinking it without credibility, or else believing on faith in the existence of an old lady spinning thread in the sky rather than see it for what it is, an ancient reference to a year of time.
The imagery itself, however, doesn't become any less meaningful or evocative because there are people who think it without value, or who believe uncritically that the imagery is literally true.
How wonderful if the world was just the yarn of an old spinster . . . in other words if the symbolic represented the real and the real expressed itself as a symbol of itself . . .
According to the neptic fathers of the hesychast tradition of the Eastern Church if it be true that it is impossible for the mind not to be approached by thoughts it is true that we can choose to engage with thoughts and also influence the kind of thoughts that arise through the actions we choose to engage in. If we habitually engage in sinful or negative actions what types of thoughts do you think are going arise?
“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”- Matthew 6:21
Thoughts don't necessarily lead to sin. Think of going out to eat and you want to have relations with the waitress while you are with your girlfriend. You can simply let all black seeds rest in your heart until they pass and go back down into undifferentiated consciousness.
I am watching a TV series called Mad Men that is set in 1960. The whole culture is 'boys being boys' attitude. I can't explain it but I considering not watching it any more because the characters make me disgusted.
@Jeffrey said:
I am watching a TV series called Mad Men that is set in 1960. The whole culture is 'boys being boys' attitude. I can't explain it but I considering not watching it any more because the characters make me disgusted.
I felt much the same about 'Breaking Bad'. Wonderful, engrossing story, wonderful acting. I watched the first two series and then I had enough. I watched it because it deservedly won awards but ultimately it is just another soap opera. I have my own, literally.
Comments
@federica - I'm sorry if my post came across as defensive or irate - my response was neither. I was trying to say (and possible epically failed to) that at the end of the day, we can't know 100% because we weren't there to hear the Buddha. And really, why waste the energy when we could be practising?
Metta.
Sounds good to me. I'm a woman, in case that hasn't been clear. I'm grateful that at least so far, I don't NEED to know FER SURE what EXACTLY the Buddha said or meant or the EXACT context within which to PERFECTLY interpret the most subtle innuendo of his teachings. They are mostly beyond my current comprehension anyway, and I consider myself a serious student of meditation and him.
And even if we could determine veracity very precisely . . . is our comprehension SO PRECIOUS that lack of surety rocks the apple cart?
To me, there are important questions that condition the question of literalism's value. If those pre-existing questions were 'adequately' answered, maybe there would be no question of literalism's value at all.
For what it's worth, I think it's understandable and even desirable to turn a critical eye towards things like this, whether sutta passages or contemporary attitudes, in order to clarify our understanding of them and to challenge them if they're something we discern to be blameworthy.
In the case of the OP, I agree that the wording seems rather harsh and startling; but I understand the meaning to be, "It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a black viper than to break your vow of celibacy," not that women are bad. The monk in question did just comeback from a romp in the woods with his wife, after all.
PS: If where you stick your penis weren't an issue to begin with, this argument would not exist.
So obviously, sticking your penis somewhere is important, and the importance of where you stick it is the true dilemma here, not some scholarly issue of literalism.
PSS: I don't have a penis, which does prevent a bias necessary to continue this discussion.
I'd say that illustrates the problem of taking things out of context. If one were to read the entire sutta, one would see that this is a line from Mara who, desiring to make a bhikkhuni named Soma 'fall away from concentration,' voices an ancient bias, saying:
Which is to be attained by the seers,
Can't be attained by a woman
With her two-fingered wisdom
But Soma's response shows not only her wisdom, but counters this bias by replying:
>
A rejoinder that, in the words of Bhikkhu Bodhi, "is a forceful reminder that enlightenment does not depend on gender but on the mind's capacity for concentration and wisdom, qualities accessible to any human being who earnestly seeks to penetrate the truth."
Is this where I say you don't have control and cannot change anything?
Not if you're smart............. :P
Being smart is just a matter of circumstance; using them is a matter of wisdom. If I cannot make a beneficial decision in this, does that mean the entirety of my intelligence could be accurately labeled as 'not smart'? Perhaps we should deem me socially inept...
Am I wrong or is there a whispered premise in all of this that in order to be a Buddhist (or anything else for that matter) you must believe?
True, belief charts a beginner's course: How else to plot a change of direction or an improvement? Somehow, there has to be something to believe in and in that belief there are bound to be a few hard-to-swallow facets.
But am I wrong again to think that with practice (in Buddhism or anything else) a willingness and capacity and faith kicks in ... something along the lines of "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify?"
And with this as a yardstick, the need to argue or dissect or elevate or dismiss seems to fall away and belief is not so necessary ... it's the exercise of verification that counts, and past pronouncements -- good, bad or indifferent -- lose their allure. Not overnight and not all at once, perhaps, but maybe it just makes better practical sense: "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify." Others can believe what they like -- no matter. Whether you agree with them or not, still, without verifying in your own life, it's all pretty much holy hot air, don't you think?
Just thinking out loud.
If the shoe fits.....
....
So Mara is an actual being?
Mara can be or represent whatever one interprets him to. It's certainly true that, in some cases, he's portrayed as an actual being who tries to tempt and torment those on the path. That said, looking at the texts more critically, it's evident to me that, in most contexts, Mara is used as a personification of death; the psychological clinging to the aggregates that gives rise to suffering; the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion; and in this case, psychological doubt and temptation (i.e., I see him as representing Soma's doubts and the cultural bias that women were intellectually and spiritual inferior). For a more in-depth look, I suggest checking out the entry for Mara in the Dictionary of Pali Names.
no need for me to, I long ago decided Mara was not an actual being
but including fictional beings in what are supposed to be real teachings...i do find problematic...and Buddhism is full of that
Let's say Beethoven was a bad person. Doesn't mean one couldn't learn about music from the master....Buddha could've been misogynistic. Doesn't mean he couldn't teach us a thing or two about enlightenment.
If we judge ancient cultures and their stories and myths by our modern scientific standards, and take everything literally, then it can definitely be problematic. But I think that's a mistake, which is why I've spent a great deal of time trying to dig deeper into these stories and myths in an effort to understand the symbolism behind them, and then share what I learn with others.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexuality
This is obviously about the monks since we are talking Patimokkha. Putting your penis into a vagina or any other hole is of course a defeat... you can no longer become a monk again in this life.... hence you may as well of had your penis bitten off before becoming defeated, failing at the holy life, doomed to spend more time in samsara suffering.
It has nothing to do with " women are evil and dirty" imo. In fact it's the same thing for a women, however they are not penetrators so you may say allowing penetration is a defeat, may as well of allowed a snake to penetrate you or some such.
Kia Ora,
Literalism...Where Do We Draw The Line ?
__
On the
wordsortermsone does not like... It works for selfish me --Metta Shoshin
the problem with mixing symbolism with straight talk is that one always gets to the point where some believe something is symbolism, while others believe it is straight talk.
For example, if the kingdom in the center of the earth is symbolic, then perhaps nibanna and enlightenment are also symbolic.
All religions seem to play this game, and frankly, at least for me, they lose credibility when doing so.
I can sympathize. I used to have similar thoughts myself, being critical of things I found too much for my sensibilities to swallow in the Suttas, the Bible, etc. But now I think that maybe I was just being intellectually lazy, taking things too literally; and I've since found that my appreciation for ancient literature and religious texts continues to grow as I dig deeper into the cultures they come from and the rich symbolism underlying them. I've learned how to 'read between the lines' as they say.
My readings and interpretations may not always be correct; but I'd rather have a little chaff in my wheat than no wheat at all. (P. S. I'm not actually talking about wheat.)
Oh, I agree, it's fascinating. I love the Thai fables surrounding Buddhism, for example.
I have always thought of Mara as being a composite of psychological afflictions, a symbolic representation of what ails us, from day to day - Moment to moment, even.
And I actually thought that when I very first encountered the story of the Buddha; the allegorical imagery shouted out at me....
Same with the different Realms of existence... which is why it is said that your moment of Death is so important: Your Mind-State is what will open the door, and select the realm of your next existence at re-birth.
If you subscribe to such matters, that is....
Note: Realms are not the discussion, neither is re-birth. I'm referring to the method of transmission of teachings, and how we absorb them...
It's not a game.
It's a way of transmitting things in a way when people were perhaps not so educated or able to read; we are surrounded by allegorical works of Art which transmit stories and lessons, and as they say, 'a picture paints a thousand words'. Giving people an image, a picture of what the story, lesson, sutta or teaching actually expounds or relates, helps people understand better what the complexities are, and how to better evaluate them.
The Black Viper is a pretty nasty piece of imagery, as is Mara, as is Yama - but they get the point across.
if you can view them as a teaching aid, instead of "a game", it may help....
No problem, It was a good post.
But I think it natural for us to prickle a little....
@Federica, here's the problem. Go to Thailand. There are people there who believe that imagery is real. Just like the people that believe Jesus fed the multitudes with a few fish and loaves of bread.
Look, I'm sorry. I can't go to Thailand even if I wanted to.
And I'm not focusing on Thais, or any other cultural tendencies.
I'm talking about what the Suttas, teachings and methods of transmission are viewed by us.
Jeesh, @Vinlyn, I'm sorry you take issue with it, but I can't address your problem on a global scale, I'm keeping it real and just talking here, about things which affect us, directly 'where we are', ok...?
Miracles are a bit different to allegories. That's what the 'Loaves and Fishes' tale is...
In all my years studying and practising Catholicism, the miracles were never referred to as allegories...
My reason for posting is because without addressing these issues in a balanced way they can ( and I have seen this happen ) become a roomful of elephant.
At which point some people just drop the whole thing..I have seen it.
Or simply assume a simplistic position of always putting 'Buddhism' in quotes...which is a cop out.
Or they can adopt a fundamentalist position...there is at least one website where you will see many people who have gone down that route.
They interpret the passage to mean that any sex for anybody is fatal for their meditation life..
And that women are suspect, at least.
Which is probably why that website has about three active members ( no pun intended ) who are female, and one of those is a mod.
And ( of course ) I have no problem with the population of Thailand or Myanmar or Nepal, but I was not addressing folk belief.
What a guy! My hero. Anybody who provides fish has got to be taken seriously.
OK cushion - take me to the fish
No, this is where I say with control you can't change anything. With choice and acceptance you can.
Are we going to do these circles again? I am insane and patient and will do this for the rest of my life.....
There is nothing to choose if you don't have some control.
There is no control needed if you give up wanting to make the choice.
You love to use the "c" word (control, not choice). But apparently, control has led you to think you can't change anything. For such a dauting word, the illusion of control would seem to leave you a toy of circumstances.
Acceptance and choice don't.
We don't have control of what thoughts come up, but we do have control if we are going to get lost in them or not. And the latter is a limited amount of control. In meditation we always go off of the breath sometimes just because awareness is always drifting around.
Or we can choose if we are going to get lost in them or not, @Jeffrey.
It sounds different. Control sounds like striving.
Just noticed that @Grayman often uses the verbs "control" and "manipulate," which in a Buddhist context struck me as misplaced. And unrealistic and contrived in a wider context, anyway.
But maybe that's just me.
different words take different people different places
Gosh, its almost like Nevermind is once more walking among us...
Did he get kicked out or leave...maybe I shouldn't be so bold.
He received the Royal order of the Mod-Boot....
influence would be better than manipulate...
The point is that you cannot change the world by ignoring your thoughts. You cannot help women get more rights without some kind of influence. We cannot control the physical world but there is something within us we can control or at least within me. I don't really beleive I can control my own arm but with influence it still moves.
Although I believe see it this way, people are not really going to understand why I say I influence/manipulate my arm instead of control my arm. I might as well just say it normally.
I still tend to use control when speaking about myself and manipulate when referring to the world or the process of my emotions and tboughts because any interaction with these is through indirect means of manipulation or influence.
Yes striving is accurate. Wanting to change womans rights is striving. Intention is striving. Where does Buddhism say you cannot have a thought or opinion or goal?
You most certainly can and probably should have goals, for your practice and for life in general. It'd be hard to retire and afford to live without some planning and goals, afterall. It'd be hard to send kids off to college or do a budget. Striving tends to have a negative connotation as far as an attachment to an outcome. It (around here anyhow) has a connection to perfectionism. Set goals, work towards goals. Don't be attached to the goals or to the exact outcome of your "striving."
A very wise approach.
We can wish otherwise, but the indisputable fact of their own writings proves the early Arahants, at least, had a definite bias against women. It was that whole lustful desire for sex thing and they had to have strong rules and words against it because...damn it, this thing between our legs seems to have a mind of its own. What do we expect? They were a celibate exclusively male group. One way is to flip out completely and begin to detest even the thought of a naked, glistening, soft...
Ahem.
That doesn't mean we have to buy into the "Yuck! Cooties!" teaching. For one thing, even the Arahants didn't expect the lay population to be celibate. They just didn't believe it was possible to live any sort of normal household life and reach the lofty heights of purity required to join their ranks. Maybe they were right. I have no desire to be an arahant. They were a stuck-up bunch in general.
They were what they were. And did Buddha really believe it was better to wave his tallywacker at a snake than engage in a bit of the bumpy? We have no way of knowing. The early Buddhists believed that's what he said. He did allow female monks into the club, although reluctantly.
@Jeffrey
According to the neptic fathers of the hesychast tradition of the Eastern Church if it be true that it is impossible for the mind not to be approached by thoughts it is true that we can choose to engage with thoughts and also influence the kind of thoughts that arise through the actions we choose to engage in. If we habitually engage in sinful or negative actions what types of thoughts do you think are going arise?
“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”- Matthew 6:21
NEPTIC (Adjective)
Nepsis is a greek word which means to be watchful, alert, vigilant and to basically 'keep a look out'.
HESYCHAST (Hezi-Kast)
one of an Eastern Orthodox ascetic sect of mystics originating among the monks of Mount Athos in the 14th century and practicing a quietistic method of contemplation for the purpose of attaining a beatific vision or similar mystical experience
Origin of HESYCHAST
Middle Greek hēsychastēs, from Late Greek, quietist, hermit; Greek hēsychazein, to be still, keep quiet; from hēsychos quiet;
Right, it's means way of transmitting knowledge and wisdom, one that partially evolved out of a culture of oral storytelling. And ancient Indian literature is full of allegory and symbolism.
In The Celestial Key to the Vedas, for example, B. G. Sidharth notes that the Mahabharata "refers to an old lady who spins a fabric with 360 black threads and 360 white threads while a white horse stands by. The old lady is of course time. The black and white threads are night and day, and the white horse is the Sun. Incidentally, the origin of this symbolism is in the Vedic hymns of the Rig Veda. (1.64)" (53).
There are undoubtedly myths and superstitions involved in allegories such as this, but I imagine that this would make complete sense to an ancient Indian, whereas today we might not make the connections right away. And taking it literally, without digging any deeper, we run the risk of tossing it aside unexamined, thinking it without credibility, or else believing on faith in the existence of an old lady spinning thread in the sky rather than see it for what it is, an ancient reference to a year of time.
The imagery itself, however, doesn't become any less meaningful or evocative because there are people who think it without value, or who believe uncritically that the imagery is literally true.
Ah ye olde lady spin . . . @Jason
Some of the Buddhist threads lead back to a tantram
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tantra
How wonderful if the world was just the yarn of an old spinster . . . in other words if the symbolic represented the real and the real expressed itself as a symbol of itself . . .
I can feel one of @federica headaches coming.
(say nothing cushion . . . N O T H I N G!)
"Literalism...Where Do We Draw The Line ?"
Start by not drawing a line. Bob
Thoughts don't necessarily lead to sin. Think of going out to eat and you want to have relations with the waitress while you are with your girlfriend. You can simply let all black seeds rest in your heart until they pass and go back down into undifferentiated consciousness.
I think that is exactly what you said !
I am watching a TV series called Mad Men that is set in 1960. The whole culture is 'boys being boys' attitude. I can't explain it but I considering not watching it any more because the characters make me disgusted.
I felt much the same about 'Breaking Bad'. Wonderful, engrossing story, wonderful acting. I watched the first two series and then I had enough. I watched it because it deservedly won awards but ultimately it is just another soap opera. I have my own, literally.