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.
There is an important message for anyone who considers themselves a Western Buddhist on this blog regarding the Amitabha Stupa here in Sedona. Please read it.
I've heard something about stupas before, but I've not really looked into them. What is the significance of a stupa, and why is it important to have one in the US?
I did a quick search on Wikipedia and didn’t realize how many stupa’s there are through out the world. I hope to see this succeed. It will be a wonderful place to visit and also a great educational symbol for this country.
Stupas are a physical manifestation of the mind of the Buddha, the mind of enlightenment. You might call them peace generators. For more information, please go to our website about stupas, www.stupas.org.
Stupas are a physical manifestation of the mind of the Buddha, the mind of enlightenment. You might call them peace generators. For more information, please go to our website about stupas, www.stupas.org.
I wonder if the Buddha placed the same importance on stupas as man seems to have over the years and centuries.
My perception is that he wanted us to focus on practicing and living the dhamma and having wisdom and compassion more then anything else and that anything else may just be coming from the minds of men.
I am not stating any kind of fact or strong opinion here, just reflecting on it.
Well, we'll let Lord Buddha himself answer that one:
And for what reason is a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, worthy of a burial mound [stupa]? [At the thought,] 'This is the burial mound of a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened,' many people will brighten their minds. Having brightened their minds there, then — on the break-up of the body, after death — they will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world. It is for this reason that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, is worthy of a burial mound.
I remember when I was 13 years old my family was visiting my brother in San Diego where he was stationed in the Navy. He wanted us to go to a bullfight in Tijuana, so we drove down to the bullring through the town of Tijuana. I don't know if you've ever been there, but it is your typical Mexican border town, pretty rundown and poor (at least it was then, haven't been back since). The one thing that struck me as we drove through town was the sight of a huge, beautiful Catholic church stuck in the middle of squalid slums and how incongruous this looked. I thought at the time that this was a waste of money that could have been better spent on improving the lives of the people in the slums.
I think Mr. Kimbough's argument follows similar lines. Why waste money building stupas when it could be much better spent improving or saving lives? It's understandable to think this way, but it's ordinary view. I think you have to understand the difference between what we call in Buddhaspeak relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta. Bodhicitta, if you don't know, is the union of wisdom and compassion. It is, in fact, enlightened mind. To give rise to bodhicitta is just another way of saying attaining enlightenment. What is important to note here is the word "compassion". Compassion is not separate from enlightenment, and you can't have one without the other.
Now, there is, as I mentioned, relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta. Relative bodhicitta is dealing with dualistic "reality", such as building schools to educate children or saving the lives of abandoned dogs that face euthanization. It is relative because it only provides temporary relief of suffering. Will educating the children completely remove suffering from their lives? Will saving the dogs mean that they will never die? Of course not. But it is always meritorious to relieve suffering wherever you find it, and such activity has always been strongly encouraged by not only the Buddha, but all realized teachers. For one thing, when you're helping others you're not focused on yourself and your little problems, so even on that level it is most beneficial.
However, relative bodhicitta only goes so far. Even if you were rich enough to feed all the starving people in the world for the rest of their lives, eventually they will still die. So relative bodhicitta does not get at the root of suffering. Ultimate bodhicitta does, however. Ultimate bodhicitta brings a permanent end to suffering by helping sentient beings attain the same state that the Buddha achieved, what we call enlightenment, the end of suffering. Building a stupa falls into this category because it operates on a level outside of ordinary, dualistic reality. The benefits of a stupa are not something easily understood by us ordinary sentient beings still caught in the delusion of self. But to build a stupa in the world, which brings benefit to all who see or even hear of it, in reality does more for sentient beings than all the schools and feeding programs and rescue operations that have ever been. So that's why we build stupas and are happy to do so.
By the way, the bullfight was one of the worst experiences of my life...
I would never want to think of building stupas or any other temples, additions to a temple, schools, etc. as being a waste of money or condemn or criticize those who do.
I do feel that an overemphasis on this kind of phenomenon though can create some problems regarding what Buddhism is and how it may "save" us.
I have lived in Thailand and more recently Cambodia for the last 21 years.
What we see here at times are laypeople donating money, etc. to the temple with the wrong intention. This can sadden anyone who is sincerely interested in the wise and compassionate path that the Buddha shared with us.
We can not save ourselves unless we assist with the right intention in the saving of others.
We really are right in the middle of a problem of communicating the Dharma in a reductionist, materialist culture.
Palzang - ans many others - perceive actions such as building stupas, and contributing to the cost, as "operat(ing) on a level outside of ordinary, dualistic reality", a daring claim. The reductionist has a different approach: their dualism is between what they deem 'real' and 'unreal', where the 'unreal' (non-empirical) is dismissed. Thus, Palzang's claim that stupas bring "benefit to all who see or even hear of it", being untestable in empirical terms, is seen by such people as akin to superstition. And I know how much of a 'trigger' word that is.
Nevertheless, I think that we need to understand that all the spiritual disciplines including Buddhism, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or whatever, are like the 'saint' described in Francis Thompson's poem:
Swinging-wicket, set
Between
The Unseen and Seen Any Saint Francis Thompson
John's standpoint is that of Avalokiteshvara who looks at samsara and weeps; Palzang's is that of the mystic (sorry, Pal-la, but there it is!) who, aware all the time of the suffering of all beings, has eyes turned towards the enlightenment of "the whole of creation, groaning as in labour". Buddhism needs both. The reductionist may come to see that Buddhist practice achieves measurable results and be led to understand more than stripped-down empiricism.
You're quite right, Simon, we do need both, and I would never say we should just build stupas and ignore the starving and suffering. Nor would my teachers. Quite the opposite. And I agree with John that there are people who make offerings for the wrong reasons, i.e. for personal gain or whatever, particularly in countries like Thailand, China, etc. That is unfortunate and should be discouraged. Hopefully we are doing that here in the West, though whether you can ever completely eliminate it is doubtful. People make offerings for their own reasons, and even making such offerings for the wrong reasons can have a good result.
BTW, I am not offended by being labeled a mystic. Proud of it!
Comments
Palzang
Wonderful! Thank you.
My perception is that he wanted us to focus on practicing and living the dhamma and having wisdom and compassion more then anything else and that anything else may just be coming from the minds of men.
I am not stating any kind of fact or strong opinion here, just reflecting on it.
And for what reason is a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, worthy of a burial mound [stupa]? [At the thought,] 'This is the burial mound of a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened,' many people will brighten their minds. Having brightened their minds there, then — on the break-up of the body, after death — they will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world. It is for this reason that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, is worthy of a burial mound.
Maha-Parinibbana Sutta
Palzang
I remember when I was 13 years old my family was visiting my brother in San Diego where he was stationed in the Navy. He wanted us to go to a bullfight in Tijuana, so we drove down to the bullring through the town of Tijuana. I don't know if you've ever been there, but it is your typical Mexican border town, pretty rundown and poor (at least it was then, haven't been back since). The one thing that struck me as we drove through town was the sight of a huge, beautiful Catholic church stuck in the middle of squalid slums and how incongruous this looked. I thought at the time that this was a waste of money that could have been better spent on improving the lives of the people in the slums.
I think Mr. Kimbough's argument follows similar lines. Why waste money building stupas when it could be much better spent improving or saving lives? It's understandable to think this way, but it's ordinary view. I think you have to understand the difference between what we call in Buddhaspeak relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta. Bodhicitta, if you don't know, is the union of wisdom and compassion. It is, in fact, enlightened mind. To give rise to bodhicitta is just another way of saying attaining enlightenment. What is important to note here is the word "compassion". Compassion is not separate from enlightenment, and you can't have one without the other.
Now, there is, as I mentioned, relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta. Relative bodhicitta is dealing with dualistic "reality", such as building schools to educate children or saving the lives of abandoned dogs that face euthanization. It is relative because it only provides temporary relief of suffering. Will educating the children completely remove suffering from their lives? Will saving the dogs mean that they will never die? Of course not. But it is always meritorious to relieve suffering wherever you find it, and such activity has always been strongly encouraged by not only the Buddha, but all realized teachers. For one thing, when you're helping others you're not focused on yourself and your little problems, so even on that level it is most beneficial.
However, relative bodhicitta only goes so far. Even if you were rich enough to feed all the starving people in the world for the rest of their lives, eventually they will still die. So relative bodhicitta does not get at the root of suffering. Ultimate bodhicitta does, however. Ultimate bodhicitta brings a permanent end to suffering by helping sentient beings attain the same state that the Buddha achieved, what we call enlightenment, the end of suffering. Building a stupa falls into this category because it operates on a level outside of ordinary, dualistic reality. The benefits of a stupa are not something easily understood by us ordinary sentient beings still caught in the delusion of self. But to build a stupa in the world, which brings benefit to all who see or even hear of it, in reality does more for sentient beings than all the schools and feeding programs and rescue operations that have ever been. So that's why we build stupas and are happy to do so.
By the way, the bullfight was one of the worst experiences of my life...
Palzang
I do feel that an overemphasis on this kind of phenomenon though can create some problems regarding what Buddhism is and how it may "save" us.
I have lived in Thailand and more recently Cambodia for the last 21 years.
What we see here at times are laypeople donating money, etc. to the temple with the wrong intention. This can sadden anyone who is sincerely interested in the wise and compassionate path that the Buddha shared with us.
We can not save ourselves unless we assist with the right intention in the saving of others.
Palzang - ans many others - perceive actions such as building stupas, and contributing to the cost, as "operat(ing) on a level outside of ordinary, dualistic reality", a daring claim. The reductionist has a different approach: their dualism is between what they deem 'real' and 'unreal', where the 'unreal' (non-empirical) is dismissed. Thus, Palzang's claim that stupas bring "benefit to all who see or even hear of it", being untestable in empirical terms, is seen by such people as akin to superstition. And I know how much of a 'trigger' word that is.
Nevertheless, I think that we need to understand that all the spiritual disciplines including Buddhism, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or whatever, are like the 'saint' described in Francis Thompson's poem: John's standpoint is that of Avalokiteshvara who looks at samsara and weeps; Palzang's is that of the mystic (sorry, Pal-la, but there it is!) who, aware all the time of the suffering of all beings, has eyes turned towards the enlightenment of "the whole of creation, groaning as in labour". Buddhism needs both. The reductionist may come to see that Buddhist practice achieves measurable results and be led to understand more than stripped-down empiricism.
BTW, I am not offended by being labeled a mystic. Proud of it!
Palzang