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.
Buddhist Sadhana — what is it?
Jeroen
Not all those who wander are lostNetherlands Veteran
Wikipedia says the Sanskrit word ‘sadhana’ means a spiritual discipline or practice aimed at accomplishing a goal. So can it be any kind of practice, whatever you identify with? For example Hindu sadhus often do bathing in the Ganges as a kind of sadhana for purification.
It seems to be really varied. @IdleChater in the past talked about a tantric feast as a kind of sadhana involving alcohol and red meat.
1
Comments
You didn't listen.
I mentioned a particular tantric feast practice, being a sadhana, not "kind of", that includes consuming red meat (beef, etc.) and alcohol. You may also find the consumption of cannabis and a substance found specifically in Tibetan Buddhism, called Dutsi.
Sadhana differs from other practices in that it requires transmission to undertake the practice. This is a ceremony that includes a reading of the entire liturgy. It's also a class in how to actually perform the practice - the use mantra, mudra, mala, music and so on.
Then, you can do the practice.
What you're dealing with here is an esoteric cult. That's "cult" in the more classic sense. Not Jonestown.
There's a lot more to that can be shared, so ask away if you want, but that's a good place to stop, for now.
I remember this in some of the TB tantric initiations I attended. The red meat and alcohol was just a small piece of jerky and a bit of some sort of alcohol poured into the palm of your hand that you sipped. It kind of reminded me of Christian communion with the bread and wine. They're symbolic of something greater, but honestly it felt rather ceremonial and ritualistic.
Which doesn’t answer my question… is the idea of sadhana restricted in Buddhism to certain specific acts, or not?
@Jeroen
If one is a Buddha or Bodhisattva (that is enlightened) everything good, bad or incomprehensible is a teaching. There are no restrictions. If still tied/tethered/restrained by a teacher (a good thing in most cases) then advisement, methods and directives can be very useful.
An example in Theravada (and Tantra) is monks setting fire to themselves in protest. This is an extreme form of violence against oneself and is condemned.
Obviously in some religions violence including burning heretics or shooting, violating people is one of the 'perks' of the perverse...
Think I will just try and be goodly
I agree it is ritualistic, but I don’t think I agree with the modern scientific interpretation that ritual is somehow hollow and purely physical. There is this belief in science that things that can’t be measured don’t exist, and that the effects of ritual are nonexistent. But as a counter example there are cases of people suddenly being cured of diseases like cancer.
We do a lot of things because of reasons we believe in, not what the science tells us. Like the Hindu’s choosing to die at their holy city of Varanasi, or bathing in the Ganges to become purified of sins. You could call these things ritual, but for the true believer they have an effect on the body or on the spiritual state.
I think there is very little understanding of man’s spiritual nature. Scientific man is largely cut off from his spiritual nature, which leads to a kind of madness in the spiritual world, and a mental health crisis in the physical world. My experience is that the spiritual world is very real, and that in order to maintain good health, wholeness and harmony of both our physical and our psychic aspects we need to be more aware of our spiritual lives.
Sadhana is a key aspect of that. What is meaningful to one person may not resonate with another. It’s something we all need to explore.
There's a good Tibetan story: "a young man is asked by his dying mother to obtain a sacred relic to help her. He fails to do this and instead deceivingly brings her a tooth from the skeleton of a dog. He tells her it is the Buddha's tooth.
This version humorously recreates the wily son's schemes. It movingly conveys how the mother's strong faith has the power to fulfill her dreams in spite of the son's deceit."
The placebo effect is very real. People who believe they are taking pain medicine feel pain relief. The body produces endorphins due to their belief.
I'm in agreement, I retain a skeptical attitude towards the cause of that benefit though.
Edit:
Its not that I'm arguing for a strictly materialist view of the world. I experience things in my life that can't really be explained scientifically. And I understand the value of belief for people. Its more that I'm concerned about what else lies on the other side of the door of belief without proof.
I know someone who regularly experiences sleep paralysis, he'll get the demonic visions and see spirits slipping off the edge of the bed. Science has some solid things to say about what is occurring physically that makes this happen and that's the attitude he has about what he experiences. Across most of the world there are more spiritual beliefs about what is happening and in those cultures dying in your sleep is more common.
Or imagine if the Tibetan lady with the dog's tooth believed that ingesting mercury was a divine blessing. Maybe her belief would bring her great benefit, but the mercury would still poison her. Unverified belief isn't harmless.
Also there is the case where beliefs become widespread and tribal such that it becomes taboo to not think God intervened to make the bullet miss Trump.
I guess the question is, how do we discern beneficial beliefs from Jesus toast or mercury tonics without some empiricism?
Well, I am a believer in what is called the bodymind. It is that part of man’s overall makeup where the body and mind meet, which allows the mind to affect the body and vice versa. Further, I think there is also a psychic component, where people touch on things like ancestor spirits, the activities of gifted shamans or psychics, the influence of power places on the Earth, and so on.
I’m not saying the influence of the psychic component is dominant, I think in a lot of cases it is small, mainly because people are turned into doubters and skeptics by reason, logic and science. I think in the world of ones inner self, the spiritual world, feelings trump reason and logic. It’s not only what you believe, but what your senses - visible and invisible - tell you,
I'm not trying to say none of these things exist. I'm asking how do we know what exists? If someone's feeling tells them that God burnt an image of Jesus on their toast, how do we discern that from someone saying their feelings tell them their dead grandparent speaks to them, to someone saying a lifetime of meditation practice brings a kind of peace not available in everyday life?
I don’t think someone’s feelings would tell them that? A certain emotional literacy would introduce them to a sensation of soberness which is key to working with feelings. It is a form of minimal interference, a kind of reticence to express oneself when it’s not appropriate. So we assume very little exists, and we wait for things to reveal themselves to us.
In the case of the burnt toast, there have been a thousand other pieces of toast with similar patterns, what makes this one special? Why would an image of Jesus on toast be more special than, say, an image of Leonardo da Vinci? The answer is it’s only toast, the magic is in the eye of the beholder — looking for Jesus everywhere.
One’s feelings might tell one ‘there is Jesus!’ And perhaps for the true believer Jesus is indeed everywhere, but that is a case of ‘enter the kingdom of God from there’, that gate too can be found, I feel, anywhere because it leads within.
By that, you mean what exists? This is what I'm objecting to, you may feel like something is true but that doesn't make it so.
Sounds good.
Not sure what you mean here.
Isn't this like everything though? Are our feelings about these things good indicators as to whether they truly exist or not?
They're (our feelings) powerful in terms of their meaning for us, but that's different.
My point of view is that our feelings and intuitions are powerful information pointing us towards important things. But they aren't fact, they're heavily influenced by bias and conditioning. They can be developed and trained to be better though.
Are they indeed heavily biased by conditioning? I’m not so sure that is true, and the right response might well be deconditioning rather than further training, which is just more conditioning. It seems to me one shouldn’t be afraid of the natural, basic impulse, that which is underneath all this conditioning… that is what is close to one’s intuition.
I don't have time before work to write something up, maybe later. Here's a couple articles about how bias shapes our intuitions and feelings.
https://www.equalture.com/bias-overview/intuition-bias/
https://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/misfires
In my mind deconditioning is a form of training and effort. It takes intention and work.
Yes, I am less sanguine about humans inherent nature. I think we have things hardwired in that don't serve us well in the modern world. Its a mixed bag of positive and negative.
This?
Sure? You could take literally anything and call it a Sadhana. Walking a dog? The dog itself, perhaps? I could see it.
Do you have a practice in mind to call a sadhana, even though it's not? You don't even know what a sadhana is, really. But it seems like you want to use the word ignorantly. Go ahead. You spend a lot of time on what is supposed to be a forum for Buddhism, but you seldom want to discuss Buddhism. Using Buddhist terminology to suit your own beliefs is ok. No one will come and take your birthday away - LOLz.
I don’t disagree, but the question is, to what extent should we attempt to integrate with the modern world? There are still millions who live as monastics in ancient Buddhist traditions, and millions more who live as holy men in other traditions. Maybe that is a more natural home for us.
I'd say its something of a practical question, at least for you and me. I think I'd be happy living a more renunciate life if I was in your financial situation. And do you think you'd still avoid the modern world and live as a renunciate of a lifestyle if it meant joining and relying on a spiritual community for your sustenance? For most of us it is about trying to integrate spirituality into the reality of our daily lives.
And then square what you've been arguing here with your position on belief in hell in the "what books are you reading" thread? Are those beliefs not also part of feelings about the spiritual realm?