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.
Buddhism... The DIY Belief System (or Religion for those who prefer to see it that way)
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
Heh the Buddha wasn't even the Buddha! He referred to himself as the Tathagata; it was only others who called him the Buddha. I'm still not sure if the Buddha had any kind of Hindu-like religion or religious beliefs, after all this time, though I'm pretty sure Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jewish. It'd be nice to get that cleared up, if anyone knows.
I should point out that when I say "I like being my own boss" I mean I take full responsibility for what happens in my life, (the buck stops here) and when the s#!+ hits the fan, I'm not looking for someone or thing to blame...
My simple understanding of the BuddhaDharma (refuge in the Buddha(awaken mind) Dharma(true nature of things) Sangha(amongst like-minded people) is what gets me through life, I don't try to complicate things by over analysing...
My simple philosophy is "S#!T Happens!" if it didn't we would all be full of it!
Metta Shoshin . ..
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
In terms of "influence and control over the practitioners"...not so sure I agree with this, at least in terms of the present time. I think that may have been very true historically, but at least in the West, in today's culture, more and more people are expressing sentiments that they believe in God, but not in any one church, and official membership in most churches is at pretty much an all-time low. Even back in the mid-1960s when I was growing up Catholic, most in my very-Catholic family didn't really care much about what the Pope said, or even what the local priest said. Yes, they still did confession and the like, but it was more ritualistic than anything, and they pretty much ignored teachings on topics such as birth control, and to some extent even abortion (the anti-abortion thing had a heavier cultural slant, than a Catholic slant, at least in my home town). And today -- 50 years later, I think independence in Western religion is much more the rule.
Good points all; in modern times, people aren't bound by what used to bind their loyalty and obedience. I see a consequence of the previous era's institutionalization though, it just occurred to me. How many folks like your family who were more detached from their Catholicism ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Instead of reclaiming their 'right' to access to the 'divine' from priests and Popes, they dropped the whole subject?
And who could blame them, ritual without a personal 'relationship' to the 'divine' is kind of pointless, unless it serves purposes of pretention or to allay fears of being cast into hell or struck by lightning .
I should point out that when I say "I like being my own boss" I mean I take full responsibility for what happens in my life, (the buck stops here) and when the s#!+ hits the fan, I'm not looking for someone or thing to blame...
It's not really possible to take full responsibility for one's life, since some things happen to us.
@Hamsaka said:
Good points all; in modern times, people aren't bound by what used to bind their loyalty and obedience. I see a consequence of the previous era's institutionalization though, it just occurred to me. How many folks like your family who were more detached from their Catholicism ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Instead of reclaiming their 'right' to access to the 'divine' from priests and Popes, they dropped the whole subject? And who could blame them, ritual without a personal 'relationship' to the 'divine' is kind of pointless, unless it serves purposes of pretention or to allay fears of being cast into hell or struck by lightning.
First, I didn't get thrown out with the bathwater! ;-)
I guess people nowadays are pulling a Frank Sinatra (I did it my way).
I'll give you a good example, and this is from about 1969. A close friend who was Methodist was getting married and wanted me in the wedding party. To attend a religious service at a non-Catholic church at the time you had to get a dispensation from the priest. I requested it, and the priest said no, that I could not attend the wedding. I told my uncle about -- and he went to Mass every Sunday and everyday Holy Day Of Obligation. His response: "Tell Father Doran to go..." ... well, let's just say it was something no man can do.
@vinlyn said:
It's not really possible to take full responsibility for one's life, since some things happen to us.
Kia Ora,
Put it this way, I don't blame others when unwholesome things have happened to 'me'... Karma's karma....
I'm off to work...............................
Metta Shoshin . ...
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited July 2014
@vinlyn said:
It's not really possible to take full responsibility for one's life, since some things happen to us.
Indeed; so, could how a person responds to things that happen to them be part of that 'full responsibility' continuum?
If I got a phone call with terrible news, the murder of a loved one, and in rage and shock I said or did something hurtful, did I really 'choose' to do that? If I did a hurtful thing a week later, or a year later on the anniversary of the death, am I more responsible for my behavior than I was when the news was fresh?
It's almost a sound byte "we are responsible for how we respond" . . . and it has the ring of truth. Are we only responsible after the initial shock and grief?
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
@vinlyn said:
It's not really possible to take full responsibility for one's life, since some things happen to us.
>
No, but we must take full and complete responsibility for our responses and reactions.
And that is part of our life. It's not the to us that matters. It's our come-back that counts.
@federica said:
"Man is the only creature that prays.
Kia Ora,
I beg to differ...Praying mantises always say grace before a meal . ..
Metta Shoshin . ..
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Heh the Buddha wasn't even the Buddha! He referred to himself as the Tathagata; it was only others who called him the Buddha. I'm still not sure if the Buddha had any kind of Hindu-like religion or religious beliefs, after all this time, though I'm pretty sure Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jewish. It'd be nice to get that cleared up, if anyone knows.
It's hard to say what kind of religious beliefs Buddha held as he seemed to word things fairly carefully.
As for Jesus it depends on what one considered Jewish. If one can be Jewish simply because their mother was Jewish then he was Jewish. If one has to actually believe as a Jew to be Jewish then no, he wasn't.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited July 2014
@ourself said:
If one has to actually believe as a Jew to be Jewish then no, he wasn't.
But believe what specifically? And are there verses show that he didn't? That's what I wanna know. As I understand it belief has never been a big requisite of being Jewish; they focused on good works instead. The scriptures at least seem to support Jesus believing in Yahweh (Jehovah), and if that's not the minimum requirement for belonging to a faith tradition I don't know what is. He said he didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. Again it seems to be within the context of Judaism and its traditions. I think his vision was just "different" from mainstream Judaism, much like Joseph Smith's vision of Christianity led to Mormonism.
This is why I wonder what the Buddha actually believed, or if he even believed anything particular, because it's clear that Buddhism was born within its own context.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Well, at the risk of going too far off topic, I'll just put forth that the version of God that Jesus believed in went through some kind of anger management if it is the same as the God of Abrahams vision.
As for Buddha, I'm not sure if I think he actually "believed" anything he couldn't test. He paid homage to any and all gods others believed in but I think he saved faith for things like humankinds ability to wake up.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited July 2014
@ourself It's enough for me, from what I've read, to recognize that Jesus tried to improve things. To bring more "love thy neighbor" into the picture, and less judgment. There's a reason many Buddhists consider him a bodhisattva. At least he tried to change things. The result may be a mixed bag (the concept of Hell certainly mars the picture), but let's not get into that!
@vinlyn said:
What I'm trying to get at here is that we do not have control over our lives, no matter how much we think we do.
Excellent point. 'Shit happens' (NT1) and 'what is this shit?' (NT2)
Thank goodness there is Noble Truth three and four . . .
The suffering of suffering is like you hit your thumb with a hammer and go "Ouch! That hurts!" The suffering of change is the sad fact that what you like will pass away, and what you do not like will come to pass. All-pervasive suffering is described as omnipresent, and refers to "suffering due to existing in dependence upon afflicted aggregates".
In that view, it is said that merely to live in a world that is conditioned by your afflictive ignorance is itself a continual cause of low-grade suffering. I think this strongly resembles what Carl Jung calls "the suffering occassioned by the opposites". As long as you think dualistically, you will find yourself again and again caught in irreconcilable suffering, like Antigone.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
But believe what specifically? And are there verses show that he didn't? That's what I wanna know. As I understand it belief has never been a big requisite of being Jewish; they focused on good works instead. The scriptures at least seem to support Jesus believing in Yahweh (Jehovah), and if that's not the minimum requirement for belonging to a faith tradition I don't know what is. He said he didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. Again it seems to be within the context of Judaism and its traditions. I think his vision was just "different" from mainstream Judaism, much like Joseph Smith's vision of Christianity led to Mormonism.
This is why I wonder what the Buddha actually believed, or if he even believed anything particular, because it's clear that Buddhism was born within its own context.
Well, for starters, Jews believe that God (or G-d as they prefer) is more impersonal and has no corporeal form. So when Jesus comes around and says that he is the Son of God (a corporeal form of God), you can imagine what the Jewish community thought of that...
I wouldn't say that Jesus taught an "alternative Judaism." He pretty much tried to rewrite the whole book. Clearly not the most friendly thing to do within the Jewish community.
Anyways, I was sort of thinking about the whole Jesus-Judaism thing recently as well, and stumbled upon this page which more or less explains the general Jewish viewpoint on Jesus.
As for the Buddha - although his teachings were quite radical for the predominantly Hindu society at the time, you can still see traces of Hindu beliefs and practices within Buddhist teachings. The concepts of kamma, samsara, nibbana, etc. Here's a chart that generally compares the two religions; since we know a bit more about Buddhism, we can fill in the skimpy details and put the pieces together. I think the Buddha was very much influenced by the Hindu society - more so than Jesus was influenced by Judaism.
@vinlyn said:
What I'm trying to get at here is that we do not have control over our lives, no matter how much we think we do.
I agree for the most part, perhaps with the modification: "...we do not have total control over our lives..."
Though we try our damn hardest to shape our immediate life experiences with the influence that we have, I believe there is always an element of no-control. I think that an important part of most religious traditions is to accept this no-control and let things move on from there, rather than trying to exert our ego over that moment. Theists would probably say they were "leaving it up to God," Daoists would likely refer to it as 自然 or zìrán - naturalness. Zen follows closely with the Daoist line of thought, but with different terminology. Even in the Theravada tradition, Ajahn Chah talks of insight as being "... free from attachment to a sense of self that attempts to control and force things to go according to its desires. Rather, you let go with an acceptance of the way things are."
So in my opinion and experience, saying that Buddhism is purely self-effort - a philosophy revolving around learning how to control your life - is not accurate. The "letting go" that is talked about in nearly all Buddhist traditions includes letting go of the idea that we have total control.
4
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
It seem to me (roughly speaking) Buddhism is all about "Do It Yourself" no higher power such as supernatural beings involved...It's roll up sleeves, apron (or overalls) on and get stuck 'in' (look inwardly )...
This seems to be the major difference when it comes to other BSs/religions ie, those whose practitioners look to an outside source for guidance, forgiveness and the like...
So when it comes to Buddhism...Do you see it as a DIY BS ? IE, you're on your own, your own boss so to speak....
Or is there some form of higher power that you call upon when the going gets tough ?
Personally I like being my own boss...even when the s#!+ hits the fan and all hell breaks loose...
Metta Shoshin . ..
I think you are your own boss but you are a work in progress. Also it is good to find others who you admire as a role model. Fundamental texts in at least my school of Tibetan Buddhism say that you need a real teacher to point out the dharma. I'm a little foggy on what the difference is between practicing alone and with a teacher is. I think working with a teacher for a long time you see the sutras and your like 'gosh that really makes sense now'. In my experience the clarity of a gurus teaching can sometimes show you how to bring the dharma into your actual life. And you read that and you say 'cool now I can be closer to awakening'. But it's not easy being in the human realm and there are difficult times. A guru freaks some people out that they will become controlled by the guru. I think I have that sense fear. So I would say for me that the guru is a higher power, but I would hope that the guru could transmit the dharma even though it is so hard to understand. In that transmission I have to be there I cannot just sort of not question anything. So I think you have a valid point that it is like DIY. But when your project all goes wrong we need help.
On a conventional and personal level (how I see things-keeping it simple) the Dharma whether it be in the form of a 'in the flesh' 'cyber' or 'book' teacher/guru, is just an instruction manual,( which also includes 'trouble shooting') but as far as the work goes, I must do all the work my "self"...
DIY = Nobody can do 'it' for me,(they "guru" can only point out the way) if 'change' (in the form of a mental shift)' is going to happen I must do 'it' all myself!
But I do understand that in some Buddhist sects they 'believe' a guru can telepathically transmit understanding/knowledge to a student who is 'ready' to receive...
I personally don't know of anyone that this has happened to, but it's a big Buddhist world out there...There's lots that "I" don't know....
@Shoshin, I really don't understand what telepathy with a guru would be like. How would you know what is from the guru and what is from other than the guru? Can that faculty be learned? Also different teachers have different realizations as I read in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. I think I would like the guru to have a deep realization of the dharma and I would want them to have had a good heart. I mean like morals, but it is so confusing to me because a lot of gurus have a tantric background and people have said that tantric practitioners break the five precepts so how do I know which tantrikas are 'good or bad'? Even 'skillful or unskillful' is dualistic and therefore applying that label cannot tell the whole story. It's also interesting that you have to realize non-self as a DYI? What the heck?
Yes it is interesting...weird even..."A do it your "self" undoing/detachment of self"
In regards to the telepathic transmission I too don't know how it is meant to work, and to be quite honest I don't really care to find out...
I like to keep things as simple as possible (less monkey chatter in the ol' gray matter)...
I go to a Dharma talk and something the teacher said (verbally) might resonate within, in other words I take it onboard ie, absorb it...The paradox being I don't really take it onboard, a letting go seems to take place...
@Jeffrey said:
I mean like morals, but it is so confusing to me because a lot of gurus have a tantric background and people have said that tantric practitioners break the five precepts so how do I know which tantrikas are 'good or bad'?
First of all you have a good teacher, with a good moral compass and with the experience to provide what you need in a way that develops your potential.
'Teachers' who break precepts do so temporarily, for the good of the student or dharma NOT because they are a 'fearless' alcoholic, immoral power or sexual abuser of the vulnerable, liar, fraud etc.
Perhaps a practical example . . .
You recently posted a video from Dharma Punx Noah Levine. He has got his shit together (to use the vernacular). He walks the walk, not just talks a good talk . . .
I feel his approach has something to teach and I believe his integrity would suggest he is still journeying . . .
False and immoral teachers such as (I am going to use Hindu Gurus as some are still a little precious about their rogues) 'just chant this mantra or learn to hop' Maharishi style or 'go wild in the country' Osho style are deluded punks [note to moderators, hope the use of 'punk' is appropriate and skilful . . . otherwise may I suggest 'gunks']
We can learn and gain some benefit from Deerpark Chopra or Guru Ka-Ching (the well known cash register guru) no doubt. No doubt.
However no need. Discernment. Get it pronto. Use it. DIY. Good to go . . .
I know that is useful . . . and so do you . . . and now back to humility . . .
:buck: .
Another thing came into my head after reading an article in Tricycle magazine - if you have faith in the Three Jewels (that is, faith in the Buddha's teaching), then basically you are practicing faith in an Other Power. You are trusting that the teachings are going to help you in one way or another - you're never truly doing anything on your own.
In a sense you're right, to practice patience, compassion etc etc, for the most part you need other sentient beings to work/interact with...
I rely on my understanding/knowledge of the Dharma, but not on any external deities or the like...And as I've mentioned before, others might choose to see things differently, and that's their prerogative...We are all heading in the same direction just on different kinds of rafts...
We are all heading in the same direction just on different kinds of rafts...
Well said. Sometimes we get our togas/saris/robes in a twist because others refuse to use an outboard motor, flotation devices, take scenic breaks etc.
It is not ONE raft must fit all. It is fit for purpose - which is varied. For example the technical team only want approved logs. Planks not allowed. The accursed upstart Mahayanists are wrapping the logs in all kinds of streaming aids - heretics!
The new age and fluffy bunnies semi Buddhists are building an animal ark - bless.
The Hinyana YinYana square wheel non starters are insisting on coming back from the far shore to throw would be Buddhists in the stream. Swim you bodhis!
Yes, people can get a bit precious about raft design. But if there are some perfectly good rafts already built, what's the sense in trying to start from scratch?
Comments
Heh the Buddha wasn't even the Buddha! He referred to himself as the Tathagata; it was only others who called him the Buddha. I'm still not sure if the Buddha had any kind of Hindu-like religion or religious beliefs, after all this time, though I'm pretty sure Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jewish. It'd be nice to get that cleared up, if anyone knows.
Kia Ora,
I should point out that when I say "I like being my own boss" I mean I take full responsibility for what happens in my life, (the buck stops here) and when the s#!+ hits the fan, I'm not looking for someone or thing to blame...
My simple understanding of the BuddhaDharma (refuge in the Buddha(awaken mind) Dharma(true nature of things) Sangha(amongst like-minded people) is what gets me through life, I don't try to complicate things by over analysing...
My simple philosophy is "S#!T Happens!" if it didn't we would all be full of it!
Metta Shoshin .
..
Good points all; in modern times, people aren't bound by what used to bind their loyalty and obedience. I see a consequence of the previous era's institutionalization though, it just occurred to me. How many folks like your family who were more detached from their Catholicism ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Instead of reclaiming their 'right' to access to the 'divine' from priests and Popes, they dropped the whole subject?
And who could blame them, ritual without a personal 'relationship' to the 'divine' is kind of pointless, unless it serves purposes of pretention or to allay fears of being cast into hell or struck by lightning
.
It's not really possible to take full responsibility for one's life, since some things happen to us.
First, I didn't get thrown out with the bathwater! ;-)
I guess people nowadays are pulling a Frank Sinatra (I did it my way).
I'll give you a good example, and this is from about 1969. A close friend who was Methodist was getting married and wanted me in the wedding party. To attend a religious service at a non-Catholic church at the time you had to get a dispensation from the priest. I requested it, and the priest said no, that I could not attend the wedding. I told my uncle about -- and he went to Mass every Sunday and everyday Holy Day Of Obligation. His response: "Tell Father Doran to go..." ... well, let's just say it was something no man can do.
Kia Ora,
Put it this way, I don't blame others when unwholesome things have happened to 'me'... Karma's karma....
I'm off to work...............................
Metta Shoshin .
...
Indeed; so, could how a person responds to things that happen to them be part of that 'full responsibility' continuum?
If I got a phone call with terrible news, the murder of a loved one, and in rage and shock I said or did something hurtful, did I really 'choose' to do that? If I did a hurtful thing a week later, or a year later on the anniversary of the death, am I more responsible for my behavior than I was when the news was fresh?
It's almost a sound byte "we are responsible for how we respond" . . . and it has the ring of truth. Are we only responsible after the initial shock and grief?
>
No, but we must take full and complete responsibility for our responses and reactions.
And that is part of our life. It's not the to us that matters. It's our come-back that counts.
Agreed, except that the "to us" does matter, and there's not always a "come-back".
What I'm trying to get at here is that we do not have control over our lives, no matter how much we think we do.
Kia Ora,
I beg to differ...Praying mantises always say grace before a meal .
..
Metta Shoshin .
..
It's hard to say what kind of religious beliefs Buddha held as he seemed to word things fairly carefully.
As for Jesus it depends on what one considered Jewish. If one can be Jewish simply because their mother was Jewish then he was Jewish. If one has to actually believe as a Jew to be Jewish then no, he wasn't.
But believe what specifically? And are there verses show that he didn't? That's what I wanna know. As I understand it belief has never been a big requisite of being Jewish; they focused on good works instead. The scriptures at least seem to support Jesus believing in Yahweh (Jehovah), and if that's not the minimum requirement for belonging to a faith tradition I don't know what is. He said he didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. Again it seems to be within the context of Judaism and its traditions. I think his vision was just "different" from mainstream Judaism, much like Joseph Smith's vision of Christianity led to Mormonism.
This is why I wonder what the Buddha actually believed, or if he even believed anything particular, because it's clear that Buddhism was born within its own context.
Well, at the risk of going too far off topic, I'll just put forth that the version of God that Jesus believed in went through some kind of anger management if it is the same as the God of Abrahams vision.
As for Buddha, I'm not sure if I think he actually "believed" anything he couldn't test. He paid homage to any and all gods others believed in but I think he saved faith for things like humankinds ability to wake up.
@ourself It's enough for me, from what I've read, to recognize that Jesus tried to improve things. To bring more "love thy neighbor" into the picture, and less judgment. There's a reason many Buddhists consider him a bodhisattva. At least he tried to change things. The result may be a mixed bag (the concept of Hell certainly mars the picture), but let's not get into that!
Excellent point. 'Shit happens' (NT1) and 'what is this shit?' (NT2)
Thank goodness there is Noble Truth three and four . . .
http://tribes.tribe.net/zenbuddhistscoundrels/thread/d892227e-400f-439e-8cf5-7c0cd644a07d
Well, for starters, Jews believe that God (or G-d as they prefer) is more impersonal and has no corporeal form. So when Jesus comes around and says that he is the Son of God (a corporeal form of God), you can imagine what the Jewish community thought of that...
I wouldn't say that Jesus taught an "alternative Judaism." He pretty much tried to rewrite the whole book. Clearly not the most friendly thing to do within the Jewish community.
Anyways, I was sort of thinking about the whole Jesus-Judaism thing recently as well, and stumbled upon this page which more or less explains the general Jewish viewpoint on Jesus.
As for the Buddha - although his teachings were quite radical for the predominantly Hindu society at the time, you can still see traces of Hindu beliefs and practices within Buddhist teachings. The concepts of kamma, samsara, nibbana, etc. Here's a chart that generally compares the two religions; since we know a bit more about Buddhism, we can fill in the skimpy details and put the pieces together. I think the Buddha was very much influenced by the Hindu society - more so than Jesus was influenced by Judaism.
I agree for the most part, perhaps with the modification: "...we do not have total control over our lives..."
Though we try our damn hardest to shape our immediate life experiences with the influence that we have, I believe there is always an element of no-control. I think that an important part of most religious traditions is to accept this no-control and let things move on from there, rather than trying to exert our ego over that moment. Theists would probably say they were "leaving it up to God," Daoists would likely refer to it as 自然 or zìrán - naturalness. Zen follows closely with the Daoist line of thought, but with different terminology. Even in the Theravada tradition, Ajahn Chah talks of insight as being "... free from attachment to a sense of self that attempts to control and force things to go according to its desires. Rather, you let go with an acceptance of the way things are."
So in my opinion and experience, saying that Buddhism is purely self-effort - a philosophy revolving around learning how to control your life - is not accurate. The "letting go" that is talked about in nearly all Buddhist traditions includes letting go of the idea that we have total control.
@Invincible_summer Thank you for that!
I think you are your own boss but you are a work in progress. Also it is good to find others who you admire as a role model. Fundamental texts in at least my school of Tibetan Buddhism say that you need a real teacher to point out the dharma. I'm a little foggy on what the difference is between practicing alone and with a teacher is. I think working with a teacher for a long time you see the sutras and your like 'gosh that really makes sense now'. In my experience the clarity of a gurus teaching can sometimes show you how to bring the dharma into your actual life. And you read that and you say 'cool now I can be closer to awakening'. But it's not easy being in the human realm and there are difficult times. A guru freaks some people out that they will become controlled by the guru. I think I have that sense fear. So I would say for me that the guru is a higher power, but I would hope that the guru could transmit the dharma even though it is so hard to understand. In that transmission I have to be there I cannot just sort of not question anything. So I think you have a valid point that it is like DIY. But when your project all goes wrong we need help.
Kia Ora @Jeffrey,
On a conventional and personal level (how I see things-keeping it simple) the Dharma whether it be in the form of a 'in the flesh' 'cyber' or 'book' teacher/guru, is just an instruction manual,( which also includes 'trouble shooting') but as far as the work goes, I must do all the work my "self"...
DIY = Nobody can do 'it' for me,(they "guru" can only point out the way) if 'change' (in the form of a mental shift)' is going to happen I must do 'it' all myself!
But I do understand that in some Buddhist sects they 'believe' a guru can telepathically transmit understanding/knowledge to a student who is 'ready' to receive...
I personally don't know of anyone that this has happened to, but it's a big Buddhist world out there...There's lots that "I" don't know....
Metta Shoshin .
..
@Shoshin, I really don't understand what telepathy with a guru would be like. How would you know what is from the guru and what is from other than the guru? Can that faculty be learned? Also different teachers have different realizations as I read in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. I think I would like the guru to have a deep realization of the dharma and I would want them to have had a good heart. I mean like morals, but it is so confusing to me because a lot of gurus have a tantric background and people have said that tantric practitioners break the five precepts so how do I know which tantrikas are 'good or bad'? Even 'skillful or unskillful' is dualistic and therefore applying that label cannot tell the whole story. It's also interesting that you have to realize non-self as a DYI? What the heck?
Kia Ora @Jeffrey,
Yes it is interesting...weird even..."A do it your "self" undoing/detachment of self"
In regards to the telepathic transmission I too don't know how it is meant to work, and to be quite honest I don't really care to find out...
I like to keep things as simple as possible (less monkey chatter in the ol' gray matter)...
I go to a Dharma talk and something the teacher said (verbally) might resonate within, in other words I take it onboard ie, absorb it...The paradox being I don't really take it onboard, a letting go seems to take place...
So far so good, "I" can't complain...
Metta Shoshin .
..
First of all you have a good teacher, with a good moral compass and with the experience to provide what you need in a way that develops your potential.
'Teachers' who break precepts do so temporarily, for the good of the student or dharma NOT because they are a 'fearless' alcoholic, immoral power or sexual abuser of the vulnerable, liar, fraud etc.
Perhaps a practical example . . .
You recently posted a video from Dharma Punx Noah Levine. He has got his shit together (to use the vernacular). He walks the walk, not just talks a good talk . . .
I feel his approach has something to teach and I believe his integrity would suggest he is still journeying . . .
False and immoral teachers such as (I am going to use Hindu Gurus as some are still a little precious about their rogues) 'just chant this mantra or learn to hop' Maharishi style or 'go wild in the country' Osho style are deluded punks [note to moderators, hope the use of 'punk' is appropriate and skilful . . . otherwise may I suggest 'gunks']
We can learn and gain some benefit from Deerpark Chopra or Guru Ka-Ching (the well known cash register guru) no doubt. No doubt.
However no need. Discernment. Get it pronto. Use it. DIY. Good to go . . .
I know that is useful . . . and so do you . . . and now back to humility . . .
:buck: .
@lobster I agreed with your assessment of Noah Levine. The bottom half of your post just 'get discernment pronto' is what I understood.
It did make me think of a bunch of random crap from my memory banks.
Another thing came into my head after reading an article in Tricycle magazine - if you have faith in the Three Jewels (that is, faith in the Buddha's teaching), then basically you are practicing faith in an Other Power. You are trusting that the teachings are going to help you in one way or another - you're never truly doing anything on your own.
Kia Ora,
In a sense you're right, to practice patience, compassion etc etc, for the most part you need other sentient beings to work/interact with...
I rely on my understanding/knowledge of the Dharma, but not on any external deities or the like...And as I've mentioned before, others might choose to see things differently, and that's their prerogative...We are all heading in the same direction just on different kinds of rafts...
Metta Shoshin .
..
Well said. Sometimes we get our togas/saris/robes in a twist because others refuse to use an outboard motor, flotation devices, take scenic breaks etc.
It is not ONE raft must fit all. It is fit for purpose - which is varied. For example the technical team only want approved logs. Planks not allowed. The accursed upstart Mahayanists are wrapping the logs in all kinds of streaming aids - heretics!
The new age and fluffy bunnies semi Buddhists are building an animal ark - bless.
The Hinyana YinYana square wheel non starters are insisting on coming back from the far shore to throw would be Buddhists in the stream. Swim you bodhis!
Meanwhile I am sinking my efforts into building a submarine raft pulled by genetically modified underwater butterflies for the Maitreya . . .
http://web.archive.org/web/20060719035824/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/lobster/garden/garden.html
We are a raft of people, not standard barrels of dharma righteousness . . .
:crazy: .
Yes, people can get a bit precious about raft design. But if there are some perfectly good rafts already built, what's the sense in trying to start from scratch?