Ask a Buddhist

[Birdjaguar]

I am in deep trouble, I am up to my neck in bad Karma. And I thought being a Christian was hard enough with Heven if you repent one's sins and hell if one does not repent one's sins. .

Then it is time for the eightfold path:

Right View-Enhance one’s mind, explore ones world, gain wisdom
Right Intention- means resistance to the pull of desire, resistance to feelings of anger and aversion not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion

Right Speech-not to tell deliberate lies, abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth, speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary
Right Action-Take responsibility for one’s actions, refrain from committing wrongdoings
Right Livelihood- Choose a profession that supports one’s spiritual path, choose a noble profession

Right Effort-Mental energy is the force behind right effort. The same type of energy that fuels, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Make the effort to choose the latter.
Right Mindfulness-Get control of ones emotions. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness
Right Concentration- Controlling one’s own life through meditation and positive mindset.

 

[Xyan]

Q. I only know English and Learning Japanese at the moment. Sanscript and Chinese Languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc) I do not know nor know how to pronounce them (especially with Chinese Languages since it's a tonal language and I am kind of tone deaf) .

Here is a sample of the chant I do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0g0ka540uEE

If you do a search on the Internet, you will find the school I follow is not without its controversal... I am willing to address them for those interested, but one thing at a time.

Q. I am in deep trouble, I am up to my neck in bad Karma. And I thought being a Christian was hard enough with Heven if you repent one's sins and hell if one does not repent one's sins. .

If the pursue of happiness is too straightforward, life would have been pretty boring huh...

But then again, the concept of "Simultaneousity of Cause and Effect" allows the attainment of Buddhahood, and hence asolute happiness, within this lifetime as long as we put in the effort. That is as good as it gets.

 

[Ekolite]

Then it is time for the eightfold path:

Right View-Enhance one’s mind, explore ones world, gain wisdom
Right Intention- means resistance to the pull of desire, resistance to feelings of anger and aversion not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion

Right Speech-not to tell deliberate lies, abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth, speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary
Right Action-Take responsibility for one’s actions, refrain from committing wrongdoings
Right Livelihood- Choose a profession that supports one’s spiritual path, choose a noble profession

Right Effort-Mental energy is the force behind right effort. The same type of energy that fuels, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Make the effort to choose the latter.
Right Mindfulness-Get control of ones emotions. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness
Right Concentration- Controlling one’s own life through meditation and positive mindset.

Hmmm.... Actually most of that I try to do anyway, how I see it they're just the basic rules for how to be a good person .

I have some problems with it though, particularly with the Right Speech section. It says do not tell deliberate lies, but what if lying to someone is the only way to preserve their feelings, or if it will just save a load of grief in the near future. I oftenly white lie like that, and have never seen a problem with it personally. Secondly, no idle chat, well I think that's ok if you're actually a monk but is there really anything wrong with idle chat? Similiarly, only talk when neccessary, again, if you're a monk that's fine, but I like to talk and talk whenever I feel like it, even if its not particularly neccessary.

Also, right intention: means resistance to the pull of desire. What kind of desire? Surely if you're not doing anything wrong there's nothing wrong with desiring something (/someone). Especially when you consider that desire to do weel could be the motivation for Right Livelihood and Right View.

Also, what kind of jobs are considered ok for Right Livelihood? I would have thought it basically depends on the person really. What is a noble proffession in Buddhist terms? Is it just anything that doesn't stop you doing all the other things (ie. Right View)?

I think if I was Buddhist I'd have to make my own little sect . Although I can honestly say that most things there are fairly consistant with my beliefs anyway.

 

[Xyan]

Hmmm.... Actually most of that I try to do anyway, how I see it they're just the basic rules for how to be a good person .

I have some problems with it though, particularly with the Right Speech section. It says do not tell deliberate lies, but what if lying to someone is the only way to preserve their feelings, or if it will just save a load of grief in the near future. I oftenly white lie like that, and have never seen a problem with it personally. Secondly, no idle chat, well I think that's ok if you're actually a monk but is there really anything wrong with idle chat? Similiarly, only talk when neccessary, again, if you're a monk that's fine, but I like to talk and talk whenever I feel like it, even if its not particularly neccessary.

Also, right intention: means resistance to the pull of desire. What kind of desire? Surely if you're not doing anything wrong there's nothing wrong with desiring something (/someone). Especially when you consider that desire to do weel could be the motivation for Right Livelihood and Right View.

Also, what kind of jobs are considered ok for Right Livelihood? I would have thought it basically depends on the person really. What is a noble proffession in Buddhist terms? Is it just anything that doesn't stop you doing all the other things (ie. Right View)?

I think if I was Buddhist I'd have to make my own little sect . Although I can honestly say that most things there are fairly consistant with my beliefs anyway.

Aye.. that's why I consider the eightfold paths, which is well-known to many, as merely just guides. Shakyamuni set it out in the beginning only as a expedient means to direct his disciples to his later teachings. This is call scaffolding in educational terms. Besides, his early disciples are all monks, but the lay people (and the entire humankind) are his desired audience. Monks are just people who are tasked with perserving the teachings correctly.

Mahayana traditions actually place less emphasize on the eightfold paths than the Theravada traditions. We prefer to look to later teachings of Shakyamuni which emphasize on social responsibility which I feel is closer to his original intent.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmmm.... Actually most of that I try to do anyway, how I see it they're just the basic rules for how to be a good person .

I have some problems with it though, particularly with the Right Speech section. It says do not tell deliberate lies, but what if lying to someone is the only way to preserve their feelings, or if it will just save a load of grief in the near future. I oftenly white lie like that, and have never seen a problem with it personally. Secondly, no idle chat, well I think that's ok if you're actually a monk but is there really anything wrong with idle chat? Similiarly, only talk when neccessary, again, if you're a monk that's fine, but I like to talk and talk whenever I feel like it, even if its not particularly neccessary.

Also, right intention: means resistance to the pull of desire. What kind of desire? Surely if you're not doing anything wrong there's nothing wrong with desiring something (/someone). Especially when you consider that desire to do weel could be the motivation for Right Livelihood and Right View.

Also, what kind of jobs are considered ok for Right Livelihood? I would have thought it basically depends on the person really. What is a noble proffession in Buddhist terms? Is it just anything that doesn't stop you doing all the other things (ie. Right View)?

I think if I was Buddhist I'd have to make my own little sect . Although I can honestly say that most things there are fairly consistant with my beliefs anyway.

Like Xyan said, the Eightfold Path are merely guides imho. Curiously enough, Thai kids are first taught not the Eightfold Path but rather the Five Precepts: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit sexual wrongdoings, do not lie or say harmful things, do not take intoxicating substances.

Actions can be judged by intentions as well. White lies are wrong because they are lies, but at the same time it can be good if it helps to, say, preserve others' feelings. However, it will be best to not tell a lie in the first place.

As for the phrase "resistance to the pull of desire" that basically mean self-control ie to be mindful and aware of your actions and not let your mind be clouded by desires or extreme emotions. As for right livelihood, as I understand it it means choosing a profession that is right spiritually, meaning jobs which are not immoral and do not harm others. So jobs selling drugs or in the weapons industry is not "right livelihood". Being a butcher is not "right livelihood" either (although there's considerable debate about meat-eating and vegetarianism).

Then again, I only consider the Eightfold Paths as guides - something worthy to strive for. And then again I don't consider my religion as seriously as I would like to. Xyan's knowledge of Buddhism is a lot more in-depth than mine. There's only subtle differences between Mahayana and Therevada Buddhism anyway. As Xyan explained, we place emphasis on different aspects, but the fundamentals are very similar. We follow the same teacher, after all.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Just another example thing, that the Eightfold Path and what not are just "guides". This is a little story I heard from somewhere, concerning one of the Buddha's previous lifetimes:

Once upon a time, in one of the Buddha's previous lifetimes, a pirate captured him and a bunch of other people, 500 of them in fact. Now, this pirate was bad, he was planning to kill all the people. The Buddha, then, tried to talk the pirate out of it, but the pirate was just so bad he ignored the Buddha. The pirate was about to kill all those people, and thus Buddha decided that he had no choice, and he killed the pirate.

Now, to kill in the first place is wrong, and the Buddha certainly got tons of bad karma for killing the pirate. HOWEVER, in the end, 500 lives were saved.

So, yeah.

 

[Ekolite]

do not lie or say harmful things

Yeah but that's exactly my point. Sometimes, in order to not say harmful things you have to lie.

For example, say a man has slept with his brother's wife. That's bad already because its a sexual wrongdoing. The man and his brother's wife meet for lunch and the brother sees them and asks them what they're doing.

Now both the man and the wife love the brother and know what they're doing is wrong, they also know that if he ever found out he'd be devastated. Do they tell him about their affair, which would be saying something harmful or do they lie and make up a convincing excuse for why they're togeather, protecting his feelings by lying.

Either way the man and his brother's wife choose to end their affair after this. What should they do?

 

[zxcvbnm]

What do you think of Dalai Lama, and his ideas? Are they close to the "pure buddhist" views on issues such as science, other religions etc. or are they of a different, kind of "heretic", ie. not "official" type?

 

[Xyan]

I do not really study much into the Tibetan Buddhism. The thing is... Tibetan Buddhism gets much attention from the western media for 2 reasons:

1) The Dalai Lama is a characteristic speaker and have a decent command of english.

2) Its political relationship with China.

But in the eyes of the mainstream Buddhism, they are but a very minor school. I do not know about the Dalai Lama's views very much to be honest.

But the concept of a tulku seems incorrect to me because in Buddhism, all mankind is fundamentally Buddha and is one and the same without distinction. There is no difference between one life and another. There is only manifestations of Karma. Buddhism rejects duality. The concept of tulku requires duality where the soul lives in alternative bodies. That I suspect is an influence from native Tibetan/Chinese culture when Buddhism spread there....

 

[Xyan]

The main view of Science is: Science is good. It is definitely useful for the progress of man. We should ALWAYS attempt to seek knowledge. And at the same time... we should also cultivate wisdom so that we can use these knowledge for the good of mankind..

As for other religions. We recognise their beneficial influence to help the troubled man feel better. It is just that, as we see suffering as the sickness of the mind, our philosophy is the bad cure there is. Buddhism is the great medicine to cure all sickness. Other religions contain much wisdom too! They are also medicines for many sickness. The better religions cure more types of sickness and the lesser religions cure lesser types.. hmm.. that's about our viewpoint.

 

[cybrxkhan]

What do you think of Dalai Lama, and his ideas? Are they close to the "pure buddhist" views on issues such as science, other religions etc. or are they of a different, kind of "heretic", ie. not "official" type?

As a Tibetan Buddhist myself (althuogh i do have some knowledge of Mahayana and Theravada), I suppose my answers on this could be biased, but what not.

As Xyan stated above, it is true that Tibetan Buddhism does get quite a lot of media attention. I have heard that the Dalai Lama does have some conservative views, for example like being against non-emergency abortions, but i don't think he is the complete extremist the Chinese portray him much of the time.

Anyhow, most of the schools of Buddhism, no matter where they are from, what they believe, and what "contamination" they may have picked up on the way, usually still keep the same goal in mind - nirvana, enlightenment, whatever. It is simply that they support "different" ways to ahiceve it. But even so, all the ways ultimately, so far as i know, have something to do with meditation.

Anyhow, on science, i am pretty sure the original Buddha would have supported science, so long as it wasn't harming others and it was intended to benefit lives. knowledge is not a good substitute for wisdom, but it is very useful if one would want to get wisdom. so at least as far as i know, true Buddhism does not have anything much against science in general.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Practical advice from the Dali Lama:

• Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
• When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
• Follow the three Rs: Respect for self, respect for others and responsibility for all your actions.
• Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
• Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
• Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
• When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it
• Spend some time alone every day.
• Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
• Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
• Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.
• A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
• In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.
• Share your knowledge; it's a way to achieve immortality.
• Be gentle with the earth.
• Once a year, go some place you've never been before.
• Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
• Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
• Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon.

 

[scy12]

Practical advice from the Dali Lama:
• Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon.

But be sure in both occasions that you are not the one who clears the mess after the feast is over.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But be sure in both occasions that you are not the one who clears the mess after the feast is over.

No! Be sure you clean the mess with joy for having been present at the feast.

 

[scy12]

No! Be sure you clean the mess with joy for having been present at the feast.

That is a nice way to look at this. But do not forget that your joy of being present at the feast is comparable with the amount of mess the feast has produced.

 

[DNK]

why are white people who become Buddhist so nerdy/lame/outcasty

Why are people who join gaming forums so nerdy/lame/outcasty

Big bang clearly implies a beginning to the universe by the definition of what a universe is as well as the definition of time. As well, most big crunch models generally have the problem of not being stable; the process of recreation will eventually end. Of course, there's a problem that the Big Crunch doesn't look very promising as the universe is accelerating, not decelllerating. But even the ekpyrotic model of M-theory has the same problems; a finite amount of the cycle.

To put it more bluntly, current scientific consensus says that the universe has a beginning, and will most likely have an end, without any real possibility of infinite recreation. How does this fit within Buddhism?

Current scientific consensus cannot explain why there was a big bang in the first place, what came before it, or, well, a whole hell of a lot, simply put. Humanity's understanding of existence, as advanced as it may be in the material sense as compared to prehistory, still has major, fundamental gaps in its knowledge wide enough to drive a universe of semi trucks through.

The big bang does imply a beginning to the universe, but Buddhism speaks about existence as a whole, which includes but is not limited to the physical universe. It also would do to mention that the "beginning" in this sense is only the beginning of the current form of the universe. Because the big bang is a singularity moment, we cannot know what came before it, whether that be a previous big crunch or something else.

Even if current models don't point towards a crunch in the future, there still could be one simply because there is much we don't know (cosmological constant anyone?). We don't even really understand the expansion of the universe (inflationary period?).

If we took physics as faith, we'd have just as many questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Not a very complete world view either there.

But why would you even want to loser your individuality and "become one with the Absolute"? Honestly, that idea sounds just a few steps above the Christian idea of hell.

Well, the point is that at that point you would want to lose it (or, actually, just not want anything at all).

Personally, I don't believe nirvana is a possible state, only a state to strive for, like the number infinity. You can keep adding and multiplying, but you'll just never quite make it. Upon closer inspection, nirvana is nothingness of will and completeness of awareness, as I have come to understand it.

It's important to understand that although one might think nirvana was something that must be sought, it need not be. Every individual is free to seek out his own comfortable balance of awareness and ignorance, desire and apathy. If events in your lives were to lead you to want greater awareness and less desire, you would move closer to nirvana. Nirvana itself, by definition, cannot be reached for, because the harder you try for it, the more fixated on desire and a close-minded value system you become.

Unlike Christianity, where there is an obvious desire for the "good" afterlife, Buddhism's nirvana is not exactly the same idea. It is the result of a conscious and complex progression of awareness and experience that leads a mind into nothingness willingly (well, not unwillingly at least). It is not something that necessarily will ever be attained, either, as a soul could theoretically continue on an impure path for eternity, which is effectively your "neverending day as myself".

The problem with such a path is that the balance of contentment and happiness is perpetually at risk. Even if one is born into a heaven-like life where disease and need have been removed, there is always the chance that one would, by accident or desire, fall from that graceful existence back into the mire of ignorance and pain (and a one in a million chance multiplied over billions of years becomes a sure thing). Nirvana is the only escape. Although living a simple life on modern day Earth, one might not see the point in such a state, after many lives and such falls, one's perspective would be far different.

It is the complete and never-ending feeling of realization and awareness. A moment of clarity, multiplied to infinity in intensity and scope. Like a perpetually blurred camera finally snapping into focus, showing every detail in the picture, down to the smallest level, and the disappearance of the frame itself. The complete fusion between one's mind and the universe, and complete acceptance and understanding of all things.



Well, I'm not actually a Buddhist, so you might want to cross check all that

Anyway, hope that helped clear it all up and didn't confuse it more. Ironic that nirvana would be so confusing!

 

[DNK]

That is a nice way to look at this. But do not forget that your joy of being present at the feast is comparable with the amount of mess the feast has produced.

I think the real point is to build robots to do all the cleaning, and enjoy building the robots.

Then mount lasers on them. That's a Buddhist thing to do, right? Laser deathbot dishwashers?

 

[Xyan]

Why are people who join gaming forums so nerdy/lame/outcasty
Current scientific consensus cannot explain why there was a big bang in the first place, what came before it, or, well, a whole hell of a lot, simply put. Humanity's understanding of existence, as advanced as it may be in the material sense as compared to prehistory, still has major, fundamental gaps in its knowledge wide enough to drive a universe of semi trucks through.

The big bang does imply a beginning to the universe, but Buddhism speaks about existence as a whole, which includes but is not limited to the physical universe. It also would do to mention that the "beginning" in this sense is only the beginning of the current form of the universe. Because the big bang is a singularity moment, we cannot know what came before it, whether that be a previous big crunch or something else.

Even if current models don't point towards a crunch in the future, there still could be one simply because there is much we don't know (cosmological constant anyone?). We don't even really understand the expansion of the universe (inflationary period?).

If we took physics as faith, we'd have just as many questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Not a very complete world view either there.
Well, the point is that at that point you would want to lose it (or, actually, just not want anything at all).

Personally, I don't believe nirvana is a possible state, only a state to strive for, like the number infinity. You can keep adding and multiplying, but you'll just never quite make it. Upon closer inspection, nirvana is nothingness of will and completeness of awareness, as I have come to understand it.

It's important to understand that although one might think nirvana was something that must be sought, it need not be. Every individual is free to seek out his own comfortable balance of awareness and ignorance, desire and apathy. If events in your lives were to lead you to want greater awareness and less desire, you would move closer to nirvana. Nirvana itself, by definition, cannot be reached for, because the harder you try for it, the more fixated on desire and a close-minded value system you become.

Unlike Christianity, where there is an obvious desire for the "good" afterlife, Buddhism's nirvana is not exactly the same idea. It is the result of a conscious and complex progression of awareness and experience that leads a mind into nothingness willingly (well, not unwillingly at least). It is not something that necessarily will ever be attained, either, as a soul could theoretically continue on an impure path for eternity, which is effectively your "neverending day as myself".

The problem with such a path is that the balance of contentment and happiness is perpetually at risk. Even if one is born into a heaven-like life where disease and need have been removed, there is always the chance that one would, by accident or desire, fall from that graceful existence back into the mire of ignorance and pain (and a one in a million chance multiplied over billions of years becomes a sure thing). Nirvana is the only escape. Although living a simple life on modern day Earth, one might not see the point in such a state, after many lives and such falls, one's perspective would be far different.

It is the complete and never-ending feeling of realization and awareness. A moment of clarity, multiplied to infinity in intensity and scope. Like a perpetually blurred camera finally snapping into focus, showing every detail in the picture, down to the smallest level, and the disappearance of the frame itself. The complete fusion between one's mind and the universe, and complete acceptance and understanding of all things.



Well, I'm not actually a Buddhist, so you might want to cross check all that

Anyway, hope that helped clear it all up and didn't confuse it more. Ironic that nirvana would be so confusing!

Nerdy? Because berdy people are those who bothers to do a bit of in-depth study and realised the magnificence of this philosophy...

Anyway, about the Big Bang...

Long ago, people observed rain. And the elders says things like the dragons brought the rain. They do it because they had not understood water cycle. Recently, many people are believing in the Big Bang. Some priests says that a creator brought about the Big Bang. Maybe they had not understood the cosmic cycle.

Life cycle is observed from individual cells, to organism, to organs, to plants and animals, to whole eco-systems, to entire planets, stars and other heavenly bodies... so why not the milky way and even the Big Bang.

As for losing our individuality....

How individual are we really? We know that our organs in our body can survive independently from one another. (That is why transplants are possible.) yet, if any one organ fails, our entire body will fall. You and me and every other living creatures are just such "individual independent-yet-mystically-linked organs" in the macro-comic life. To be one with the "absolute" simply means to have this awareness.

With this awareness, we will learn that to hurt the environment or to hurt another person is the same as behaving like the cancer cells in a cancer patient.

As for Nirvana...

In lay terms, it just means a good death. If we believe in the eternal cycle of life, then we must recognised that there is really no "afterlife". Just as we feel joy or sadness in life, we will joy or sadness in death. Nirvana is simply a state of life where we die in joy. And to truly achieve that, we have to attain Buddhahood while alive in the "kinetic energy state" of life. Nirvana is also the name of Buddhahood in the "potential energy state of life".

 

[GenMarshall]

If you do a search on the Internet, you will find the school I follow is not without its controversal... I am willing to address them for those interested, but one thing at a time.

Sadly, the religion I am in is filled with controversies that even atheistic moralists love to pick at

 

[Erik Mesoy]

So, I heard about the concept of the Wheel-Turning Monarch, who rules by righteous presence rather than giving orders, and immediately thought of Terry Pratchett's remark that even if the king is sleeping, there is still monarching going on, in a sense.
I suspect that that isn't entirely appropriate, so how should I go about thinking about the concept and learning about it?