What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
“Make me one with everything.”
So the guy gives the Buddhist the hot dog, and gets a ten dollar bill. A moment passes, and the Buddhist says, “Hey, what about my change?”. The hot dog vendor says:
“Change comes from within.”
There are a number of teeny tiny wacky sects, but many are to the main branches of Buddhism what David Koresh was to Christianity.
However, even the main branches of Buddhism are crazy different from each other. In particular, the concept of Bodhisattvas as powerful mystical beings has generated some interesting takes. Nichiren has very curious beliefs, and Tibetan Buddhism has such bizarre symbolism and iconography that it can be hard to dig down to the conceptual bedrock. And of course Zen doesn’t believe in much.
Could you expand on this a bit? Attainable within a human’s individual lifetime? Within a human lunchtime?
Also, what is the cessation of all suffering like for the person experiencing such?
Have you ever read anything by David Deida?
I can’t answer for Buddhists, as I am not one, nor can I comment on anyone’s experiences but my own. And I haven’t achieved it for any longer than a lunchtime, and I’ve only achieved it a few times.
But I kind of made up my own form of meditation, which apparently has a name (that I’ve forgotten).
It’s hard to describe, but it’s like a drug. It’s both like being in a dream and waking up from one at the same time. It’s like being completely out of it and hyper aware at the same time. It’s timeless. It feels like not only every person, but every rock, tree, and blade of grass has a soul – not separate, discrete souls, but like we’re all sharing one eternal soul. “One with everything” is a great description. Everything is love, and there is no ugliness in the universe.
Even though it’s hyper aware, I definitely would not operate heavy machinery while in that state.
What’s funny is that last week I was talking to someone on the phone. She asked how I got into that state, and my mere description of it put her into it!
My sister has been a Buddist for many years, and she claims it is a philosophy, not a religion.
Do you agree?
The thread that inspired this one, in which I discover that because I can’t be arsed to be Buddhist, I must be enlightened:
Soto or Rinzai?
You can certainly be a Buddhist and any other faith you wish at the same time, there is no conflict.
I am a Buddhist who attends temple regularly. I am not strictly tied to their ritual, (Vietnamese), but I enjoy it. They teach walking meditation, as well as sitting and chanting.
I attended a Buddhist retreat in a Temple, (Tibetan), in Nepal, for 3 wks, several years ago now.
For any of the Buddhists in this thread:
Do you believe in or worship a god or gods? If so, which one(s)?
Do you regularly go to religious services, or some kind of Buddhist meeting or activity? If so, what are those like?
Do you celebrate Buddhist holidays? Which ones, and how do you celebrate them?
Are you a vegetarian? I know some Buddhist sects insist on vegetarianism and some don’t.
Do you drink alcohol?
What, if anything, would you consider to be sexual misconduct? Premarital sex? Extramarital sex? Gay sex?
Are there any books about Buddhism that you particularly like or dislike?
What is that, exactly? Can you walk indoors or outdoors? Do you walk for the sake of meditation or can you meditate while you walk to the store to get bread and milk? Do you take special notice of your surroundings, or do you try to shut it all out?
We practice inside, through the winter. But, in nice weather we often go outside. When learning, we chanted aloud, as we did very measured walking. With pactice, we stopped chanting aloud. You can practice this meditation any time you wish, of course. It’s one of the things I enjoy most about the Vietnamese Temple, actually. (And the food, mmmm!)
Ever go out, to rake leaves or sweep the drive, maybe the sun is just right, and find you get a little lost in the task? Your mind just sort of shuts down, and you’re not really aware of your surroundings, you’re really lost in another place. This is a form of spontaneous meditation. One that almost everyone experiences Buddhist or no. Almost anything could be a meditation.
Yes, and I’ve heard it referred to as a dissociative state as well. Sometimes if I’m working on art or music, I’ll get into a state where it feels like some higher power is using my hands to do the work and I’m standing off to the side, watching this genius work through me. This genius produces work that’s far better than anything I’m capable of.
A lot of artists make a point of getting into that state.
But it’s interesting that you said “not aware of your surroundings.” I’ve gotten into a meditative state by become very aware of my surroundings. That’s the easiest way for me. It sounds like the opposite, but I’d bet that from a brain wave standpoint, it’s exactly the same thing.
Has anyone done an EEG on someone meditating? That would be really interesting.
One place to start is the work of Dr. Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He’s done a lot of research into Tibetan monks and brain activity. (I worked in his lab for a short time, but not in this area.) Here’s a Wired article that is a pretty good summary of some of it as well as other implications and issues with the research.
Two Books I find myself often recommending;
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Sogyal Rinpoche.
The Diamon Cutter, Gesh Michael Roach.
Both great reads.
I strongly disagree.
What the Buddha taught was a training program to escape from suffering. His Noble Eightfold path, which can be further condensed into the threefold training of Morality, Concentration, and Wisdom, has to actually be followed to do you any good.
If you are hungry, you can read cookbooks all day, but at the end of the day you will still be hungry. Likewise, you can read books on Buddhism for years, but if you don’t follow the recipe that’s provided, you won’t notice any tangible results in your life.
Wow, that was a fascinating read. Thanks!
I figured that there may have been a little research into the subject. I had no idea how political it got, as well as raising some poignant issues about the scientific method.
This is perhaps what I love most about Buddhism actually, as I like to consider myself a very mild but still mindful Buddhist.
But that’s also because I consider myself a Hindu as well, and the two do tend to go hand in hand (I’ve heard the usage that Buddhism is pretty much Hinduism done by an Atheist/Agnostic and it’s amusing enough that I like it).
Hinduism (the less fanatical sides of course) also has a similar ideas and gets along VERY well with Buddhism. So I do like having the two both in my religious toolkit so to speak. There are some days I feel a bit more agnostic/Buddhist than normal and others where I feel a bit more Hindu and mindful with the ideas of God(s) and rituals.
But I certainly am not anywhere close to being as experienced/familiar with Buddhism as others here, and I certainly defer to their own wisdom and experiences with the subject matter.
Speaking as, again, kind of a quixotic Zen Buddhist…
I don’t think the question really matters to me–I mean that in the purest soft agnostic sense. If and when the influence of a God appears, it’s as much a relevant influence as that of the ground or a tree or whatever. And if God has no physical or spiritual contact with me, nor I with God, then almost by definition I shouldn’t concern myself with it, as Zen Buddhism is about direct experience and awareness of the world and that which is in it.
I go semi-regularly, and every few years I try to go to a retreat. Essentially the weekly meetings are closer to a philosophy debate with a cool TA than anything else–basically, the master answering questions and occasionally offering some random bit of wisdom or an observation as needed to keep the conversation going. The longer retreats are much more structured, and include a lot of disciplined meditation both sitting and walking, lectures, chores, regimented meals and sleep schedules, etc.
I don’t–I celebrate whatever holidays anyone else in my group of friends or family is celebrating, solely for the joy of it.
I am not a vegetarian. Strictly speaking I should be, but I’m not at that point in my monastic life yet where that’s the biggest thing I have to worry about. I drink alcohol in moderation.
As far as I’m concerned, “sexual misconduct” is defined entirely as “has someone been hurt”. This sets me apart from a lot of old-school Buddhists but it’s not that uncommon a view among the modern set. As long as you’re acting in moderation, not increasing the amount of suffering in the world, and not becoming attached to it (in the specific Buddhist meaning of the word–that is, attachment is “will you be distressed when it’s gone”), it’s all fair game in my book. Certainly certain types of sexual conduct (careless, mostly) have a greater potential for harm or misuse, but I don’t see a need to prescribe.
Just about anything Robert Aitken wrote will be very accessible to a native-born American while giving the full flavor of Buddhism. “Zen Master Raven” in particular is a cute and easily-digestible introduction that nonetheless manages to tackle serious issues with its cute animal motif. If you feel comfortable diving in further, “Gateless Gate” in any number of editions is the traditional “beginner” book of koans and meditations.
Speaking of “Buddhist/agnostic”, I personally find little or no conflict between a science-based basic materialist agnostic (or even perhaps atheist) stance, and getting a lot of personal mileage out of the teachings of Buddhism.
My question is, would you agree? Basically, would you be willing to describe Buddhism as a philosophy – a set of observations about how things seem to work – and specifically not as a religion?
I ask this because Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, lumps Buddhism with all the other religions, in that it can, and has, caused real harm (he cites the Dalai Lama’s approval of India’s nuclear weaponry, the Buddhist/Shinto aspects of Imperial Japan, and, if I remember correctly, some inter-sect fighting from somewhere in Southeast Asia).
I think the “Eastern Religions” chapter is the weakest in Hitchens’ otherwise fine book. But, I agree with the general premise of the book, which is exactly why I feel more comfortable calling Buddhism a “philosophy” rather than a “religion”. But, again, would that run counter to what you perceive, based on your knowledge and experience?