“But once you understand the way the world works–once you understand science–the way to reduce suffering is to try and fix this world, and unfortunately a mental approach simply promulgates suffering.” the CHIEF
I rather keep the question at this point, framed in terms of Buddhism as I stated. We can give science a rest.
Just a general question to the Buddhists on the board. Is anyone Pure Land?
One thing that interests me about Zen is that it seems radically different from other forms of Mahayana Buddhism. At least, when I think Mahayana I tend to think Tibetan Buddhism and others that use a lot of religious imagery and can be quite dogmatic. I wonder if Zen was sort of a rebellion against other forms of Mahayana Buddhism.
This is a question I’m guessing a lot of Buddhists grapple with, and I certainly have grappled with it myself.
I don’t think accepting things as they are and working to change things are mutually exclusive concepts. To me it makes little sense, from a Buddhist perspective, to care only for the self, to be focused solely on the cessation of one’s own suffering - because we don’t believe in the concept of a permanent self to begin with. I don’t believe we will ever eradicate suffering. I think when it comes to suffering we need to look not only at our internal experience and how that impacts our suffering, but also concrete things that cause pain in the world - poverty, famine, war, etc. I personally tend to lean down harder on the ‘‘good works/social justice’’ side of things, and became a social worker to try to find some concrete solutions to these problems. I think as the growing Buddhist begins to awaken to the concepts of impermanence and interconnectivity, it’s natural to want to reach out and help others, because you realize that other is also you.
The reason I know this is possible is because I have done it for years with my mental health. I have learned to accept that I have a chronic psychological condition, and at the same time I have used every evidence-based method available to me in order to improve my overall mental health. And of course having these painful internal experiences makes me ultra-aware that this kind of suffering is universal. And so, using these evidence-based methods, I do my best to help other people who are struggling psychologically. And Buddhism to me, in all honesty, is the most useful tool I have found for alleviating psychological suffering.
Some Buddhists might be content to live a passive lifestyle and choose not to become engaged with the world, but given what I have discovered about the interconnected nature of all things, I cannot. I’m a pragmatist and will reduce suffering by whatever means possible.
It’s arguable that being a Buddhist doesn’t necessitate a social conscience. But I honestly don’t see how anyone could have such a close relationship with suffering and not try to end it for everyone everywhere.
I’m not familiar with tibetan or tantric buddhism since my focus was more on the “philosophical” aspects - although I hate to phrase it that way. That ended up being more or less consistent with monastic buddhism. Zen was a later evolution of this type that started in China with the Lin Chi and Tsao Tung schools and I believe later became the dominate schools of Japanese Zen. One advocates the quiet sitting method of meditation the other the use of koans - but I always have to look up which is which.
I find it a larger and also a more pragmatic question, just in terms of time. I am a long term practitioner. The self is insidious in asserting itself. doing good works comes with the risk of it being just good intention. We do the best we can, and I appreciate your work in mental health. You listed an earlier example of the work with borderline personality disorder. I read of that work in '96-'98. I had access to a medical library. She presented this idea of no-self as the basis of her therapy. I found later the training was for 2 years under an episcopal priest who had some familiarity with Zen practice. the work is admirable and needed but I am not convinced she had enough practice to actually base her work on no-self, other than as a concept. In which case, it could easily put people at risk.
It can take twenty years to thoroughly do the training
I am still getting use to the forum controls. time to get off the computer and go sit.
take care, I appreciate the thought and tone in this thread.
I do wish ATTACK would change his handle, it does not fit.
There is a pretty good history book on the India to China transition of Buddhism, Zen Buddhism: A History, India & China Heinrich Dumoulin
Dumoulin, I believe, was a Jesuit.
Lin Chi in China, Rinzai in Japan usually associated with koan study.
Tsao-Tung in China, Soto in Japan is more “just sitting” shikantaza.
Dogen is considered the founder of Japanese Soto. There was more sharing than what is implied by the separation of being different schools.
where in the Midwest?
sorry that is probably not online etiquette. I was born in WI and raised in IA.
always glad to hear of Buddhism in the Midwest.
Don’t sweat it. Here’s the explanation. We can’t change our dopernames willy-nilly around here. There’d be a kerfluffle.
Michigan.
Do you have a teacher?
Not presently. I live in New Jersey.
I live in Vermont
[QUOTE= There’d be a kerfluffle.[/QUOTE]
Nice to have you back. I appreciated your comments about keeping this respectful and forthright.
I have bounced around these threads and noticed some people are just stuck on how they think about things. I had a conversation the other day with a person who asked some “personal and probing questions.” She asked me, what I would do if I was confronted. I said, "Years ago I was honest, brutally honest. Now I tend to take a step back and tell myself, “we do not know the back-story.”
You have to admire people whose names reflect how they comment. Either they are very much aware of themselves, which is good news, they may be trying on a character, which is fun or that is what they think. It is important to remember Zen is not for everyone, even general Buddhism presents big differences in how we think about religion in a Western culture. The Buddha understood the task ahead of him and took some time before he made a decision to teach. The first person he encountered, did not pay much attention to the “Awakened One.”
There are three turnings of the Dharma Wheel.
First, corresponding to Indian Buddhism are the teachings of suffering, impermanence, and anatman or no-self.
Second, corresponding to Mahayana Buddhism are the teachings of shunyata (emptiness)
and the bodhisattva ideal or wisdom and compassion.
and thirdly, Vajrayana, which is a subset of the Mahayana, the teaching of Buddha Nature, which is a positive restatement of emptiness.
I might be the only Buddhist in here.
I find that a lot of people confuse pain and injustice with suffering. Suffering is just attachment to or aversion from (or ignorance about) mental states, including pain. A (well trained) Buddhist can experience intense pain, etc, without experiencing suffering. You can reduce temporarily suffering in others as a side effect of alleviating whatever they are attached to or running away from, but the only way to permanently get rid of suffering is by changing the mind.
Now, even in a world of perfect Buddhists without any attachment, one can still reduce pain and injustice, but rather than the goal itself, it is just the natural outcome of how a Buddhist behaves. A lot of injustice just naturally disappears when you let go of attachment to anger. And there are a lot of types of pain that are neurologically exacerbated by resistance (aversion) to the sensation. And of course, by not being averse to pain, one naturally has greater empathy and all that that entails.
I’m still getting the hang of it, but I’ve managed to bring most of my attachments and aversions down to a low enough level that it has been quite a long time since I’ve experienced true suffering. Most of the things that would have previously really thrown me for a loop I just feel as minor annoyances.
I’m confused. In where?
Also- this thread, one of my least favorite on the dope - keeps coming back from the dead.
At the same time, Olives has turned into a Weasel. I keep trying to see if I’m dreaming, but so far it doesn’t look like it, save in the largest most philosophical sense.
given how concerned you are with definitions, you might want to reconsider that. I’m not being snide here but trying to be helpful. I don’t know what sources you are reading but perhaps you should read the original sutras. I would recommend the Lankavatara.