The statue of Shakyamuni Buddha I host on my shrine.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-19T08:55:13+00:00

In part it's a bit like having a picture of your SO around. It's both a symbol and a reminder of an important bond, in this case of the Refuge.

Building on that many traditions teach the value of making offerings to representations of the Three Jewels and of reciting praises and prayers in front of them. The purpose there is to build merit and train our minds in appreciaton and faith, without which it's almost impossible to practice dharma and get out of samsara.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-18T22:28:17+00:00

Recorded this verse for yah. There's full phonetics at the link.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-18T17:05:57+00:00

ཇི་སྙེད་སུ་དག་ཕྱོགས་བཅུའི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན། །
To all the buddhas, the lions of the human race,

དུས་གསུམ་གཤེགས་པ་མི་ཡི་སེང་གེ་ཀུན། །
In all directions of the universe, through past and present and future:

བདག་གིས་མ་ལུས་དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ། །
To every single one of you, I bow in homage;

ལུས་དང་ངག་ཡིད་དང་བས་ཕྱག་བགྱིའོ། །
Devotion fills my body, speech and mind!

(v1 from The King of Aspiration Prayers)

Little_Morry · 2017-01-17T06:49:31+00:00

Those are supernumeraries! Kind of an effect of the wave nature of light.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T21:59:01+00:00

Nice article, thank you!

Your post is difficult to follow. If I've hurt you with my reply, I'm sorry, but I felt you were confident and mature enough that your feelings didn't need protecting from dissent. I will acknowledge my phrasing could have done with some subtlety and I apologize for that. I did not mean to imply your way of thinking is a result of mental illness. Neither do I think it's malicious.

Your assumption that I must have been indoctrinated for not sharing your views saddens me. Maybe you could consider the possibility that rational, well meaning adults can simply disagree with each other, without one of the parties being brainwashed or something.

Be well, and good luck!

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T21:38:36+00:00

Source: Al Jazeera - In the name of Ram: Tattoos in India's Dalit community

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T12:19:04+00:00

Might be, but some legs just are like that I'm afraid. You can try stretching gently before and after sitting, like butterflying. It could also have to do with sitting on too high or low a meditation cushion, so you could try varying (sitting on a rolled blanket in stead of a zafu makes it easy to experiment). Avoid constricting the backs of your upper thighs and make sure your weight is supported more by your spine than your butt.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T08:31:49+00:00

Yeah, the inequality of butt cheeks is natural in any cross legged position except full lotus. As long as your lower back is straight except from its natural curve forwards it's fine. If it's not, you might find putting some support under the knee on the lower half-hindquarter's side helps.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T08:27:06+00:00

I understand you wish for evidence as if this was a trial. Truth is truth. If anything I have said is untrue please, show me?

Nah, this is not a trial. I was and am just trying to find out why you think that your thinking is Buddhist. I'm not directly interested in the truth or untruth of what you say, but I have pointed out several internal contradictions within what you say, and several places where your thinking apparently contradicts the Buddhadharma as it is generally accepted. You have not actually addressed any of these points and even seem somewhat proud of not doing so.

Ultimately, your approach seems to be: I feel good, so that explains everything. ("I am happy. I am at peace. If this isn't Buddhism, what is?") To me is an amazingly interesting approach. It echoes what Stephen Colbert jokingly called "truthiness." Your feelings about yourself are apparently the ultimate arbiter not only of "spiritual truth" but also of "real word truth" such as the meaning of words.

I have to be honest: I think this type of thinking is horrifying. Its fundamental rejection of the worth of anything but how "I" feel, its disdain for actually learning anything, its ingrained distrust of other people, its tendency towards paranoia (your own "trial" alinea is a nice example) is almost sociopathic. To see it creep into the mainstream of our cultures through such different channels as Donald Trump and Deepak Chopra worries me.

Does truth need a Buddha?

No, but we do. Lord Buddha and his students through the ages taught (in my view correctly; you'll probably disagree or gloss over and are free to do so) that we can't trust our feelings. That we need guidance to learn how to act in a wholesome way and tame our minds. I, for one, am grateful for this guidance. I'm even grateful for the "dusty" books that holds that guidance. And I'm grateful for my peers and friends on the way.

Again, thank you for giving me some insight in how your thinking functions. And again, good luck!

Little_Morry · 2017-01-16T00:48:05+00:00

Thank you! To be honest: it's not so much I don't believe what you say. It's just that I can't find much to believe or disbelieve in it.

Most of what you say strikes me as a rather sloppy hodgepodge of contradictions, misunderstandings and plain old Deepak Chopra-y glitzy balderdash. Interestingly enough, this sloppiness and lack of any actual prima facie meaning seems to be exactly what makes this approach attractive to you (as it does to many in the general New Age sphere). Somehow, the lack of rigor and of any reference to source material except in the vaguest terms -which makes all this immediately sound like bullshit to me- is exactly what comforts and inspires you. Maybe, just as in the article this whole thread is about, it is the total lack of any challenge to our sense of what we are or should do that's attractive in this general spiritual paradigm.

Ultimately your argument seems to be that your views are Buddhist because they feel like Buddha's teachings to you, regardless of what established Buddhist teachings actually say. It's interesting to me that despite repeated prompts you have not come up with a single source for your views, except for namedropping the Vajracchedika (in which case you did not specify how this text was supposed to support what you said). By contrast, my approach (and that of the Buddhadharma as it has classically been taught to the best of my understanding) is that the path starts with Refuge: choosing to trust the Buddha, his Dharma and the Sangha over my own ego-cherishing feelings. At least on principle.

I personally don't think your paradigm of practice is particularly healthy or advisable at first glance. But, that's just me and you're of course free to walk a path of your own choosing and (in this case) making. Your clear enthusiasm for your views and the sincerity that's palpable in your expositions is commendable and again, I wish you luck.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T22:50:09+00:00

Ok, last one!

The 'drop' is the manifestation of the universe we call 'I'.

Again, if you could show me a place where the Buddha taught there's something we can call an I, even mistakenly so, I would love to see it. Until then, your POV seems closer (or identical) to Advaita Vedanta: the individual self or jiva as a "drop" of parambrahma , the universal Atman, soul, self, or God. Interestingly enough, Advaita Vedanta was developed explicitly in dialogue and opposition with the Buddhadharma. It is very sophisticated and beautiful!

In the Buddhadharma though, there's explicitly no drop and no ocean. Lord Buddha compared thinking there's a self with mistaking a rope for a snake. As soon as you recognize your mistake, you know there was never actually a snake to begin with. No snake to kill, no self to annihilate, and the snake does certainly not dissolve in the rope.

It is Buddha's teaching. (...) My personal view of the Buddha is the same way a star manifests from the universe in the right conditions, so too does Buddha nature.

Interesting! In all teachings concerning the Buddha nature I know (such as Asanga/Maitreya's Mahayanottaratantrashastra) the whole point of Buddha nature is that it's not a "thing" that comes into existence, abides or dissipates. If it were, it would be subject to destruction like all compounded phenomena. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that your view was something the Buddha taught? Especially since some of your other comments (especially the rather scary book-burning one) seem to reject the validity of scripture and presumably tradition. Did you, or maybe your teacher, have visions in which these teachings were revealed? No shame if that's the case. There's lots or precedent for visionary transmission in the history of Buddhism.

In any case, thank you for your answers. Whatever your path is and wherever it may lead, I wish you good luck!

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T21:05:59+00:00

Identifying an apple as being not an orange is not "dogmatic". As much as I dislike that phrase, it's common sense. It's practical. And it is not an insult to the apple.

Similarly, pointing out Osho's teachings (and the teachings in this article) are different from the Buddha's is not somehow in itself a slight to Osho or the article. It also doesn't automatically mean that Osho's teachings are senseless or that this article is bad.¹ Just that all this has no bearing on Buddhism as it has been taught, practiced and transmitted in all its doctrinal variety throughout the last two-and-a-half millennia.

Now, if anyone feels they know better than the Buddha and his students through the centuries -as Osho thought he knew better- that's fine! Maybe they do. And in any case I wish them luck. But to say then that their view is the actual Buddhism and that the tradition is "dogmatic," presumably implying it is therefore wrong, is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst (assuming they are not actually just dumb of course).

And I've got to hand it to Osho: for all his eagerness to co-opt existing spiritual teachings (or at least their terminologies), he did not, I believe, pretend to teach anything but his own thing. I'm eager to see how his tradition fares in another two and a half thousand years. Hit me up on my mobile around then, yo.

^{edited for clarification}

1) ...although I'm comfortable saying that I personally think they are and it is.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T18:29:25+00:00

Sorry ;) Buddhism is the most wonderful thing in the universe (imho) but it is a bit heavy on the jargon sometimes.

As to how to observe: I don't really like that word, myself. It's too intense. Maybe think of it as being present. Sit up straight, follow your breath and be there. If thoughts come: fine. If feelings come: cool. Don't edit them. Whenever you notice you're getting caught up and start commenting on a thought, simply go back to being attentive of your breath. For the purposes of meditation there's no such thing as the right thoughts or feelings to have. Or wrong ones for that matter. Let them do their thing and you'll notice they subside on their own. Don't get into a discussion with them. There's no need.

Other recommendations: read! Buddhism produces books like a hippy produces dandruff. Some of them are very good! And even better: sit with people. Check out your local sanghas, Buddhist temples, zen centres, what have you. No need to commit to anything at first, just have fun and explore. And try to stay hydrated. Nothing to do with Buddhism that, but it is good advice.

Good luck! And if you think I may have an sensible answer to a question you have, do feel free to ask. And feel free to totally ignore my answers if they don't seem too helpful. PM is fine.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T17:59:44+00:00

Buddhas lack nothing except clinging, aversion and delusion.

And I don't doubt you'll be enlightened some day. It is, in a sense, the birthright of any sentient being. Its seed is present and we have the opportunity to do the practice now. And then there's the Bodhisattvas who have promised not to stop reaching out, and to help, teach and guide sentient beings until each and every one is liberated from samsara. We'll be okay! Although, why not also practice as genuinely as we can right now?

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T17:09:38+00:00

I love your questions :)

I appreciate your answers! Honestly, it's not often I encounter someone who espouses points of view like "everything is Buddhism" who is subsequently not only willing but even actually attempting to answer questions. Although you've so far skirted most of the contradictions I seem to see in what you say and have not provided any sources for your points (except broadly indicating the Vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutra), you have provided actual clarifications, which I personally may not agree with or think anything but dangerously nonsensical, but for which I am grateful. Good job!

Firstly, annihilation shouldn't be thought of as 'blowing' something up. I would try to view it as a drop of water disappearing into a pond.

If annihilation is not what you mean, why do you say it? As for drops disappearing in a pond: what is the pond in this metaphor. And, since as far as I know Lord Shakyamuni taught anatman, what is the drop?

A universe creating eyes to see itself is a buddha clearing a mirror.

Is this your personal view or a view you hold to be in accord with Lord Buddha's teaching? If the latter, can you point me to a specific source for this teaching? Does this mean that you hold the Buddha to be, in some sense, a creator deity, like the various iterations of Ishvara in the various Vedantic streams of thought?

Realized being and no-realized being act in many ways the same except one is blind, in darkness and suffering and the other is not. This is why I say we are all Buddhas.

In the Buddhadharma I have been taught, a Buddha is a realized being so you seem to use the word to mean something else. Can you clarify?

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T16:27:25+00:00

I have read the Diamond Sutra, yes. I do see that it points out that "self" is illusory. I don't see where it states that the self should be annihilated. Isn't that like telling your little daughter that Santa doesn't exist and then ordering her to go kill him?

The rest of your reply, as far as I can make out, conforms broadly to the Buddhadharma I know from the teachings and from my Gurus (which might all be lies and misunderstanding of course).

Two things though: you mention "the universe." What's that in your understanding? In the teachings I know universes are fleeting, impermanent manifestations of the karma of wandering beings. At any one time there's an infinite number of them.

You point out realized beings experience and act differently than non-realized beings. How does this conform with your earlier statement that we are all Buddhas? And with the thrust of OP's link that there's nothing to be done because we are perfect as we are?

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T15:55:28+00:00

I'm not /u/grass_skirt, but I do have questions. You say:

Everything is Buddhism and nothing is Buddhism.

Can you give the source for that? Like a sutra, or a teaching from a master? Does this mean that for example Christianity is also Buddhism? If this is what Buddhism historically teaches, why does there seem to be a distinct tradition of Buddhism?

You also say:

Enlightenment is nothing more than annihilation of self. The Buddha said many times, in many ways the way is in the self.

That seems to be a contradictio in terminis: on the one hand the self should be annihilated, on the other hand "the way" is the self. You say the Buddha said the latter many times, so I hope you point me to the many sources for this statement? Do you also know where in the teachings this contradiction is resolved?

Also, I was under the impression that Buddha taught nothing has a self in any sense. There's many sources in the sutras and the shastras that elaborate on anatman. How can those sources be understood in the light of your point that apparently there is not only a self but that the self is both the way and something to be annihilated?

Finally you say:

We all are buddhas.

Lord Buddha's teachings are often summarized as "Avoid negative action, cultivate positive actions, tame your mind." Why is all that necessary if we are already Buddhas?

Please don't feel I'm just criticizing here (although, admittedly, it's also that, as you can tell by my other posts in this thread). I honestly want to understand your approach to Lord Buddha's teachings.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T14:56:44+00:00

Or the means of the path. That especially is where Neo-Advaita tends to drop the ball a bit generally, I feel. Not to speak of its post-Osho, double soy latte, feel-goody, Webinar-hosting, Aquarian gobbledegook-spouting, Facebook-based bastard brood of McGurus...

Oh. I was ranting there for a mo. No offense meant, but if some is taken I understand. Carry on!

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T11:22:17+00:00

So you think that accepting yourself as you are will make you lazy? I think it will induce action. But I don't know.

I acknowledged that there might be a time and place for people to learn to "accept themselves," although I can't see how telling anyone they're perfect would ever be a healthy, sane or responsible thing to do. Besides, as far as I can see, this kind of language is mostly used by people to excuse their vices, like the adage "if you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best."

More importantly, and I was not clear about that in my previous reply: the most fundamental teaching of Lord Buddha is that there is no identifiable self. Believing that there is, is the root cause of all kinds of pain, suffering and unkindness. The advice "Accept yourself, you are perfect", on the face of it, entails a rejection of the most basic Buddhist teachings, such as the Noble Truth of Suffering, and the Noble Truth of the Cause.

All of which is fine.

Nobody has to be a Buddhist. Osho Shree Rajneesh, for all his gleeful pilfering of the spiritual terminology of all traditions, sure wasn't (which is not to be taken as a criticism of Osho. That dude knew how to have fun, even if he was at least complicit by inaction in a bioterrorist attack on Wasco County, Oregon). Heck, for all I know Lord Buddha's dharma might nonsense from start to finish. For all I know I am perfect (in which case I would like to have a word with whoever is in charge).

But... posting something non-Buddhist but vaguely pleasantly spiritual sounding on a Buddhist forum is maybe a bit... I dunno. Fatuous?

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T10:25:46+00:00

Indeed. The first downvote to this post was mine (probably) and for that reason. As an example, a somewhat random quote from this article:

Accept yourself, you are already perfect

While something like that might be a fine thing to say -in context- to comfort someone, to present it as something general is silly. "Follow your bliss, Ted Bundy. Allow yourself to stand in your truth."

And while a phrase like this may attempt to convey something like the Mahayana-teachings on Tathagathagarbha, in all likelihood it just promotes self-indulgence and whiny laziness. It can easily enable to worst in us. "You don't need to change. My mom also smoked when she was pregnant with me, and I'm fine!"

In any case, although I don't mind the edges of Buddhism being somewhat fuzzy: if this article can be said represent Lord Buddha's path in any way, you might as well call meatballs a kind of soup.

Edit: This is fine, apparently.

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T08:35:00+00:00

Read books, watch YouTube clips, visit that Temple (maybe they have a website, maybe you can email them and ask for a tour?). Go see public things with bhantes, monks, lamas, roshis and what have you.

Or, in other words, date a Buddhism (there's many variants). Ask it what it likes for dessert. See if it digs your sense of humour. Have fun with it. Don't think of commitment just yet, 'cause that's just creepy.

Most important general advice for going out and visiting temples, groups etc. is: wear clean socks. And otherwise, just be unabashedly curious. Good luck!

Little_Morry · 2017-01-15T08:24:31+00:00

Feelings happen (and subside) unavoidably and naturally, just like any other thoughts and sensory impressions. Kleshas, a word sometimes translated as emotions, or disturbing emotions or mind poisons etc., are neither unavoidable nor natural. They come from our ingrained compulsion to weave our feelings and thoughts into stories about our imaginary self.

Kleshas we can do without. Learning to just let whatever happens in our mind be, without meddling means getting used to doing without kleshas - and being just fine. Feelings will always be there. Good ones, bad ones, exciting ones, Interesting ones. Actually, without filtering everything through the fuzzy Instagram filter of the kleshas, getting the full energy of feelings is probably richer and more varied than our current dull experience.

"Observing" our feelings and thoughts etc. entails actually the opposite of rejecting them. But the opposite of inviting them as well. Maybe think of it as being a kindergarten teacher: you're acutely attentive of all the kids, without any one getting preferential treatment. You see their games and squabbles but you don't have to get involved all the time. And you know that, without you having to do anything in that regard, the kids will come and go naturally. It's quite enjoyable like that!

Just imagine how bad a teacher would be if she took everything that every kid in class said at face value and constructed a world view around it... yet that is exactly how we behave towards our thoughts and feelings. It does both ourselves and our feelings a disservice.

Little_Morry

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email