Buddhism 101

You gotta love those grey areas.

Theology is wonderfully complex.

But I'll trade talking about funeral rituals and who gets the buck in confusing karma situations over how much God cares where men stick their penises any day of my whole frickin' life.

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Death or dicks; hell of amoral dilemma.

So now i'm off to catalog all this info and look about getting it notarized.

"But I'll trade talking about funeral rituals and who gets the buck in confusing karma situations over how much God cares where men stick their penises any day of my whole frickin' life."

Speaking of that...

SEXUALITY

I'll start with a few choice excerpts from the Pali Canon.

Blinded by sensuality covered by the net, veiled with the veil of craving, bound by the bond of heedlessness, like fish in the mouth of a trap, they go to aging & death, like a suckling calf to its mother. - Udana 7.4, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.7.04.than.html

Your mind is enflamed because of distorted perception. Shun the aspect of beauty associated with passion. See constructions as other, as painful, not as self, (and thus) extinguish strong passion; do not burn again and again. Devote the mind, one-pointed and well-composed, to the contemplation of foulness. Let mindfulness be directed towards the body and be full of disenchantment for it. Contemplate the signless and cast out the underlying tendency to conceit. Then by the penetration of conceit you will go about at peace. - Theragatha 21, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.21.00.irel.html#ananda

Subha the nun to the amorous goldsmith's son: "What do you assume of any essence, here in this cemetery grower, filled with corpses, this body destined to break up? What do you see when you look at me, you who are out of your mind?" - Therigatha 14.1, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.14.01.than.html

Sexuality, in Theravada Buddhism and traditional Mahayana, has been regarded as something to be transcended. That attitude is a little different in Vajrayana, with the practice of sexual tantra being an unusual strand, considered extremely advanced and alien compared to normal human sex in terms of the emotions and thoughts that are to be generated during the practice. However, I understand that the Dalai Lama has said that sexual tantra should not even be physically performed, but rather should be practiced metaphorically. I have also heard somewhere that: "For the true tantric practicioner, one must be as willing to eat human feces as to have sex, or else one's mind is not developed." I don't know. I have no malice towards the Vajrayana, but Tibetans really do seem like the crazy cousin that lives in the attic sometimes. Especially with their horrifying Mahakala paintings.

Anyway. Transcended. I have read descriptions of the mental practice of Thai Forest monks such as Luang Ta Maha Bua where they explicitly describe the process of reconditioning their own minds through intense meditation, studying the way the human body is assembled, its various disgusting elements (fecal matter, phlegm, organs), not simply to the point where "Oh gross, I don't feel aroused anymore!" but to the point where the meditator knows the body's structure as totally as any pathologist. Pursuing deeper into the reactions of disgust (to corpses, organs, and such) and lust (towards sexy people), the meditation ultimately begins to study the basic perceptions of beauty and hideousness, as they arise in the mind. Finally, there is a radical, transcendent moment, associated with the third of the four stages of Awakening. This practice of body contemplation, together with the cultivation of universal good will (metta), ultimately leads to the cessation of both sensual lust and ill-will. The mind's sexual craving is totally undone, let go of, vanishes without remainder. This is something Luang Ta Maha Bua personally attested to That was actually a breach in monastic conduct, since he was openly stating that he was Awakened in that same talk. Not lying about it. But the rules say that's not allowed to say whether he's Awakened or not to the public.

So that's the goal of both monastics and intense lay meditators. I would say something very very similar seems to have happened to the Hindu sage, Sri Ramana Maharshi, since he had a powerful meditative experience in his adolescence and afterwards entirely lost all interest in secular life, including sexuality.

But for the laypeople? Well, there's the third precept, "Refraining from sexual misconduct." People love to argue that this is vague, but it's actually very clear-cut in the Pali Canon: "[The person observing the third precept] does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man." So no sex with children (duh), with people sworn to chastity ('their Dhamma'), with people who are married, or people who are engaged (and by extrapolation, somebody else's significant other). Those who entail punishments, I'm not sure about that one. Now, adultery is not regarded as some SUPREME social evil trumping all others, as it seems to be regarded in traditional Abrahamic religions. It's regarded as about equal with killing, lying, stealing, and getting drugged up. That is, a deed which makes one predisposed towards dark deeds, mental instability, and a life to come among beasts, hungry shades, or in hell. I know that in Japan, the law didn't demand the killing of adulterous lovers, but instead, forced the two lovers to sit in public and be stared at by everybody.

Homosexuality! This one is complex, but overall, it doesn't have the depressing track record of Abrahamic religion. In the original scriptures, human gender is described as having four classifications: male, female, hermaphrodite, and 'pandaka'. Originally, only males were granted ordination: after pressure from his aunt Mahapajapati and his attendant Ananda, the Buddha granted ordination to women. This wasn't because of any essential inferiority of women so much as it was due to the society in which he lived: ancient India was super-patriarchal, as one might expect. The religious reactionaries of the period were already pissed off by Buddhism, and the idea of it ordaining women was even more radical. But I've wandered off the track. Homosexuality. Yes. Now, the thing was that the Sangha, as an institution operating in the world, could not be excessively radical, or it would risk social censure, meaning the religion would die, and the opportunity of later generations to benefit from the Buddhadhamma would die with it. So the Buddha had to pay attention to worldly laws and social etiquette, and part of that was the fact that heterosexual men were dominant. Where does that leave a queer person of modern times that wants to practice Buddhism? Of course, modern social conventions about homosexuality are difficult to map to classical Indian society, but Indian conventions of the time broadly reflect what was to be found in Greece and Rome: men who had sex in the active role were seen as 'correct', women in the passive role correct. The reverse was wrong. If a male played the passive role, he wasn't a man, but a pandaka: Wikipedia helpfully says, "the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of promiscuous, passive, probably transvestite homosexuals, who were possibly prostitutes." Pandakas were barred from ordination as either monks or nuns. In modern times, this has been extended in Thailand to kathoeys, who are male-to-female transvestites and transsexuals, although the rule hasn't been uniformly exercised, as I understand it. Hermaphrodites are not allowed to ordain simply because there wasn't a category for them. From what I understand, if a hermaphrodite chose to become either a woman or a man, then ordination became possible.

However, nowhere in the original texts is it stated that pandakas are incapable of spiritual progress. That comes later, with the commentary traditions of Buddhaghosa and other scholar-monks, almost a thousand years later. They come down pretty harshly on the pandakas, saying they can't ordain, can't offer alms to monks, are unable to meditate, and cannot understand the Dhamma (!). What a fun bunch of guys they were. In some strands of Tibetan thought, pandakas, conversely, were actually valued for their "middleness" between masculine and feminine energies. Here's a handsome Tibetan deity who is described as 'ma ning', a pandaka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahakala Despite its rather horrifying appearance, this being is a Dharmapala, a "defender of the Dharma," and would be given offerings and reverence by Tibetan Buddhists.

So if we're talking modern people, how does it all work out? Basically it comes down to this: any form of sexual IDENTITY indicates ignorance of the principle of anatta (not-self, non-self), and is a form of sakkaya-ditthi, "identity-view", the first of ten fetters that chain the mind to the process of samsara, "wandering onwards." But that is included with racial identity, cultural identity, even religious identity. In a true, ultimate sense, identity is a fiction. It is used for convenience in worldly speech, not to describe things as they are in the light of Dhamma. Gay pride rallies would be seen as misguided in a Buddhist light, then, since they are focused so strongly on an identity. The basic sexual activity of queer people is seen as unwholesome in traditional Buddhist books and in modern Asian societies like Thailand and China, but that has more to do with societal prejudices in favor of heterosexual men than anything else. As for the desires themselves, they're just sexual desires. All such passions are regarded as equally unwholesome, defilements of the mind, no matter who it's aimed at. There is no such thing as "pure sex," for even the most loving and 'beautiful' physical relationship has some form of dukkha bound up in it, some measure of defilement.

In Western forms of Buddhism as they are emerging, homosexual desires are not seen as a bar to ordination, even among quite conservative forms of the religion such as the Thai Forest Tradition. Any action whatsoever for the sake of those desires is going to be a penalty ranging anywhere from simple confession to outright expulsion from the order for life (that'd be sexual activity with another being such as penetration). But that applies to heterosexual activity in exactly the same measure. Such monks who experience homosexual desires don't seem eager to talk about it, no more than they would be to talk about their physical ethnicity or their political views (if they even have any). It's not something that is befitting of a monastic, to talk about the worldly ways people are divided up. The values of the Dhamma (contentment, seclusion, dispassion, persistence, being unburdensome and unfettered, modesty, etc) outstrip anything so coarse as just how our passions tend to manifest themselves.

The reason I talk about all of this in such detail is that I myself experience homosexual desires. When I first encountered the teachings I still held an identity as gay, but as time went by and I studied and began to meditate, it just started to seem cumbersome and silly to hold to such an identity. I will eventually request the Upasampada into the Theravada bhikkhu lineage, and I don't think those rules against pandakas will keep me out, considering I'm not nor have I ever been sexually active anyway.

edited 26th Dec '11 10:23:38 AM by ThDaSu

Oh hey my thread is back...I thank you for bumping it with that info filled post. I myself tend to either be confused at or annoyed by gay pride rallies. I don't particularly see my pansexual label as anything other than some vaguely convenient term to describe feelings that arise in me at times. It never seemed terribly vital to my identity. In fact I questioned the importance of so closely guarding one's identity in the first place. That's just more crap to get upset about. I still desire a clearly defined identity though and for people to see said identity and to belong to some fancy group with my identity, but I feel so much happier when I just decide "Meh this isn't worth spending effort on and all I'm going to do is change it in five minutes anyway. I'll go whine about how I burnt myself on the stove instead".

I myself am sexually active and have a girlfriend. I'd like to be a nun for a month or two at some point and then return to my life as a layperson with my girlfriend in our stupid apartment. Just to get a feel of things in this lifetime. It kind of makes me sad at times, but I'll get to Enlightenment eventually. Slowly but surely while holding hands with the rest of the people who are trying to reach it. So I'll be a layperson slowly moving along and supporting the Sangha.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Oh, come on. Go to deepest Asia and sit in a tiger-infested forest while contemplating the fact that you have a crippling case of malaria. Or be like Ajahn Chob and just get outright hailed on while you've lost your two outer robes, your alms bowl has smashed, and you're alone in the wilderness.

Also snakes.

...it is my sneaking suspicion that one has to have been a badass to be an early forest tradition monk.

I finished the thread all of it. I feel a bit confused but not by anything posted here, I understand it fine. There is a lot I agree with from what I've read, there is a good amount I don't agree with, but there is even more I don't even what I think.

Speaking from a strictly philosophical point, there were quite a few things I discovered on my own, that were right in line with Buddhist beliefs. There are also things I never considered or thought of that vibe so well with existing beliefs.

I'm not a Buddhist, I don't think I could become one just from reading a thread on it. I don't really think I want to become one either*

, but I do want to learn more about it, and I want to thank you for what I've learned thus far.

Edit: wow Had no idea this was going to be a Nerco.

edited 16th May '12 7:46:34 PM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

Sure thing and yeah this thread is old...Useful though since it has lots of convenient in depth paragraphs on this stuff. Though not as in dept as it could be! There are entire books on single aspects of the religion...

"DEPENDENT ORIGINATION: THE BOOK", "THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS: THE BOOK", "ANAPANSATTI MEDITATION: THE BOOK" and so on.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Hello! I've also read through the whole thread by now. I've been very interested in buddhism since always, although I can't honestly say I agree completely with it. However, one thing got me thinking. Aristotle once said in his Poetics that the biggest benefit of theater seemed to be what he called catharsis, which basically means one is "purged" of bad emotions when watching a good play. Now, would it be too far-fetched to think of it (and other forms of art-appreciation, by extension) as meditation?

Thread Hop, so forgive me if this question has been asked before...

I don't get the rule against small talk. I can understand why you'd want to speak with 'truth, reason and kindness' - it's the 'purpose' part that puzzles me. How, exactly, is small talk, speaking 'without purpose', wrong? Whom does it hurt? I genuinely don't see it.

And that's just the 'why'. I understand the 'how' even less. I'd say that except in very unusual circumstances, the vast majority of all conversation is about nothing - and it's pretty much impossible to make new friends, visit your relatives, or do anything involving other people at all without engaging in some idle chit-chat every now and then. So if you have an ethical rule against small talk, how do you get through your day without coming off as a Jerkass, a Cloudcuckoolander or someone with No Social Skills?

Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...

The anti-small talk thing isn't in relation to hurting others, but yourself. It's one of the higher up rules one follows when they're really getting into total devotion to the Dhamma. The reasoning given is that all speech is to be spoken for a purpose and one that is in accordance with the Dhamma. Small talk is essentially wasting your time.

It can also mess with your mindfulness and concentration that you've been working so hard for over the years. Because when people chatter we tend to bounce around from topic to topic without really thinking about it. Often bringing up random shit that comes to mind. This was given a name by Chinese Buddhists. Monkey mind. Now the meditator learns to reign in the monkey mind and quiet it. Enabling them to act with complete focus and awareness of subtle details.

Small talk also bears with it the danger of becoming emotionally attached to another being. Interaction in general does, but small talk doesn't have a barrier between it like Dhamma talks or question answering does. With those two latter forms of speech we have a separation between Teacher and Student and are adopting an academic and business like manner and thought process. Monks will also ask you about how your current status. Like if you're sad and what not. This gets a pass as well for being done out of concern and mercy and with the intent to help the person.

As for how we learn to communicate...That happens through life as a lay person and past lives as one. Lay people don't have the "avoid small talk" precept to follow and it damn sure isn't a vow for them even if they take up the higher levels of precepts. Really the only ones who talk the anti-smalltalk rules as a rule are monks and they are cloistered in monestaries pretty much all the time. Those who visit them are implicitly taking on the Eight Precepts or at the least taking the Five much, much more seriously. Which don't include anti-small talk provisions. You can and do chitchat with other temple goers. Talks with monks however always have a purpose. Whether it be to learn about meditation or to be cheered up. I've had a few personal talks with monks that just sort of sprung up and they've all been directed in a natural fashion to some form of lesson or teaching. My abbot is capable of doing this while coming off as the most amazingly warm and lovable person ever. Even if you always have this clear divide between teacher and student. Other monks absolutely suck at talking to others. Even if they have higher titles and ranks. These monks I feel have failed in learning something very important prior to and after becoming a monk. Namely how to communicate with others even if your speech is always directed towards something of use and good. I've spoken with a few such and it's...awkward.

This all has to do with Buddhism's goal being to become emotionally detached and to act not because you want to or like to, but because you know that it is right to talk someone out of suicide as an example. You don't eat because you want to but because you have the knowledge that eating keeps you alive and if alive you have the ability to aid others who are living in a variety of ways. So it's a distinctly Buddhist problem based on our goals and how we view the world.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:11:53 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Buddha is a man. The assertion of Buddhism is that he discovered the inherent truths of the world.

• Suffering happens because of desires and attachments; these desires and attachments encompass all things that can be prefixed "I want-" or "I need-", hunger, sickness, death, wealth, fame, love, even spiritual fulfillment.
• Enjoyment is quenching suffering, and is therefore temporary. You will always get hungry, you'll always need sleep, you'll always desire wealth, fame, love.

• Be mindful of your actions, words, thoughts; what you want and what you need. Doing so will allow you to rid yourselves of needless sufferings and fulfill neccesary sufferings using simple means.

• The end goal of Buddhism is ending all sufferings. Faith asserts that the way is Nirvania, the state of non-existence. Existence is suffering, thus the end of suffering can only be reached through the end of existence.

I'm a monk ordained in Thailand. My monkhood is nearing an end, thus I'm compiling a list of questions to ask the senior monks before I return to civilian life. I'd appreciate discussions and questions.

Have you had contact with other branches of Buddhism (I understand Thailand is primarily Theravada)? If so, what were your impressions?

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Buddhism is divided into three branches; The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.

Buddha is the founder of the religion, Dhamma the teachings and tenets and Sangha the organization, i.e. Monks, nuns, laymen. As with all humans, we run the gamut from the full spectrum of human behaviors.

Theravada is indeed Thailand's more prominent sect, with the major exception of Dhammakaya movement. My impression is that the teachings of various monestary depended heavily on the presiding Abbot, the senior monk in charge of running the monestary. The majority of cases encourage dogmatic and ritualistic behaviors, incorporating spiritualism and animalism from local beliefs. Charity and dutiful prayers are the chief virtues.

Incidentally, the two denomination of the Theravada sect is the Maha Nikaya and Dhammayuttika Nikaya. As a general rules, Dhammayuttika Nikaya are more strict, eschewing worldly possessions to an even greater degree like refusing to touch currencies. Maha Nikaya is in the majority. Further categorization might includes being "Town Monks", "Forest Monks" or "Wandring Pilgrims".

I don't have any kind words with which to speak of Dhammakaya.

Mahayana sect has differing practices owing to a divergent interpretation of the Tripitaka (equivalent to the Bible or Quran). My impression is that they incorporate local cultures (in this case, East Asia) more heavily, featuring supernatural elements more prominently rather than using them in an allegorical or anectodal manner.

"Does a dog have Buddha nature?" (my favorite koan). Actually asking that might seem presumptuous, however.

Welcome to TVT, by the way.

Impertinence is only when one is in an unsuitable time or places for discourse.

Well, according to the teachings of my sect, "Buddha-nature" is "the capacity to become aware" (and thus reaches Nirvania, and thus ends of suffering.) Not dog nor spirits nor demons nor angels nor gods have the capacity to reaches Nirvania, only human.

Extrapolating from the koan, "Everyone can reaches Nirvania, but only if they works on it." seems the most suitable answer.

Thanks for the welcome.

Hmm. Were I your teacher, I would ask you how you can be so certain what awareness actually is. I might put it this way: what does awareness feel like?

Nirvania require faith, the belief that the it exists and should be pursued. The frog parable (which was mentioned a couple pages back in this thread) goes-

"Mother frog leapt out of the pond. She felt the sunshine, the breezes, the ground. She leapt back down into the pond, where her tadpoles children swam. The tadpoles ask the frog what being outside the pond is like. The frog tries to illustrate the warm sunshine, the blowing breezes, the solid ground but the tadpoles couldn't understand. It is only once they grew legs and leapt out of the pond themselves that they do."

My understanding of awareness is being mindful of how and why your thoughts are formed, what they are, how they changes, how all those things translate into actions.

Awareness is. You possesses it by dint of being a thinking creature, and you can reaches the purest approximation of it by paring down what you're aware of until you're as close as possible of reaching the awareness itself.

And what would you answer to the accusation that your concepts of "how", "why", "what" and even "mindful" and "awareness" are attempts to attach a fixed reality to nirvana? What you have described seems to me to be methods of achieving awareness, not awareness itself. Once you have pared everything down, what's left?

edited 23rd Jan '17 10:16:38 PM by DeMarquis

Awareness, of course, if you'd pardon the tautology.

It's why you need faith. Magic eyes that can see beyond the planes of existence and reality, if you want to be nasty.

Do you know this story?

The Master asked his pupil "What is the true nature of the Buddha?"

Without hesitation, the Pupil knocked over a vase on the table, shattering it on the floor.

After contemplating this for a moment, the Master smiled, and nodded his head in agreement.

What was the Master agreeing with?

My current answer is "Doesn't matter. The riddle is merely a vehicle for contemplating on Buddha's teachings."

Merely? Is that not the point of existence?

I have a koan that I developed just for you: You must come to a definitive conclusion regarding the nature of nirvana. You cannot come to a definitive conclusion regarding the nature of nirvana. What is the answer?

False.

A conclusive understanding of the nature of Nirvania must be possible, for me to do so. I don't believe I can, as of present, and doubt I could in the future, thus I am not obligated to do so.

I see. What do you think of the famous saying "The way that can be spoken of is not the true way?"