05.19.10
Posted in Buddhism, Religion/Philosophy at 11:05 pm by site admin
Check out this article Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche discussing the difference between Buddhism the religion and Buddhism the philosophy and why the Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist.
If we want to be free of the pain we inflict on ourselves and each other — in other words, if we want to be happy — then we have to learn to think for ourselves. We need to be responsible for ourselves and examine anything that claims to be the truth. That’s what the Buddha did long ago to free himself from his own discontent and persistent doubts about what he heard, day after day, from his parents, teachers, and the palace priests.
If you search “world religions,” you’ll find “Buddhism” on every list. Does that make Buddhism a religion? Does it mean that because I’m a Buddhist, I’m “religious”? I can argue that Buddhism is a science of mind — a way of exploring how we think, feel and act that leads us to profound truths about who we are. I can also say that Buddhism is a philosophy of life — a way to live that maximizes our chances for happiness.
Personally, I would have to agree with the author. Some of core Buddhist beliefs, such as the Eight Fold Path and the Four Noble Truths, are an analysis of mental thoughts processes in the context of life and do not require any leap of faith by the practitioner. If you are interested in learning more check out these links: Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path
Permalink
10.19.06
Posted in Buddhism, Education at 9:37 am by site admin
I was listening to a talk on zencast.org and found an interesting lecture on the difference between renunciation and resignation.
re‧nun‧ci‧a‧tion–noun
an act or instance of relinquishing, abandoning, repudiating, or sacrificing something, as a right, title, person, or ambition: the king’s renunciation of the throne.
res‧ig‧na‧tion–noun
1. the act of resigning.
2. a formal statement, document, etc., stating that one gives up an office, position, etc.
3. an accepting, unresisting attitude, state, etc.; submission; acquiescence: to meet one’s fate with resignation.
Its a fine division that I have had only brief glimpses of. In some respects, it reminds me of being active versus passive. If you are active, you choose to abandon certain possesions. If you are passive, your possesions are lost, and you simply accept it. (I can see how this you still act in this case, but this mentality does not always address the root causes.)
And finally, did you know the origin of sac·ri·fice means to make sacred? The word to me has always meant loosing something valuable for the sake of something more valuable. But I never put it in a spiritual light. Kinda like there is a difference from saying life is precious and life is sacred.
Permalink
01.30.06
Posted in Buddhism, Religion/Philosophy at 9:07 pm by site admin
I was talking to elisa earlier today and near the end she stated that she felt that I really understood and listened when we were talking (I can’t say I completely agree with this pov). Fast foward one hour to me reflecting on the conversation. I think that she genuinely listens and strives to find truth and understanding in not only our conversations, but in her overall life. Thus our conversations concerning our daily happenings, experiences, and thoughts can be quite interesting at times. In this regard, I was reminded of an interesting quote of Gotama Buddha I happened to come across.
In Buddhist tradition, It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked, “My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”
“No,” said the Buddha.
“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”
Again the Buddha answered, “No.”
“Are you a man?”
“No.”
“Well, my friend, then what are you?”
The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”
Permalink
10.14.05
Posted in Buddhism, Religion/Philosophy at 6:03 pm by site admin
I have been reading Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
with Elisa. Near the middle of the book Siddhartha foresakes his life as a merchant and returns to his life as an ascetic. Eventually he reaches a river and debates on killing himself. As he questions his life, he hears a voice speak the mystical word ‘Om’.
So the question I had is why is Om a special word. For many Hindus and Buddhists, Om represents creation. It signifies God and and the one-ness of everything. According to ancient Hindu beliefs, God first created sound, and these sounds manifested themselves into the phenomenal world. While many years ago this belief sounded unscientific, more modern research in physics has shown that energy and matter are connect (e.g. E=mc^2).
So why does Om mean what it means?
By examining the Sanskrit we can see that ‘Om’ actually contains 3 sounds. First the diphthong ‘o’ which actually consits of two simplier vowels ‘a’ (short a, as in the english word ‘but’) and ‘u’ (short u as in the english word ‘put’). The final sound is the ‘m’ sound produced when your lips get closed.
Now the ‘a’ sound is a pure sonant (sound produced with the vocal cords). It is the simpliest sound one can produce using the vocal cords. Consequently, it should come as no suprise why ‘a’ is considered a primal sound present throughout all of the worlds languages. Since the ‘a’ sound is produced with an open mouth it can tangibly represent creation. Now the ‘u’ sound occurs when you begin to close your mouth. The point of vibration thus shifts from solely the throat to the mouth. And then finally when ‘m’ is produced, the point of vibration shifts to the now closed lips. Thus ‘m’ signifies destruction and the end of the cycle. ‘Om’ (or Aum) represents the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. When one utters ‘Om’ successively, the trinity of creation, preservation, and destruction presents itself in a continuous cycle.
Now there is considerable analysis of the written form of ‘Om’ and its various symbolic meanings. If you are interested in such manifestations of the way, check out http://om.exoticindiaart.com/, http://www.omsakthi.org/worship/mantra.html, and http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa022200.htm. Remember though, an oral languages preceeds its written form.
Permalink
08.31.04
Posted in Buddhism, Religion/Philosophy at 9:23 pm by James
From what I read, there are four types of karma.
* Samchita Karma: The accumulated total of all your actions. This includes everything from all your previous lives. The thoughts and actions from previous lives form your inclinations, abilities, and persona.
* Prarabadha Karma: The portion of Samchita karma being worked on in the current life. This is the “setup” of your current life. This includes your birth, death (so to speak, not fixed in stone), family, events in your life. This cosmic status provides the setup of your current life.
* Agami Karma: Conscious actions in your current life that are added to your samchita karma and and used in future lives.
* Kriyaman Karma: Instant Karma. Actions in this life that are resolved in this life.
I have seen the last two lumped together, and/or only one of the two being used. I think its important to keep that distinction.
It is important to realize that Karma is a statement of free will. It says you have the ability to choose your future. It tells us that the we plant the seeds of the future in out actions. Whatever they may be, we will reap the results of them. No one is perfect, so we all have lessons to learn. Karma teaches by experience. It doesnt work by merely doing a good action. It requires a conscious effort on our part to be mindful of our intent. For example, giving money to beggers merely so they will leave you alone may not generate positive karma. In otherwords, the Machieavellian view of “The end justifies the means” is not a complete guiding principle. Something I read that really stuck me is: We forget about karma to see if we have learned. History repeats itself. I think it takes great ability to be able to remember the lessons of yesterday. I remember reading a study that stated the ability to forget was a evolutionary trait. Otherwise we would never be able to forget any bad or traumatic experience in our past. By the same mechanisms, we forget all the good lessons too. My friend Mim had this quote on her exam: “Education is what is left after we have forgotten everything we have learned”. An interesting aspect to this is that time, and its progression, tests us to see if we remember the lesson, and also if we can connect the action to the effect. And lessons always come in different forms. There are so many facets to life. To truly understand, we have to be able to apply abstract concepts from one realm to another.
There is truth in simplicity. Complexity is simply the interweaving of simplicity.
Articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/reincarnation/karma_emogensen.htm
http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/santhigi/karma/types.htm
Permalink