T-Nation Buddhists?

[jmirelez]

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
Plisskin wrote:
Kailash wrote:
A better one (read this on a road sign somewhere):
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”

You see, though we must feel pain, we wouldn’t have an opinion on good if we didn’t have an opinion on bad. Suffering is optional.

You know, my life and my on and off research of religion and philosophy up to this point makes me think that the quote should actually be stated as “Suffering is inevitable, pain is optional.” Personal opinion of course, but it seems to make more sense that to live life and deal with the ever shifting balance of things, means that you will always be suffering to some degree or another, but you have a choice as to how much pain you must endure while suffering life’s trials. I see examples of this on a daily basis.

Those who make the best of it may still suffer, but they rarely experience serious pain. Those who find flaw with everything in their life suffer more, through unnecessary self-inflicted pain. The same could apply to how much someone attaches themselves to someone else’s suffering.

Of course, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), this is part of the Buddhist philosophy. To release attachments to end life’s suffering and find enlightenment and happiness. Which makes total sense, except for the fact that its hard to live in normal society without attachments. In fact, desiring enlightenment and happiness is something you are attached to…so, the path gets even more confusing.

You basically have the gist of Kailash’s quote, which is Buddhist in origins. The meaning gets slightly distorted in translation. The English word ‘suffering’ is the most common translation of the Pali word ‘dukkha,’ but doesn’t fully capture the meaning of ‘dukkha.’ Dukkha also conveys a deeper sense of wrongness, that things are out of whack, something is jammed in the gears of existence and that it is something that we do to ourselves. The most common analogy is if I’m shot by an arrow (pain). Suffering is my twisting and tugging on the arrow - unnecessary self-inflicted pain. But like I said, you knew exactly what this quote was about; I just wanted to explain the choice of terms.

As far as attachments go… yes, it is basically impossible to live in society without attachments which is why Buddhism places such a heavy emphasis on monasticism. However, it’s not an all or nothing situation. Buddhist practice will benefit your everyday life in ways you can see in the here and now, no need to wait for after death. No need for faith because the results are obvious and measurable.

So I guess my point is this: even if you’re not in a situation where you can take it to the extreme, you will still reap rewards from the practice. It is entirely possible for a householder (the term used to describe Buddhist non-monks) to destroy the first three fetters (false views of the self, skeptical doubt of what the Buddha taught, clinging to rituals and rites) and to weaken sensuous craving and feelings of ill-will towards others. This will ease our suffering even if it does not eradicate it.

Delving into some of the more faith-based aspects of Buddhism here… if you believe in the cycle of rebirth literally, then by eliminating the first three fetters and weakening the other two I mentioned, you will have attained the point of ‘once-returner.’ You will only be reborn one more time and you will achieve final release in that lifetime. So all your efforts will eventually bear fruition even if you’re not able to drop everything tomorrow and run off to become a monk.

Sorry for the long lecture. I don’t really get to talk about this stuff much in ‘real life’ so I get a bit long-winded sometimes. [/quote]

Was going through some old posts and found this. This sounds like it may be coming from a Theravada persepective of things. There is also the so called yogi style of the Vajrayana practioner. Where one uses all of life as opportunities to see the nature of mind. Allowing one to become fully enlightened in this very life. That’s why aversion to meat and alcohol aren’t relevant with Vajrayana.

If one always has a pure view, than one’s actions are always working for the benefit of others. Milarepa and Drukpa Kunley are great examples of one becoming enlightened and not being tied to a monastic lifestyle. Also, many of the siddhas in India are good examples of this.

Have to say that all the flavors of working with the mind can really be fun!

[brucevangeorge]

I’m more on the Atheist side… but lately I have really been considering Buddhism.

I agree with much of the philosophy and its not corrupted by the greed of money and power like most churches. cough Catholic Church cough.

That is if you consider a Buddhist temple (or series of) a Church.

Thing I don’t get though is: What’s up with the not eating meat? Is it just a sect of Buddhism that practices that?

[telecino]

Oh! A Buddhist gathering

I’m a Buddhist, amongst other things. I’m also a living being, and a software programmer.

I will be ordained as a Buddhist Priest next April 21st, and i’m really into teaching. I’m from the Tenda? lineage, but we’re mostly a ZEN/Pure Land mix, with in-depth esoteric personal growth.

According to the Boddhisatva philosophy, let’s not bother other people with our philosophies, views of the world, complex terminologies, or anything else. Rather, let’s speak with their words, and say their names, so that they can be the ones to benefit from our discussion. Thus, the denomination we give ourselves stop being important, and us humans start being important.

I like to teach life giving techniques, energy cultivation that goes along with Gym training. It is important to develop your mind, and your internal energy. Then, the iron can pump like crazy, and still end the sets with a smile printed in the face.

Kuji-in is a good technique to start developing your inner strength ( http://www.kujiin.info ), that will eventually become physical strength, from the inside out.

Namu Amida Butsu.

[telecino]

As for “Not Eating Meat”, it goes with one of the five precepts of Buddhism: Not Killing.

The vows can be interpreted as you wish. Some say that “Not Killing” means integrally towards any living form, while others interpret it as “Not Killing Humans”.

The five Buddhists precepts are:

1- Not to kill: you decide what it means for you, but it’s obvious that humans are included.

2- Not to steal: obvious. Don’t steal from others. Don’t copy MP3’s, and don’t rob a bank.

3- Not to lie: say the truth, and assume responsibility for yourself.

4- Not to get intoxicated: Does it mean no alchool at all? Or simply not to get drunk over it?

5- Not to have sexual misconduct: now, some interpret it as total abstination, while others say it simply means not to screw your sister, or a cow…!

The Buddha (Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha), said to adapt the dharma (teachings) to any new situation and circumstance. This is why Buddhism can’t become a controlling institution, because it is accepted to have variations, point of views and to accept the views of others. Contrarily to other religions, different approaches are not at war. Zen and Tibetans can have a nice talk and part their ways with a smile.

[datta]

Buddhists are Hindus, since Buddha is an incarnation of Maha Vishnu.

The main thing is to follow and protect the dharma by maintaining certain behaviours such as ahimsa, detachment etc.

As far as lifting is concerned, spend the money on protein powders and milk for the aminos, otherwise karma will smack you down.
I certainly do not want to be reborn, go through school, university, work, building new muscle(no muscle memory in a new body if your karma blesses you with a human body again).

This pertains to the suffering that was mentioned a few posts earlier. It is all due to (bad) karma. If you have good karma, then you won’t suffer. Of course to not suffer at all you have to be a sage/saint. They are just absorbed in God.

[jmirelez]

[quote]datta wrote:
Buddhists are Hindus, since Buddha is an incarnation of Maha Vishnu.

The main thing is to follow and protect the dharma by maintaining certain behaviours such as ahimsa, detachment etc.

As far as lifting is concerned, spend the money on protein powders and milk for the aminos, otherwise karma will smack you down.
I certainly do not want to be reborn, go through school, university, work, building new muscle(no muscle memory in a new body if your karma blesses you with a human body again).

This pertains to the suffering that was mentioned a few posts earlier. It is all due to (bad) karma. If you have good karma, then you won’t suffer. Of course to not suffer at all you have to be a sage/saint. They are just absorbed in God.
[/quote]

Buddhist being Hindus and seeing the historical Buddha as an incarnation of Maha Vishnu is purely a Hindu view. This wouldn’t make so much sense from a Buddhist percpective. Considering that god(s) are viewed as a part of the cycle of rebirth and we try and keep a healthy distance from them

The view of karma or causality isn’t quite like that. To have such a surplus of ‘good’ karma that you would be a god isn’t so useful. Eventually that ‘good’ karma would be exhausted and you would fall from a good realm with nothing left but ‘negative’ impressions in the mind. Thus leading to a not so pleasant rebirth.

In Buddhism, we actually try to see the mind itself. The mirror behind the pictures. To understand the totality of the experience, experiencer, and act of experiencing one would come out of the karmic cycle. This doesn’t require being a sage, saint, or monk let alone being absorbed into some kind of god.

The historical Buddha was just a man that found a way to lasting happiness. Then he gave teachings on how others can have the same. He even said, I don’t want followers, I want colleagues.

From what I’ve heard, the view that Buddhist are just Hindus and such was actually a political move by Hindus at the time of the Buddha. Since he was gaining so many students and his teachings threw out the idea of caste, he was viewed as a political threat.

Sorry for the rant, but there are a lot of funny views of Buddhism. Oh yeah, as far as eating meat it concerned. On a practical level, it doesn’t make much sense. Considering that if the Tibetans had stopped eating meat, they would have starved to death. It depends on what flavor of Buddhism one is involved with though. Some take a very strict view of the meat eating thing. Marpa, one of the lineage holders that brought the teaching to Tibet, said to drink beer, eat meat, and enjoy women! So I figure it’s not going to ruin my karma if I practice.

[datta]

Buddhist being Hindus and seeing the historical Buddha as an incarnation of Maha Vishnu is purely a Hindu view. This wouldn’t make so much sense from a Buddhist percpective. Considering that god(s) are viewed as a part of the cycle of rebirth and we try and keep a healthy distance from them

The view of karma or causality isn’t quite like that. To have such a surplus of ‘good’ karma that you would be a god isn’t so useful. Eventually that ‘good’ karma would be exhausted and you would fall from a good realm with nothing left but ‘negative’ impressions in the mind. Thus leading to a not so pleasant rebirth.

In Buddhism, we actually try to see the mind itself. The mirror behind the pictures. To understand the totality of the experience, experiencer, and act of experiencing one would come out of the karmic cycle. This doesn’t require being a sage, saint, or monk let alone being absorbed into some kind of god.

The historical Buddha was just a man that found a way to lasting happiness. Then he gave teachings on how others can have the same. He even said, I don’t want followers, I want colleagues.

From what I’ve heard, the view that Buddhist are just Hindus and such was actually a political move by Hindus at the time of the Buddha. Since he was gaining so many students and his teachings threw out the idea of caste, he was viewed as a political threat.

Sorry for the rant, but there are a lot of funny views of Buddhism. Oh yeah, as far as eating meat it concerned. On a practical level, it doesn’t make much sense. Considering that if the Tibetans had stopped eating meat, they would have starved to death. It depends on what flavor of Buddhism one is involved with though. Some take a very strict view of the meat eating thing. Marpa, one of the lineage holders that brought the teaching to Tibet, said to drink beer, eat meat, and enjoy women! So I figure it’s not going to ruin my karma if I practice.

Understand, what I said was not an attack or anything. This is what is written in the Bramhanda purana. Like the Gita, this is not any man’s writings, this is directly from God.

Regarding gods being reborn, those are not gods, they are devas or demi gods. According to Hinduism, heaven is not the only ‘higher’ place. There is only one true God, that is above the demi gods. God cannot be reborn.

When you have good karma, you reap its benefits by enjoying some time in heaven, like the devas and then you get punished for the bad karma in the hellish regions. Karma can be crushed in many ways. Great gurus can crush or even take the karma of their disciples upon themselves. However, it is extremely rare to find a great guru or sadguru.

(To actually understand the mind and the Self properly, you must be like a saint, who is beyond karma.)

The ultimate goal is to be detached from all experiences, while still performing your duty. This is the essence of the Gita.

[jmirelez]

[quote]datta wrote:

Buddhist being Hindus and seeing the historical Buddha as an incarnation of Maha Vishnu is purely a Hindu view. This wouldn’t make so much sense from a Buddhist percpective. Considering that god(s) are viewed as a part of the cycle of rebirth and we try and keep a healthy distance from them

The view of karma or causality isn’t quite like that. To have such a surplus of ‘good’ karma that you would be a god isn’t so useful. Eventually that ‘good’ karma would be exhausted and you would fall from a good realm with nothing left but ‘negative’ impressions in the mind. Thus leading to a not so pleasant rebirth.

In Buddhism, we actually try to see the mind itself. The mirror behind the pictures. To understand the totality of the experience, experiencer, and act of experiencing one would come out of the karmic cycle. This doesn’t require being a sage, saint, or monk let alone being absorbed into some kind of god.

The historical Buddha was just a man that found a way to lasting happiness. Then he gave teachings on how others can have the same. He even said, I don’t want followers, I want colleagues.

From what I’ve heard, the view that Buddhist are just Hindus and such was actually a political move by Hindus at the time of the Buddha. Since he was gaining so many students and his teachings threw out the idea of caste, he was viewed as a political threat.

Sorry for the rant, but there are a lot of funny views of Buddhism. Oh yeah, as far as eating meat it concerned. On a practical level, it doesn’t make much sense. Considering that if the Tibetans had stopped eating meat, they would have starved to death. It depends on what flavor of Buddhism one is involved with though. Some take a very strict view of the meat eating thing. Marpa, one of the lineage holders that brought the teaching to Tibet, said to drink beer, eat meat, and enjoy women! So I figure it’s not going to ruin my karma if I practice.

Understand, what I said was not an attack or anything. This is what is written in the Bramhanda purana. Like the Gita, this is not any man’s writings, this is directly from God.

Regarding gods being reborn, those are not gods, they are devas or demi gods. According to Hinduism, heaven is not the only ‘higher’ place. There is only one true God, that is above the demi gods. God cannot be reborn.

When you have good karma, you reap its benefits by enjoying some time in heaven, like the devas and then you get punished for the bad karma in the hellish regions. Karma can be crushed in many ways. Great gurus can crush or even take the karma of their disciples upon themselves. However, it is extremely rare to find a great guru or sadguru.

(To actually understand the mind and the Self properly, you must be like a saint, who is beyond karma.)

The ultimate goal is to be detached from all experiences, while still performing your duty. This is the essence of the Gita.

[/quote]

I didn’t take it as an attack. I was saying that the view that Buddhist are actually just Hindus stemmed from a political motive. The texts you refer to are Hindu texts. Of course there are some similar teachings, but that can be said about a lot of different religious views. Most of these are just observable truths.

Nothing all that unique or special to any one teaching. Like karma or causality. It’s a pretty obvious thing. ‘If I lift heavy things, my muscles will get stronger.’

Again, these views you are expressing are Hindu in nature. In Buddhism there are no writings directly from God. Just teachings from the historical Buddha and commentaries. Non-dogmatic, practical advice on having lasting happiness. Nothing too exotic.

[iscariot]

Well, I’m a Taoist - which is kinda like a Buddhist with added resignation…

Essentially, for me anyway, The Way is this. Accept, Adapt, Move on.

Nice and simple - like me [albeit without the nice]