--
i've always liked buddhism for the methods, but i have disliked a significant portion of the generally accepted buddhist ethics. luckily, buddhism is often a personal or spiritual journey, so it's not like there can be set ethics. i'm also wary of some of the basic tenets, but that's mostly due to my liking nietzsche's genealogy of morality.
all real teaching comes from within, the self is the best teacher. buddhism is a religion of negation... a negation of everything that is not real. a negation of everything but that which cannot be negated: the ultimate subjective (that which cannot be made into an object)
the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. buddhism is the finger pointing at the self
don't look at the finger, be the moon
I. speech
1. abstain from false speech
2. abstain from slander
3. abstain from harsh words that offend
4. abstain from idle chatter
II. action
1. abstain from harming sentient beings (including suicide)
2. abstain from taking what is not given
3. abstain from sexual misconduct.
III. livelihood
1. avoid dealing in weapons
2. avoid dealing in living beings
3. avoid working in meat production and butchery
4. avoid selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs.
I'm thinking II.1 is probably on the top of your dissatisfaction there, maybe I.3 also, and probably I could see how you would be alright with some of the issues in livelihood.
reading modern buddist ethics about abortion and stuff kinda annoys me, just because they assume a fetus is a sentient being or something.
in the most perfect states of action there will be the closest to no resultant causation, or the cessation of karma. this just leads to meditation and operating the mind in pure consciousness.
you could say that those two ethical guides are dumb, but they do provide utility for this underlying objective.
also regarding abortion, it's not just because sentient beings should not be killed, but the mental turmoil of yourself or the person you are causing the abortion for, or the society which is maligned by your decision, all of this is acts that participate in the karma, or the wheel of dharma. when you are doing this, it does nothing for your achievement of the pure cognitive state of your consciousness.
the highest is the awareness, and all these minor steps and ethical guidelines are a roadmap for lay people to make progress toward pristine awareness of consciousness.
it’s like lying in a clear stream, reaching and holding your thoughts loosely as they develop. letting them slip from your grip before they are complete. it’s a grey mist where everything is fluid. serenity and peace. movement while being calm.
(143, the leather book, volume i, the journals of larz, revision 33)
Case 3 Gutei Raises a Finger 三 倶胝堅指
倶胝和尚、凡有詰問、唯擧一指。
Whenever Gutei Oshõ was asked about Zen, he simply raised his finger.
後有童子。因外人問、和尚説何法要。
Once a visitor asked Gutei's boy attendant, "What does your master teach?"
童子亦堅指頭。
The boy too raised his finger.
胝聞遂以刃斷其指。
Hearing of this, Gutei cut off the boy's finger with a knife.
童子、負痛號哭而去。
The boy, screaming with pain, began to run away.
胝復召之。 童子廻首。 胝却 堅起指。
Gutei called to him, and when he turned around, Gutei raised his finger.
童子忽然領悟。
The boy suddenly became enlightened.
胝將順世、謂衆曰、吾得天龍一指頭禪、一生受用不盡。
When Gutei was about to pass away, he said to his assembled monks, "I obtained one-finger Zen from Tenryû and used it all my life but still did not exhaust it."
言訖示滅。
When he had finished saying this, he entered into eternal Nirvana.
Mumon's Comment
無門曰、倶胝並童子悟處、不在指頭上。
The enlightenment of Gutei and of the boy does not depend on the finger.
若向者裏見得、天龍同倶胝並童子興自己一串穿却。
If you understand this, Tenryû, Gutei, the boy, and you yourself are all run through with one skewer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-two_marks … _Great_Man
sdr: did you know that bozeman has a tibetan monastery of sorts?
on occasion i totally have more than one hair per pore
damn.
come on
for most people. and that's what i dislike about it.
I once heard a story of a monk who demonstrated how mindfulness of Skillful Action helps others. The temple where the monk lived had a jackfruit tree that was bearing fruit. Jackfruit is very useful for a monastery. Each fruit is very large, with a big seed that is full of protein and a thick flesh that can be cooked in many ways. Poor families who lack other food can live in jackfruit. Though jackfruit does not cost much at the market, stealing jackfruit from trees in a poor area has been known to provoke murder.
One night the monk noticed a thief in the temple's jackfruit tree. The thief was high up in the branches of the tree, lowering each fruit by means of a string so that it would not clunk on the ground and draw attention. The thief looped the string around the fruit in such a way that when the fruit touched the ground, the string would loosen. Then the thief would pull the string up for the next fruit. The monk went to stand quietly beneath the tree. As each fruit touched the ground, he helped to loosen the string.
Eventually the thief came down as well. He nearly fainted at the sight of the cheerful monk standing there. The monk spoke to him gently, not like the victim of a theft, but more like a concerned grandparent, asking earnestly, ``Have you gotten enough fruit? Do you need more?'' There was no need to raise a great hue and cry and risk the man being hurt in a struggle with the temple's supporters. The monk's peaceful and generous response made the thief so ashamed that he left quickly and never returned to steal from the temple.
i don't like this. i question the motive of the monk.
elaborate
you don't think that a doctrine is likable because it considers it wise that lay people:
1. avoid dealing in weapons
4. avoid selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs.
it is at least consistent to the ends.
if you don't want to be part of the 'most people' category you can choose to be an ascetic and follow more stringent rules, but that probably would automatically exclude you from any of the livelihood portions anyway, as you would not participate in commerce or labor.
there is a body of text that speaks about the ethics for further understanding:
dhammapada
this translation is alright (there are so many), the words don't seem to relate the lyrical kind of style in english quite as well as others.
here's part of the dhammapada from one of my copies:
Chapter XXIII: The Elephant
1. I shall endure hard words even as the elephant in battle endures the arrow shot from the bow; the majority of people are, indeed, ill natured.
2. They lead a tamed elephant into battle; the king mounts a tamed elephant. The tamed is the best among men, he who endures patiently hard words.
3. Good are mules when tamed, so also the Sindhu horses of good breed and the great elephants of war. Better than these is he who has tamed himself.
4. For with these animals does no man reach the untrodden country (nirvana) where a tamed man goes on a tamed nature, a self well tamed.
5. The elephant called Dhanapalaka is hard to control when the temples are running with pungent sap (in the time of rut). He does not eat a morsel when bound. The elephant thinks longingly of the elephant-grove.
6. If one becomes a sluggard or glutton rolling himself about in gross sleep, like a hog fed on wash, that foolish one, again and again, comes to birth.
7. This mind of mine would wander formerly as it liked, as it desired, as it pleased. I shall now control it thoroughly even as the rider holding the hook controls the elephant in a state of rut.
8. Be not thoughtless, guard your thoughts. Extricate yourself out of the evil way as an elephant sunk in the mud.
9. If you find a companion, intelligent, one who associates with you, who leads a good life, lives soberly, overcoming all dangers, walk with him delighted and thoughtful.
10. If you do not find a companion, intelligent, one who associates with you, who leads a good life, lives soberly, walk alone like a king who has renounced the kingdom he has conquered or like an elephant in the forest.
11. It is better to live alone; there is no companionship with a fool. Let a man walk alone with few wishes like an elephant in the elephant-forest. Let him commit no sin.
12. Companions are pleasant when an occasion arises; contentment is pleasant when mutual. At the hour of death merit is pleasant. The giving up of all sorrow is pleasant.
13. To have a mother is happiness in the world; to have a father is happiness in the world; to have a recluse is happiness in the world; to have a sage is happiness in the world.
14. Happy is virtue lasting t old age; happy is faith firmly rooted; happy is the attainment of wisdom; happy is the avoidance of sins.
is the monk actually sincere in caring about giving the thief food?
or is the monk actually trying to teach the thief a lesson by being so nice that he makes the thief ashamed?
i think that gunaratana needs to communicate that:
using hate to reprimand is bad
using love to reprimand is bad
only using love to love is good
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0861711769
thumbs down
you don't think that a doctrine is likable because it considers it wise that lay people:
1. avoid dealing in weapons
4. avoid selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs.
it is at least consistent to the ends.
i don't mean those. i mean all eight tenets of the middle way.
it may be consistent to the ends for most people, but:
a. it is not consistent to the ends for all people,
b. it is completely unnecessary to reach the ends for some people.
if you don't want to be part of the 'most people' category you can choose to be an ascetic and follow more stringent rules, but that probably would automatically exclude you from any of the livelihood portions anyway, as you would not participate in commerce or labor.
it's not that i want to be distinguished. i am saying that not everyone needs to follow the eight rules to reach enlightenment. some people might only need two. some people none. :)
ultimately, my distaste comes from the necessity of the eight rules. for example, one of the reasons that skilled speech is emphasized is so that you won't say something mean or harmful then feel guilty later.
well, if i don't have a capacity for guilt, why would i bother with being mindful of my speech?
ultimately, my distaste comes from the necessity of the eight rules. for example, one of the reasons that skilled speech is emphasized is so that you won't say something mean or harmful then feel guilty later.
i feel like this is only part of the lesson really, as my understanding of it goes, the concern about future guilt is only important insofar as it teaches us about the present actions, and the subduing of karma. to encapsulate the ethical lesson as: you need to act skillful so you're not guilty in the future, seems to misrepresent.
as in with your guilt example if you decide to not be mindful in speech, or action or what have you, you are not being skillful. to be skillful is to place yourself in perpetual awareness, whether you recognize your own guilt or whatever reaction you are perceiving in response to your unskilled speech, is of no consequence. mindfulness is what keeps your awareness in the present. as for why bothering being mindful, that's a fine question to ponder, but i think the answer to being mindful is explained in the texts.
---------
is the monk actually sincere in caring about giving the thief food?
or is the monk actually trying to teach the thief a lesson by being so nice that he makes the thief ashamed?
i think that gunaratana needs to communicate that:
using hate to reprimand is bad
using love to reprimand is bad
only using love to love is good
rather than the monks sincerity about giving the thief food, I think the question was one of inquiry regarding the thief's needs for the thief to ponder, rather than an offering, as I don't think the monk would claim ownership of the tree or it's fruit.
the suggestion of this story to me is that with skillful action one is able to speak with stillness, undisturbed so that the thief would consider his actions. I don't see an act of love here, or simply being nice for a purpose. Reprimand is not quite this either, if the monk made the thief aware of and consider his greed by posing a direct question about his needs, and he changes because of this it seems only like a lesson.
i have a quote about good and bad that i'll post if i can find later.
who does the monk think he is teaching people lessons?
he should remember that he knows nothing, and it doesn't matter anyway.
what he did doesn't illustrate that he teaches lessons, or is pompous in teaching a lesson, but that asking questions in a skillful manner reflects the monks' understanding of the doctrine that the story seeks to exemplify about itself.
which is what?
acting skillfully is possible
being mindless, reacting by conditioning is not occurring
the act exemplifies an aspect of the cessation of suffering
named: right speech or right action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upekkha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataraxia
Samatha / calm-abiding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha
announcement for the bozeman buddhists!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erasing the Boundaries to Freedom
September 12–14, 2008
Christus Collegium, Bozeman Montana
7 pm–9 pm on Friday
9 am–6 pm on Saturday
8 am–noon on Sunday
Matthew Flickstein, a former psychotherapist and ordained monk in the
Theravadan Buddhist tradition, has been practicing and teaching vipassana
(insight) meditation for thirty years.
This year’s topic is Erasing the Boundaries to Freedom. You have probably heard the statement, “You are already free,” from one or more spiritual mentors. If that statement is true, why do we still experience confusion, emotionality, and reactivity? It may be because we are not seeing things as they really are.
There are two realities: conventional—how things appear to be, and ultimate—how things are in their own nature. To erase the boundaries to freedom, we are not denying the appearance of things such as our body, our mind, or our life’s circumstances. Mere appearance does not cause suffering. To experience our inherent freedom, we need to stop clinging to appearances as if they were the ultimate realities of life.
This retreat will focus on differentiating between conventional and ultimate realities. We will
practice meditations and contemplations designed to expose the ways in which we cling to concepts and beliefs that cloud our vision of ultimate truth. There will also be opportunities for teacher conferences.
This retreat is open to new and experienced meditators. Meditation instruction will be provided.
Registration Information
Cost is $65 plus Dana. To register, mail your check for $65 to Vipassana Montana, PO Box 5196, Bozeman, MT, 59717-5196. Please include your e-mail and/or mailing address and phone number. You will receive a confirmation letter with retreat location and details by September 5.
For retreat information, contact Jenny at hoss@montana.edu, or call 406-599-0766.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i haven't decided if i'm going or not. but matt flickstein is the co-founder of the bhavana society, which is one of the more prominent therevadan monasteries in the united states. aside: vipassana montana's p.o. box is four boxes away from mine.
http://www.namdrolingmt.org/SeptemberEnews.html
i only pray when its the only option left. like when i'm late for work