Tagged: Mahayana Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:41 pm on June 30, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Mahayana, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhist Love is not like Falling in Love, Sorry…     

    No, Buddhist love is nothing like the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that often accompanies Christian ceremonies, whether birth or death or the multicolor gray area in between, mostly sex. Buddhist love, metta, is just a whole lot like friendship, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So, Platonic love, then maybe? I think Plato would be cool with that, maybe too cool. And that’s what falls short for a lot of people, for whom devotion is the primary practice of their religion. 

    It just doesn’t have the feeling of total surrender required for the religious experience in many people’s minds. But that’s Buddhism: cool, baby, cool. The devotional aspects were the last major additions to the three major canons of Buddhism, and long after the original discipline orientation of Theravada and the transcendental orientation of Mahayana. So, it’s no coincidence that the Tibetans got their Vajrayana straight from the source of India, which is primarily devotional to this day, whether of Shiva or Vishnu, no matter the object. Devotion is the important thing for the devotee. 

    But whether the two additional ‘vehicles’ may or may not have added something important to Buddhism, the core practice of discipline and dana (giving) remain unchanged. Upgrade the meditative practice of anapanasati to vipassana, and BOOM! You’ve got a rebirth of the original Buddhism with or without the doctrine of Rebirth to the non-Self (?!). Ouch. Yep, that’s better now, just to avoid questions that have no good answers. Too many cooks ruin the broth. The kindness is more important than the love.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:45 am on April 14, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Heart Sutra, , Mahayana, , ,   

    Buddhism 101: the Middle Path is Easy  

    Muslims don’t always seem happy. Christians sometimes seem too happy. Buddhists seem just about right, more or less, give or take, on average, all things considered. That’s the middle path, that sweet spot somewhere between extremes, of luxury and lack, surrender or attack, white and black, better multicolor than random shades of gray. And that’s foundational to Buddhism, that lack of hard doctrine, much less dogma, in favor of an all-encompassing dharma based on principles on moderation, mediation, and avoidance of extremes and attachments. 

    “My religion is kindness,” the Dalai Lama himself once famously said, and that about wraps it up, on the foundational level, when combined with meditation as the finest form of practice. Sure, there’s the ontological primacy of emptiness, still, but that makes little or no difference in the average person’s life, it itself subject to shifting connotations and lack of definition, resonant mostly as the dueling protagonist in the Heart Sutra refrain, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form,” fully transcendent but ultimately inconclusive. 

    Buddhism is first and still foremost discipline, dignity, and detachment, far from the madding crowds and seething temptations. Control your mind to control your circumstances, especially when the likelihood of changing those circumstances is minimal. Choose your battles carefully. Save yourself, then save the world. That’s the best that we can do. Do it now. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:15 am on February 4, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , Mahayana, , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism: Meditation, not Mysticism…  

    Buddhism was never intended to be mystical. Buddha was very rational in his take on life and suffering. Any mysticism came later, mostly in the Vajrayana Buddhism of Tibet that came directly from India, not China, and which had taken firm hold in that country by the Eight Century CE. And while that ‘school’ of Buddhism is often included in the Mahayana tradition which traveled through, and was greatly influenced, by China, such is not the case with Vajrayana, which derives from a later, maybe the last, Indian Buddhist tradition, before it succumbed to the coup de grace by the invasive Mughals, after centuries of losing ground, and followers, to the Brahmanist Hindus. 

    About the only thing that all the Mahayana schools have in common, in fact, is that they are not of the original Theravada tradition, which originated in India and found fertile ground in southeast Asia, mostly. And if the Vajrayana tradition is famous for its multiple levels of heaven and hell, its Tantric yab-yum, mudras and mantras, then Theravada (aka Hinayana), is best known for its lack of all that, and concentration on meditation, especially, to the extent that it’s sometimes known by that most famous meditation technique Vipassana. Meanwhile the Mahayana Buddhism of China is probably best defined by its transcendent Buddha and the vast Emptiness of reality, both more recent developments.

    Many famous Chinese monks, Fa Xian and Xuanzang foremost among them, even made long arduous trips to India just to get it right, like Charlemagne realizing his 8th century French language wasn’t proper Latin. And mostly I believe that meant learning meditation, and some other disciplines, which Theravada monks usually excel at, and Chinese monks often suck at—to this day. In fact, I didn’t really even know what meditation was until I attended some Theravada-based meditation retreats in Southeast Asia, intended for Asians, not Westerners. When you see a layman sitting silent unflinching for two or three hours lost in no-thought: that’s meditation. The monks are even better at it. Now I get it. Get it. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:09 am on October 21, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , arahat, , , , , , , Mahayana, , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 201: Theravada and Mahayana  

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The difference between Theravada and Mahayana is the difference between Self and Other, if there is one. If you’re a ‘non-dualist,’ then there is none, though that defies common-sense logic, which seems to show a diversity of disparate objects. So, that is the point of the new religion, I suppose, to unify existence, since you gotta’ have something to believe in for a religion to have its raison d’etre. But Buddhism wasn’t concerned with such metaphysical stretches, or at least not in the beginning, though Mahayana was the evolution of a more metaphysical stage of Buddhism.  

    That coincided with a geographical transition from India toward Central Asia and then China, and which also coincided with the evolution of Taoism, so more fertile ground to plow right then and there. If the origins of early Buddhism were all about a debate (and competition) with the Brahmanists and Jains of India, then the evolution of Mahayana was all about a competition with the Taoists in China. By that time, with the shunyata ‘emptiness’ doctrine of Nagarjuna, Buddhist and Taoist metaphysics were not far apart, the main difference between the two apparently that the Buddhists were—and are—far superior meditators.  

    And if Theravadan anatta had evolved into Mahayana shunyata, then Theravadan arahats had evolved into Mahayanan bodhisattvas, the spiritually enlightened beings who forego nirvana until everyone is ready for that final step. Arahats were more content to keep it to themselves, each at his own pace. But the issue of Self and Other is a non-issue if there is no substantive Self; so how could there be a substantive Other? Still, we live our lives in the common-sense world of apparently diverse beings, and so it is there that we must find solutions to common-sense problems. My conclusion? Save yourself, and then save the world. Good luck out there. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:58 am on July 22, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Mahayana, , , , upekkha   

    Upekkha and the Buddhist need for Equanimity 

    Buddhism is all about dispassion, not passivity. They’re not the same thing. Dispassion is to handle things with calmness and little emotion, arguably the best way to deal with pressing events, and certainly the best if you’re Buddhist. The Buddhist term usually reserved for such moments is UPEKKHA, often translated ‘equanimity,’ that itself was maybe best translated originally as ‘balance.’ Meanings go through many iterations in their process of becoming ‘Buddhist.’  

    Thus, many words have different meanings in normal speech and Buddhist speech. Some of the best known of these are: ‘mindfulness,’ samsara,’ ‘nirvana,’ and ‘aryan’. But, they’re all good, just specialized meanings, of course. ‘Passivity’ is not good, though, not in my opinion, and that is the curse of Buddhism, that people not only use it to escape the ordinary world, but that they teach that as doctrine and faith, to which no further questions need be asked. Do nothing: that is good. But I don’t buy it.

    I’ll have to admit that it’s much more acceptable than it used to be, though, given the mess we’ve made of this planet, but still, I think it’s too early to pull the plug on all hope of making this world a better place. And that’s my mandate, to make myself a better person, and THEN make this world a better place to live. I think that a reasonable interpretation of the Eightfold Path. It’s also the main distinction between the early Theravada form of Buddhism and the later Mahayana. Let’s not give up on this world while there’s still so much hope and promise, though obviously a few bumps in the road. Ouch!

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:22 am on July 8, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Mahayana, , , Pure Lands, , , ,   

    The Buddhist Middle Path and Historical Dialectic    

    I advise the aggressive to be meeker, the meek to be braver, the brave to be patient, and the patient to be aggressive, full circle. See what I did there? The Middle Path is not necessarily a straight line to fulfillment, with predictable outcomes and guaranteed repayment options. So, the Middle Path is a circle? Haha, no, not really, or only metaphorically. The Middle Path is a zigzag dialectic, from extreme to extreme, which theoretically should grow less and less extreme as entropy kicks in and the pendulum swings with less vigor now than the initial first few thrusts AND more centrality… 

    I consider the Buddha’s Middle Path to be an early precursor to what took final fruit as Hegelian dialectic, in which a Thesis is challenged by an opposing Antithesis, which then resolves into a higher and finer Synthesis—which then becomes the new thesis, and the process goes on through time. Thus an inert Middle Path becomes a dynamic Middle Path, and the whole process becomes alive. And if you’re chuckling right now and thinking that the Buddha couldn’t possibly have intended all that, then you’re probably right but that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong… 

    And I offer the history of Buddhism itself as proof: if the narrow renunciation and discipline-based practice of the early Theravada practitioners is the original Thesis, then the later florescence of the much larger and broader-based Mahayana school, with their transcendent Buddha and Pure Lands would be the antithesis. But if the higher synthesis would then be the mystical magical Vajrayana school, its antithesis as the new synthesis has yet to claim that title, so that may be premature. It IS a very popular school, though, even for ex-Christian Westerners, so time will tell. Things take time.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:53 am on July 1, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Mahayana, , , ,   

    Buddhist Suffering and the Need for Change  

    Language is tricky. Buddha implied that suffering should be expected, and accepted, while in the process of cessation, but that doesn’t mean to embrace it. Good Buddhists don’t embrace anything, and that’s good, because you just might be wrong, and, anyway, to embrace something is to crave it, which is the predominant cause of that same suffering that we are most trying to avoid. There are other causes of suffering, also, according to the Buddha, but the implications are not always clear. Because one of the causes is change itself, which by most modern reckoning can be a positive way of easing suffering, and certainly not a cause of it. 

    So, I’d have to deviate from the Buddha’s teaching there, if only for a minor correction, and if only for a minute. But it does illustrate a major difference between early Theravada Buddhism and later Mahayana (Big Rig, haha) Buddhism. That Large Vehicle of Buddhism was, and is, intended to open Buddhism up for the benefit of the diverse masses, and not just a few select disciples who spend much of their days—and their lives—immersed in chanting the sutras and meditating upon self processes to refute self realities. Got that? It’s complicated. 

    But the upshot is that Early Buddhism is oriented toward self-renunciation, by way of self-enlightenment, and mental training, while Mahayana Buddhism is all about the Bodhisattva vow to forego self-enlightenment until we can all be enlightened, a noble goal indeed. And the two are not mutually exclusive. I see it as a process of: First I save myself, then I save the world. That’s a lofty goal, to be sure, but not entirely impossible, and probably preferable to the Indian stages of life in which I satisfy my life goals, and then I renounce. But when do we save the world? 

    There’s the rub, tough friction in a world of science fiction. Nobody can be bothered with saving the world, at least not until they’ve saved their own precious race. So, the world teeters on the brink of extinction, while everyone counts his money and counts his offspring and that of his brothers. The Universe doesn’t care. That’s just a myth and a cheap talking point. It may be that ignorance is indeed what this world needs more than anything else, if all we can do is make war with the knowledge we’ve gained. The clock is ticking. Every vote counts. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 2:12 pm on May 13, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Mahayana, , , ,   

    Vive la Difference! Between Christianity and Buddhism…  

    Christianity seeks joy out there somewhere, while Buddhism seeks to limit suffering right here inside. And that’s the big difference between the two, the outward search versus the inward search, and the destination for ultimate satisfaction. The idea, in fact, that there may really be no substantial difference between the two is something that only arose later, after the rise of Mahayana Buddhism, and the idea that there may be some transcendent reality to it all, even including the Buddha himself, so maybe just a ‘manifestation.’ 

    But I prefer to leave metaphysical speculations to the late nights and wee hours on Sundays and holidays, when time is free and the atmosphere is conducive to dreaming and the playful dance of fairies in our wildest imaginations. Because meditation is probably the greatest gift of Buddhism to the world, and that requires absolutely no belief in anything transcendent, only the effort to concentrate and ‘let it go’ in accord with Buddhist understanding, which is simple to understand and totally based in the here and the now. 

    And Theravada sacrifices nothing to the larger and later Mahayana school on this count, either, not to mention the modern-day secular practitioners, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, that make Buddhism and its foundational principles such an important tool in the stressed-out modern-day world. Whither Christian mindfulness? Yes, I’ve heard that term, so it’s in the works. The pharmaceutical industry might not like the idea, nor the CBD gummies futures market, but the physical and psychological gain will be palpable.  

    Some things just work better ‘in here’ than ‘out there.’ And if that means that Buddhism is guilty of passivity towards changing the world ‘out there’ to make it a better place, then that criticism is valid. But so is the criticism that Amerika is a contentious hateful society that rejects any efforts at compromise and instead prefers to fight to the death, rather than enjoy life to the fullest, albeit with a few guiding principles to be followed. As always, the middle path lies somewhere in between, details to be worked out in peaceful settings among willing participants. Enjoy.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:14 am on April 30, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Huineng, Mahayana, , ,   

    Buddhist Imperfection and the Crazy Wisdom of Zen  

    The Buddha never said we’re all perfect, quite the opposite. He said that we are nothing but ‘heaps’ of causes and conditions that he called skandhas. He never even said that he’s perfect. And those imperfections can be the basis for positive change. He DID list change as one of the causes of our suffering, but significantly less than that of the First Noble Truth—craving. Maybe that’s not surprising, from someone who was born into the lap of luxury, since change for someone of destitute poverty might only be for the better.  

    But that’s arguable, also, so let’s just split the difference and apply the Buddha’s own Middle Path to conclude that change can go either way, good or bad, which is convenient, since it’s inevitable. The point is that, in its origins, imperfection is at the heart of the Buddha’s vision, though the Zen sect of the Mahayana school would, like some Christian sects (such as Christian Science), reverse that position and argue that manifesting our innate perfection is only right and proper. 

    They also said that if you meet the Buddha on the road, then you should kill him. Hmmm. Obviously, there’s a logical explanation to that apparent exhortation to violence, but I won’t go into it. I’ll only say that I prefer a simpler approach to enlightenment. The Zen thing is to show the limits and traps of language, and I agree whole-heartedly with that, but I don’t necessarily agree to a Dadaist approach to it. One of the Christian sideline precepts is to say what you mean and mean what you say, (“Let your yes be yes and your no be no”), and they just might have that right. 

    No, I don’t think that anyone has all the answers, and it is to Buddhism’s credit that so much dialogue is allowed, and even encouraged, which promotes a larger dialectic. In fact, this is how the Zen master Hui-Neng upstaged the heir apparent to replace the current master, to whom he was only a rank (in)subordinate. Thus began the line of thought that we are not here to train our minds but to acknowledge the illusion of reality, so something like an alternative Mayanist (haha) school, which thrives to this day as subplot to many more orthodox traditions. We are not perfect, but this is why we practice… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:22 am on April 9, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Buddha Mind, , , , , Mahayana, , ,   

    Buddha Mind and the Incremental Steps to Enlightenment  

    Buddha mind is best all the time. But a little bit is better than nothing. That should go without saying. Because this speaks to the nature of thought and the nature of consciousness, but mostly to the nature of awareness itself, sati, which is essential to the development of samadhi, a more meditative state which is probably the best one-word definition of ‘Buddha mind.’  

    But the problem is the problem of any definition, or lack thereof, in which words compete with themselves for attention, and clarity is often lacking. After all: what is ‘mind,’ anyway? But I think that we can assume that whatever ‘mind’ is, then ‘Buddha-mind,’ must be the cooler (literally) and more meditative version of that, full of kindness and compassion, and with a heavy dose of intuitive wisdom, the kind less analytic, and much less critical.  

    But my point is that this is not a yes-or-no binary choice. This is a choice of many incremental intermittent steps, and none is too insignificant along the pathway to enlightenment, whatever that is. Because this is a Mahayana concept, so a full step toward a transcendental Buddha, world-inhabiting and mind-manifesting; and a step away from the more (non) self-centered and discipline-oriented early Buddhism of Theravada, aka Hinayana. Don’t worry about enlightenment. I’m sure that we’ll all recognize it when we see it. The point is to make the world a better place. ASAP. 

     

← Older posts

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel