streaming consciousness…

Tagged: religion Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 4:40 am on November 24, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: ashrama, Buddhism ( 472 ), dana ( 8 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Hindu ( 9 ), homeless ( 2 ), India ( 15 ), meditation ( 231 ), mindfulness ( 37 ), religion, rishi ( 7 ), sannyasin, spirituality ( 27 ), Thailand ( 76 ), Theravada ( 55 )   

  Buddhism 399: Homelessness and the Joy of Giving… 

  

  Give more than you take. That will be more than enough, and the world will be a better place. That is the essence of almost all religions, Buddhism included, regardless of whether you consider Buddhism first and foremost a philosophy, as I tend to think. But philosophies don’t usually include a call to action, whereas religions usually do. Buddhism doesn’t do that, though, not specifically, but it is implicit in the practice, the original practice. That’s why you’ll see orange or yellow-robed shaved-head monks walking through the markets at daybreak in almost every Theravada country in SE Asia, requesting alms for subsistence, usually food. This giving is usually known as dana.

  This harkens back to an even earlier practice in India wherein long-haired rishis and sannyasins wearing similar saffron clothing but usually without a group of like-minds, would make similar rounds, a practice which continues to this day. The difference is not only that the former are Buddhist and the latter Hindu, but the former have rules and regular routes, and are often registered for this activity, whereas the latter are more likely free and on their own, often in the last phases of life according to the four Hindu ashramas of student, householder, forest dweller, and renunciant—nice.

  But the important thing is the giving. So, instead of seeing a renunciant as a societal parasite reduced to begging, we should see them as symbols of purity, offering laypersons the opportunity to experience the same bliss of renunciation that they not only symbolize but incarnate. It’s only ironic that they themselves often consider themselves—and call themselves—homeless, no pun intended. Because that is the little joke they play on all of us, that the poorest people of the West are linguistically identified with the holiest of the East. I only wish that Western practitioners would follow the same precepts. The food is usually pretty good, at least in Thailand.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 3:59 am on November 17, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddha ( 49 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), language ( 177 ), meditation ( 231 ), philosophy ( 114 ), religion   

  Buddhism on the Half Shell: Dharma without Dogma 

  

  Beware stir-fried spirituality, vague ideas tossed in a pan and stirred ‘til piping hot. Buddhism is an open doctrine, true, but it needs a compass. And the Eightfold Path is that compass, of course, the prime phenomena of our lives listed and pointed in the direction of ‘rightness’, i.e. the correct and appropriate versions of the main foundations of our lives: thought, intent, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. If non-duality can fit into that simple list, then fine; it is welcome. If not, then reshuffle your deck to find your place in lives where things actually exist and thoughts actually occur.

  For better or worse, Buddhism must live with the titles of its popular books, regardless of whether those actually describe the philosophy accurately or not. So, we must spend time explaining why ‘Buddhism is True’, and why there are a ‘Buddha and the Badass’ and how we can have a ‘Universe in a Single Atom’, whether any of that has anything to do with Buddhism or not. For the most part, those titles are just the consumeristic fantasies of book publishers, and the ideas inside their covers have little or nothing in common with them.

  But that’s a compromise we make. The real problem occurs when the ideas themselves get breaded and fried in almost total opposition to the original concept. So New Age Buddhists remind you to love yourself without bothering to explain, or even acknowledge, that we have no intrinsic Self, or even selves. Then they’ll tell you that our thoughts are not our own, while giving no clue as to where they actually come from, apparently just floating around, soul-like looking for a body to inhabit. But these are only minor inconveniences. The dharma can easily transcend most of that. I persevere.
   
• 

  hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 23 ), asceticism, atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Brahmanism ( 9 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), dharma ( 36 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Hinduism ( 30 ), India ( 15 ), Indra ( 2 ), Jainism ( 13 ), language ( 177 ), meditation ( 231 ), Padmasambhava, philosophy ( 114 ), religion, spirituality ( 27 ), Upanishads ( 2 ), Vajrayana ( 23 ), Vedas ( 3 )   

  Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

  

  Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

  And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6^th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

  That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5^th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8^th century.

  But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

   
• 

  hardie karges 5:00 am on October 20, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Brahmanism ( 9 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), CHRISTIANITY ( 163 ), Eckhart Tolle ( 13 ), evangelical, Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Hindu ( 9 ), Jain ( 5 ), karma ( 52 ), philosophy ( 114 ), rebirth ( 38 ), reincarnation ( 14 ), religion, samsara ( 13 ), spirituality ( 27 )   

  Buddhism at the Checkout Lane: the Best Rebirth is Spiritual 

  

  Spiritual rebirth begins within. It should never end. Samsara is something different. Samsara literally means ‘the world,’ always did, though perhaps etymologically from a distant past word connoting ‘wandering,’ but who knows? Etymology is always a best guess. As far as we know, at the time of the Buddha the word meant ‘the world,’ as it does to this day in modern Nepali, the modern language closest to its Sanskrit roots. Hindi probably got tired of the debate, so adopted the Arabic word dunia for most ordinary usage.

  But Buddhists turned the world cyclical, and so that circularity came to represent samsara more than the other aspects of the world itself. And that circularity specifically refers to the concept of rebirth, heavily borrowed from the Hindu concept of reincarnation, but without the literal transfer of the physical body from one generation to the subsequent one. In fact, Buddhism goes to great lengths to explain away the conundrum of <“What is reborn?”> at the same time that they go to equally great lengths to explain exactly what is the nature of this self that we’re denying. It’s a mess.

  Bottom line: the Christians—the evangelical Christians, of all sects—may have beat us to the punch on this issue. Because their insistence on being born again in the spirit is not only in the Bible, in multiple quotations, you may hear it loud and long at any tent revival in the lower US south from participants both black and white, in their exaltation at surviving a ‘Long Dark Night of the Soul’ as originally described by the 16^th century Spaniard St. John of the Cross (not Eckhart Tolle).

  There is scarce reference to rebirth in any Buddhist text, though the Brahmanist Hindus and especially Jains would likely have many if only they had bothered to write it down. But that’s another story. The important thing is that spiritual rebirth is a very beautiful thing and idea, whereas physical reincarnation or even sorta kinda almost maybe rebirth of consciousness in a random body is a leap of logic, not to mention dubious science. And to those who say you can’t just pick and choose this and that, from assorted religions, I respectfully respond, “Why not?” They all did. Embrace it.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:25 am on October 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 472 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), meditation ( 231 ), mindfulness ( 37 ), Peace ( 7 ), philosophy ( 114 ), religion, solitude ( 2 ), spirituality ( 27 ), theft   

  Buddhism in the Bardo Realms: You Are Never Alone 

  

  The existential conundrum of our lives is that we are never alone, nor can we be, nor would we likely ever want to be, even if we could. Think of it this way: Suppose you want to enjoy yourself by yourself or just take a little swim. So, you walk down to the beach, find a nice little spot, and proceed to disrobe and jump right in. There’s only one problem: when you come back, you don’t know if your stuff will still be there or not—bummer. This is what many a happy tourist deals with every day.

  Oh, sure, there are ways to mitigate the circumstances. You can go with a friend, but that friend really can’t jump right in, now, either, can they? No, they can’t, because then any potential plunderer has just doubled his payoff. Even if you have a designated watcher for a larger group, that designee still doesn’t get to have his fun (and you still must trust him not to run). So, maybe hire a professional designee? Ditto. Or you could lock it in a box, if it’s a public space with such amenities, but that would probably preclude a dip in the buff, boo hoo. And even then, would you just wrap the key around your little finger?

  Or, you could just leave the key in your pocketed swim suit, but then, why not just leave your stuff in your room, and saunter to the beach semi-nude and flip-flop friendly, because, after all, nobody will steal a pair of flip-flops, or a towel, now, will they? Or would you even care if they did? And your room is safe, right? But what about the maid? Or you could just drive, and lock everything in the trunk, if you’re American, or the boot, if you’re a Brit, but by this time you’re making quite a big show of it, so maybe just call the whole thing off?

  This is the existential conundrum: that our fates are so intertwined, that it doesn’t leave a lot of time, or space, for accidents or circumstance. So, what is the solution? In a more peaceful time, in a more peaceful world, I have it on good authority that people left their houses unlocked with no ill repercussions, and that is the way that it should be. But that was in a world less crowded than today. And many people take it as their supreme inalienable right to reproduce without limit. So, now we live in a world of eight billion with no end in sight. And there’s no place to hide. So, we must learn to live in peace. And Buddhism is nothing, if not a religion of peace.

   
• 

  hardie karges 5:00 am on September 29, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddhism ( 472 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), love ( 49 ), poem ( 2 ), POETRY ( 12 ), politics ( 32 ), religion, renunciation ( 15 ), spirituality ( 27 ), worldling   

  Buddhism 101: Freedom from Fear and Hatred 

  

  The best religions give herd immunity against fear and hatred. The best philosophies explain the reason why. Buddhism can do this, also, whether or not you call it religion, whether or not you’re liberal or conservative. Because whether or not you’re liberal or conservative politically, Buddhism is the opposite of that, in its acceptance, or even encouragement, to renunciation, i.e. to give up all politics, and all other concerns of ‘house holders,’ as if shelters were the special curse of ‘worldlings.’

  And while I haven’t reached that point of detachment from the world, and may very well never, I do understand it, and to a large extent even applaud it, as long as those renunciants don’t assume that they’re by necessity any better than those same householders and other worldlings, on whom they also depend for sustenance and maintenance and news from the world. Because we’re all in this together, no matter our provenance, we all have the same sustenance, rice and bread and the ideas that feed our heads.

  The important thing is to eradicate fear, anger, greed, and hatred, once and for all, forever and completely. And if that takes some constant reinforcement, then so be it, enjoy the process and the esprit de corps. Because it’s important to be part of that community that provides solace and succor, and assurance that everything will be alright, if only we all stick together, maybe not like glue, but maybe more like sticky rice, with mango and coconut milk, yum yum, peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

   
• 

  hardie karges 2:56 pm on September 22, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Abrahamic ( 2 ), binary ( 3 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), ego ( 33 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Marx ( 4 ), meditation ( 231 ), Middle Path ( 58 ), religion, renunciation ( 15 ), Science ( 26 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Taoism ( 3 )   

  Buddhism 101: There are no Winners or Losers…  

  

  There are no winners or losers. There are only players and non-players. Either one is fine, but if you play, then play well. The concept of winning and losing is obviously a binary circumstance, as are players vs. non-players or even East vs. West. But sometimes binary terms are effective in conveying a message, even if they are often ineffective in organizing your life. Because, we Buddhists have long been of the opinion that the Middle Path is the best guide to living your life with or without any scientific proof. 

  But the concept of winning vs losing is especially offensive, as it suggests that some people are simply better than others, regardless of any merit displayed or accrued in the process of playing the game, which suggests racism, if not just arrogance or hubris. None of that has ever been proven, of course, and my gut hunch is exactly the opposite: the more mixed the race the more superior, but again that’s hard to prove or disprove. 

  The issue of players vs non-players is more well-defined, though, in that participation is an act of will and not an accident of birth. So, when comparing the aggressive Abrahamic traditions vs the renunciative dharma traditions, it is possible to draw some conclusions, even if they are still subject to interpretations and circumstances. Because, while India and China long ago embraced renunciative dharma and taoist traditions, their cultures are anything but. And while the abrahamic West is known for its aggressive colonialism, some of the world’s finest most peaceful cities and cultures are to be found there today. 

  So, it’s a mixed bag at best, and I myself qualify as a proponent of renunciation only in the sense that too much wrong action has already been done, and so its opposite is now often preferable. But I don’t think that humans should be passive and that’s not how I live my life. So, my conception of Buddhism is somewhat like Marx’s communism, something appropriate after the previous partial phases have occurred, i.e. its time has come. At an earlier time, something else was possibly more appropriate, but not now. So, when someone insults you or feeds bait your ego, do nothing–quickly.

   
• 

  hardie karges 4:11 am on July 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: ahimsa ( 7 ), Buddha ( 49 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), dana ( 8 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), karma ( 52 ), Mahayana ( 49 ), meditation ( 231 ), religion, retribution, REVENGE ( 3 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Theravada ( 55 )   

  Buddhism 499: Revenge is not Sweet…   

  

  Retribution is not necessary. Equanimity is a path for all situations and all times. This is central to Buddhism, if not foundational. Because the foundations are mostly personal, but it’s implicit that once you’ve attained some level of release from your own suffering that you will contribute to do the same for the world. And while this may be more pronounced in the Mahayana tradition of Bodhisattvas, it also applies to all the rest, in substance, if not style. 

  That’s explicit in the tradition of dana, which Theravada Buddhism relies on for its everyday existence, since monks are forbidden to work, at least not in any official capacity. That’s for ‘householders.’ Monks are homeless, by design, making a mockery of the disdain in which we in the west typically hold them, our India relations elevating the concept to a high plain of spirituality as rishis or even maharishis in the Hindu tradition, or arahant in the Buddhist Theravadin tradition. 

  Even more important is ahimsa, non-violence, which holds true for all the India-based spiritual traditions. And while I’m sure their armies have had their own mistakes and misgivings over the years, at least give them the credit for not glorifying it or reveling in it. Because that’s what revenge and retribution imply, whether stated or not. Retribution is a function of karma, which you’ve brought on yourself, so no violence against others is either implied or intended. Stay cool. Don’t react, unless someone’s life is at stake. And, even then, don’t be proud of it. Be forgiving… 

  hardie karges and jmoran66 are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    jmoran66 7:14 pm on July 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply

    That’s the roots of jai yen here in Thailand, I would think.

    • 

      hardie karges 12:01 am on July 7, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      Cool heart, yes…

• 

  hardie karges 3:41 pm on June 30, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anapanasati ( 8 ), Buddha ( 49 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), CHRISTIANITY ( 163 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Mahayana ( 49 ), meditation ( 231 ), philosophy ( 114 ), Plato ( 17 ), rebirth ( 38 ), religion, spirituality ( 27 ), Theravada ( 55 ), Tibetan ( 3 ), Vajrayana ( 23 ), Vipassana ( 18 )   

  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.  

   
• 

  hardie karges 2:50 am on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Buddha ( 49 ), Buddhism ( 472 ), CHRISTIANITY ( 163 ), dharma ( 36 ), Hardie Karges ( 284 ), Jainism ( 13 ), meditation ( 231 ), philosophy ( 114 ), religion, sanatana dharma ( 2 ), sangha ( 13 ), Tiraatana, Triple Gem ( 2 ), Triratna   

  Buddhist Basics for Beginners: Three Gems… 

  

  Buddha, Dharma (teaching), and Sangha (community) are the three foundations of Buddhism. The Buddha, of course, is the one enlightened being to whom the inspiration for this teaching originally came and to whom we owe the effort at consolidation and collection of the diverse teachings into one coherent body of work. This happened at a time when such a thing had hardly been done before, and a paradigm hardly existed, so Buddha had to wing it. I’d say he did well. 

  The dharma, of course, is the teaching itself, which could arguably be considered the most important part of the practice. It is often translated as ‘law’ and that seems understandable, if we understand that the intention to commit as well as submit is central to the practice. The practice itself is somewhat novel in that you really don’t have to DO much of anything at all. This is perhaps best exemplified by the practice of meditation, something of a higher practice of Buddhism, not required but highly admired. 

  It’s much more important that you don’t do certain things, e.g lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc., very similar to the second half of the Biblical Ten Commandments (but don’t drink). All you really have to DO is be kind and peaceful. Unlike Christianity, though, which expects you to go forth and multiply, Buddhism is quite happy if you commit your life to meditation and contemplation. The object is to reduce suffering, not find bliss (sorry, Joseph C).  

  There are other dharmas, also, notably the Hindu sanatana dharma and Jainism, which are all similar, yet also quite different in specific details. The idea is to make the Sangha as large as possible, of course, the same as any religious practice, all of which work best when they have the largest number of members, for obvious reasons. If the majority of the world’s population could ever agree on anything, then that would be a notable accomplishment. If they could all agree to keep the peace at any cost, then so much the better. Buddhism is a good starting place. 

  hardie karges and jmoran66 are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    jmoran66 8:38 pm on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply

    You just put Buddhism In A Nutshell in to a nutshell. Nicely done.

    • 

      hardie karges 10:44 pm on June 16, 2024 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you