Tagged: Theravada Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:18 am on July 13, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , John Donne, , , , , Theravada   

    Buddhist Theravada, then Mahayana: Save Yourself, then Save the World  

    The immediate goal is personal peace and contentment. The long-term goal is universal friendship. Or to put it another way: first you save yourself, then you save the world, in some sort of secure Theravada foundation ultimately giving rise to new Mahayana fruits and icing on the cake. Because, ultimately, we all have to live together, in increasingly diverse circumstances, and the way to secure our mutual survival is to work together toward fulfillment. If we limit the cessation of suffering to the boundaries of so-called ‘self’, then we still have a long way to go as a society. 

    ‘No man is an island,’ said the English writer John Donne in 1624, and truer words have ne’er been spoke, especially since the world population has sex- or sep-tupled since that early date, and the count shows few signs of slowing. So, for someone to be content in his own little bubble of bliss is to ignore the larger demands of society and is ultimately passive, if not outright selfish, regardless of whether the Buddha said to be an island unto yourself, or a lamp. That confusion apparently comes from the similarities of the Pali/Sanskrit words dvipa and dipa, respectively, and the inability to prove anything that wasn’t originally written down.  

    But the confusion is almost serendipitous, in that both will work with a Theravadin self-centered island opening up to a broader society-centered light which might shine outward onto others once the mortal temporary self has flipped the switch to the coveted ‘on’ position. Thus, John Donne has nothing on the Buddha for the sublime play of his words nor the intent of his meaning. When you’ve gotten your own act together, then help the world. ASAP. Please. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:11 am on July 6, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , retribution, , , Theravada   

    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… 

     
    • jmoran66's avatar

      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's avatar

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

        Cool heart, yes…

  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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 6:19 am on March 10, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Theravada, ,   

    Buddhism at the X-roads: More Dharma, Less Drama 

    To live from sensation to sensation is to live like an animal. To follow dharma is to live like a human. Because, despite the attraction of the so-called ‘present moment,’ which may or may not be real, the Buddha prized reason and rationality above almost all else, easily verified by his insistence on recognition of the causes and conditions underlying all actions and motivations. He may or may not have said something supporting the ‘present moment,’ but I’m not sure what or when that would have been. 

    Bottom line: reason(s) and rationality are to be prized above almost all else in Buddhism, the one possible exception being the need for, and insistence upon, meditation. And, for me, this is where that ’present moment’ comes into play, it being almost the perfect metaphor for that suspension of belief and disbelief which is meditation, all thought suspended in favor of pure awareness, of breath, if nothing else, anapanasati, the original meditation of which all others have subsequently derived.  

    Meditation is so fundamental to Theravada Buddhism that it has recently almost become re-branded as Vipassana, or ‘insight meditation,’ all the other disciplines involved in the practice of Buddhism notwithstanding. And this is likely what the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims Fa Xian (Hien) and Xuanzang found above all else, silent meditation, since almost nothing else was written, and was almost too heavy to carry once they had it transcribed from the original Pali or Sanskrit into Chinese.  

    But how do you transcribe meditation into any language for inclusion in a book which someone may or not read at some point in history? Meditation was largely independent of written vinaya (discipline), and that is what had sustained Buddhism for around 1000 years by that time. And that’s what sustains it today, all the opinions and debate on Facebook and elsewhere notwithstanding. Original Buddhism required only silence, and concentration, no apps or other accessories necessary. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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, , , , , , , , , , , , , , Theravada   

    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 2:53 am on August 6, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , mantra, , , , , Theravada, , , ,   

    Space is the Place–to Meditate…  

    The one who can control himself, can control the world—his world…

    You don’t have to go anywhere to meditate, except inside. Much is made in the modern New Age movements of all the different kinds of meditation, which, according to the books and blogs can easily number into the dozens, if not hundreds. But most of those sources aren’t really Buddhist, not in any strict sense. Still, a quick survey reveals a plethora: mindfulness, spiritual, focused, movement, mantra, transcendental (TM), progressive, loving-kindness, visualization, guided, mantra, present moment, Vipassana, chakra, yoga, and ‘candle-gazing.’ That’s a lot of bliss, and we’re only getting started. 

    And that’s the problem, of course, that meditation is often marketed as some kind of bliss machine, when nothing could really be further from the truth. With the possible exception of Vipassana, i.e. ‘insight,’ none of the above could really even be considered Buddhist, which seems to originate with ‘anapanasati,’ awareness of breath, before subdividing into ‘samatha,’ calm abiding, and the aforementioned Vipassana, which puts the goal first and foremost, the insight that one expects to get from the practice.  

    Now, I’m not sure where ‘guided meditation’ originated, but that is unheard of in strict Theravada Buddhism, where silence reigns supreme and strict stillness is the foundation for that. Now, I suspect that guided meditation is chiefly a modern Western-promoted permutation, for Westerners who just can’t stand silence, but will happily sit for a story, but I could be wrong, since Tibetan meditation seems very eclectic and certainly could incorporate some spoken word(s).  

    But for me meditation is silent, emptiness incarnate, and guided meditation is a hybrid form which incorporates a ‘dharma talk’ into the practice itself, certainly not a bad thing, BUT: silence is still golden, at least in my book. If you have a problem with silence, then you should really work on that if you really want to delve deep into Buddhism. Because, as I said in the opening statement, “you don’t have to go anywhere to meditate, except inside.” And that’s the trick, to go inside yourself, where thought becomes anti-thought and talk becomes anti-talk. Thus, everything is shown to be the opposite of what it seems, and that is not a bad thing. “Meditate for at least twenty minutes a day, unless you don’t have time, and then meditate for an hour.” That says it all. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:58 am on July 22, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , Theravada, 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: , , , , , , , , Pure Lands, , Theravada, ,   

    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: , , , , , , , , Theravada   

    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. 

     

← 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