Of course it isPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, and it's very normal. Compassion for others is at the core of Buddhist teaching. And praying through Buddha, wishing blessings upon others is usual practice. The ten directions are very simply the four cardinal points, North, South, East and West. The four points in between, Northwest, Northeast etc... And the directions above and below. I hope that helps.
Is this kind of well- wishing possible (leitbe) religions are irrelevant. all you need is a consciousness and a will to make something happen. we create our worlds. label it prayer if it fits into the comfort zone.
I think there are a range of teachings in buddhism that are intended for people at different levels of understanding. It is important to remember, that the core teaching is not about being in touch with a diety, but has to do with yourself, and the sense of separation we feel between us and "the devine". I think the intent is to dissolve this separation because it is a illusion. To the extent that prayer accentuates this separation, it is wrong practice. There is a sense in this post, of trying to find some common ground between east and west, but I feel the approach is radically different. Its not that we all worship the same god in different forms. Meditation is the primary way, and it is fundamentally different than prayer. Prayer is whistling in the dark, meditation is adjusting to the darkness to see what is hidden there. There are some similarities, and you may pray in a meditative way, or you can meditate in a prayerful way, it depends on the intent.
Spidergoat "To the extent that prayer accentuates this separation, it is wrong practice". Well said - to me it sums up the whole issue of prayer in Buddhism. Canute
There are different forms of Buddhism. Some buddist pray to the Hindu gods, some don't pray at all. Some meditate daily, and pull themselves away from the world. Some meditate daily, and involve themselves in the world. Some belive that the buddha escaped this world of suffering. Others believe that he was so compassionate, that he returned to earth after reaching Nirvana, in order to help others. What pulls them all together are a few realizations and faiths: 1)there is suffering 2)there is a way out of suffering 3)everything that lives suffers Once one and two are understood, compasion blooms from number three. Compasion for everything that lives in this world, because everything suffers pain and loss at times. The main conclusion that the Buddha had about number 2 is this : the middle way. Extremes lead to an increase in suffering, so to reduce suffering one must find a path between those extremes. That path is the middle way. The way between pacifism and murder, between starvation and gluttony, between life and death. I like Buddhism because it requires no prior beliefs. With the exception of re-incarnation, everything in it comes from simple observation of the world and that which lives in it. However, the ideas of Karma which rely on re-incarnation are not required to find compassion for all that suffers, so its removal from the equation doesn't remove compassion, it just removes the self-interested goal of bettering your future incarnations. Once re-incarnation and all its following ideas are removed, the basics of Buddism still stand, because they are formed from the most integral functions of the world we live in. If any part of Buddism is removed, it still works, because by simple thought and observation, the same principals are discoved. I hope that you find peace in whatever you follow or learn from. note: My Dad and I disagree on some things about religion. But after 12 years of disscussion, we discovered something: we believe in the same principals of life: there is joy, there is saddness, you can act on both, and change things. But you can never truely know all of what will happen. Our differences lie in one place: He believes in God, and asks forgiveness for everthing he does, incase it has negative results which he can't foresee. I don't believe in God, and allow myself to forgive my own mistakes, with the condition that I don't make them again. I remember to have compassion for myself, because I am one of the things which lives, joys and suffers in this world. I try hard, and fail in my own ignorance. I don't feel a need for a God in order to feel forgiven; my forgiveness is granted before the action is even taken.
River-Wind Sorry - but I feel that to be an extremely misleading description of Buddhism. Compassion emerges from Buddhist metaphysics, their knowledge of reality. Compassion emerges as an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of understanding the truth. It is not a moral position, or just a result of Buddhist being nice people. Neither does one have to feel compassionate to practice Buddhism, (although either you won't get far or the compassionate feelings will creep up on you as you go). The middle way is not (not in the way you say anyway) anything to do with reducing suffering. That's also misleading, but not quite so much I hope. I don't believe that Buddhism can be explained any better than how to ride a bicycle. Canute
thanks Canute, for your opinion. It is my feeling that the eight-fold path and the the message of the lotus sutra refutes this. I am often wrong, however, so feel free to ignore me. May I ask why you feel the middle way has nothing to do with the reduction of suffering? What is your interpretation of the middle way? Why? (I like learning new things, and one of the best new things to learn is a different view of something I think I already understand). thanks!
I'm sure you're right (and I certainly won't feel free to ignore you). I know very little about the eight-fold path or the sutras. However I didn't actually say the notion of the 'middle way' had nothing to do with suffering and compassion. I just felt you had over-emphasised the issue of suffering when you listed three core 'faiths'. They are not faiths. They are truths that emerge from other fundamental truths. I suppose I felt you were selling Buddhism a bit short. Alfred North Whitehead said - 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.' This is kinda what I meant. It's the metaphysics that gives rise to compassion, the compassion has no 'stand-alone' significance. Now I'm embarassed. I'm not so misled as to think that I could explain the middle way properly. (I am not even a Buddhist, I just agree with them). Speaking personally the 'middle way' seems to have endless meanings and applications, and I think I really do mean endless. However underneath it all I take it to refer to (or be a consequence of) the non-dual nature of reality. All its other meanings seem to stem from this fundamental meaning, that the truth is found by seeing beyond the polarisation of opposites, the illusion of things that only exist relatively. And yes, that's definitely just an opinion. Regards Canute
I bow to your understanding. I may have explained my view poorly, let me try again. It is my understanding that one of the main principals of Buddhism is that there is desire and that desire causes much of the suffering in the world. From my studies (which are still very rudimentary), I have come to the conclusion that life has two types of sufferings. One is not excessive, and can help us learn and live. For example, stubbing your toe will teach you to not kick things for no reason. It can also give you the knowledge of what a stubbed toe feels like, so that when someone else does it, you may help them - you have expirience in the area. There is also uneducational suffering, which is excessive and doesn't teach much in comperison with the amount of pain it causes. Murder is most often in this catagory. The middle path, when referencing suffering, suggests that while educational suffering is a part of life, and should be used as a tool to learn and grow, uneducational suffering should be worked on, so that it doesn't happen, or at least happens less often. One of the major sources of uneducational suffering in the world comes from desire. The desire to possess and to own; be it goods, people, expiriences, feelings, etc. This desire can be removed (and in following, a majority of suffering) by working conciously to reduce your own personal desire. This reduction can be brought about through the eightfold path. This was the main topic of the Buddha's first talk to his fellow ascetics after having become enlightened, and deciding that asceticism wouldn't bring about the cessation of suffering. the eightfold path is explained well here: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html Much of the rest of Buddha's sutras (from the snippets I have thus read) deal with the reduction of suffering in others, due to great compassion. Stories of Buddha's compassion in his early days, slowly resolving to a contentment in the later days: " "Why must you kill the rabbit?" asked Buddha "Because it is my nature" the hawk replied. Buddha considered this, and cut strips of flesh from his own body. These he fed to the hawk, so that the rabbit could live, and the hawk would not go hungry. " later story ""Why are you crying?" the buddha asked one of his deciples. "because you are dying" the student replied. "why be sad for that? I am soon to be free of this world of suffering, free of pain and sadness. Be joyous for me." " One a seperate note, most of the Gods of Buddhism seem to be either Hindu or invented. The source of Buddism, from what I know, is specifically not from a god pantheon or spiritual worldview. At one point, Buddha was approached by one of one of his students who said something to the tune of "Why have you not explained to us if there was life after death? why have ou not explained to us what the end of the world will be like? why...blah blah blah a bunch of why haven't you explain everything to me. I will not follow you if you do not explain these things." The Buddha simply answered "I have not told you if there was life after death, nor have I told you what the end of the world will be like, etc,etc,etc. Be as mindfull of what I have not told you as you are of what I have explained." This tells me that either Buddha simply didn't kow the religious end of things, such as gods and prayers, or he didn't fell they were important. Either way, for me, a cosmology beyond the hand you see typing your reply is not needed to reduce suffering. And important note: this is extremely different from Tibetan Buddhism, which has a pantheon of buddhas, gods, prayers, chants, etc. much of Tibetan Buddhism pulls directly from hinduism for it's cosmology. I tend to follow Zen Buddism more closely, which has less reliance on gods, and more acceptance of nature as it exsists. It seems more in tune with the sutras, which I feel are as close to being there as you can get. sort of like how the New Testement in is as close as you can get to being there. In both cases, translation has effected the original, but by reading different versions of the same text in different translations, you can get a pretty good idea of what the original really meant. Again, this is my opinoin. there are many who disagree with me. Including an entire culture north of India.
River Wind I agree with the first part (slight quibble about Gods but no matter). The Buddha knew the answers to the questions. He also knew that it was pointless and almost certainly counterproductive to try and explain them. Personal insight and experience is the only way. The truths of Buddhism cannot be taught ex hypothesis. Agreed. But a metaphysic may be necessary to motivate a person to act to reduce suffering (unless they're just a nice person). Yes, but Buddhist ontology is founded on emptiness, not Gods. I'm afraid I don't know much about all the different versions of Buddhism. I suspect all these Gods were added in by people who didn't understand what the Buddha was about, but I might be misunderstanding something. (More than likely in fact). I understand the ontology but not the cosmology. I shouldn't have used the word, I meant cosmogeny. We see Buddhism in very different ways, which is interesting. I see it as a non-dual ontology, and you see it as a set of teachings for living or way of life. Is this right or hopelessly wrong? Canute
I'm not sure how to answer the question, but is sounds pretty on-target. I see Budhism as a method of daily living which stems from observation of the universe followed by logical thought on which actions are most likely to bring about a desired outcome in the world: a reduction in the suffering of all living things. I didn't know what ontology was, so I looked it up. Now I don't know what a non-dual "branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being" is. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! could you explain what you mean for my benifit? Thanks again! BTW: this is one of the best conversations on this topic I think I've had in a long time. I'm very excited for your reply. edit: "Agreed. But a metaphysic may be necessary to motivate a person to act to reduce suffering (unless they're just a nice person). " If we are defining the word "metaphysic" the same, then I think that using buddhist ideals as a method for living and understanding will bring about compassion. At which point metaphysics is not needed, because you become a nice person. Your external actions can create a new internal self over time and through effort, IME.
In my version of Buddhism, which seems a bit different than Canutes, I would say yes, you can do this, but you wouldn't be asking anyone or anybeing for the person's well being. You would simply be thinking "I hope that person is doing well, and that all of his/her family is happy in their lives." If I thought this, and it didn't seem to fit the situation, ie, they did not appear happy, or somehting seemed wrong, I would go up to them and ask if everything is alright. If something indeed *is* wrong, and they are ok in talking about it, then maybe I can help them somehow. And if not, at least they know that someone noticed that something was wrong. Often times, that seems to be enough. In Tibeten Buddism, from what I know, praying to the buddha/buddhavistas is a common practice. The little colorful flags you see hanging from strings, blowing in the wind, are prayer flags, the text written on them are generalised prayers. Also, many followers of Tibeten buddhism have prayer shalls which they work through their hands as they pray. Others have prayer beads which are worked through the hands as the individual prayer is spoken. IMO, all are focusing methods for meditation, and are not required. But again, my version is different than other versions, and mine doesn't include anyone or anything to pray *to*.
I've spent many happy hours trying to write an explanation of non-dual philosophy, and have never even come close. It's the craziest thing to explain that there is, for it's completely inexplicable ex its own hypothesis. I can't even explain that. However I'll wander around the subject aimlessly for a bit. In physics a particle-wave is a fundamental dual entity. Let's suppose that underlying this dual entity is a singular entity that gives rise to the two totally contradictory aspects of it that we observe. You cannot say it is a wave, for that is to make a semi-false statement. Neither can you say it is a particle, for that is equally semi-false. Similarly in non-dual ontology existence is underlain by a fundamental something/nothing that is non-dual. Hence Buddhists (esp. Advaita adherents) find themselves in the position of not being able to explain it, for nothing true or false can be said about it. Only its contradictory aspects can be discussed, and only in falsehoods. Every time you make an assertion about it you have to immediately contradict yourself. This may sound like an epistemelogical problem connected with the way we reason rather than an ontological one connected with what is really true about reality. In fact it is both. It is the final synthesis of epistemology and ontology. At a fundamental level of reality the non-dual explanation of reality becomes precisely isomorphic with what it explains, and thus ceases to be an explanation. (Sorry - this is the way it always goes). In Buddhism this entity/non-entity can be known through introspection but cannot be perceived, conceived or proved, since these activities involve giving this something/nothing dual attributes, and it does not have any. This thing is emptiness/fullness, experience/non-experience, bliss/no-bliss, intemporal/eternal etc., etc. It is something that exists and yet does not exist. Sounds crazy I know, but that's the problem. Underneath the muddle it's really quite a simple idea, too simple. It's simplicity is the source of much wry humour in Buddhist writing since it's regarded as a kind of cosmic joke that something so completely simple should be so impossible to explain. As mathematician Robert Kaplan says in his 'The Nothing that Is - A History of Zero': “The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think." This is what non-dual philosophy asserts. It all relates to Plato's cave and the shadows on the wall, the limits of our reasoning when it comes to understanding reality. Karl Popper famously argued the same, as have numerous other Western philosophers. However they generally regard it as a barrier to ultimate knowledge. Buddhists do not, since it is perfectly easy to know things that cannot be proved within the system of reasoning (as Goedel has mathematically proved). It is just a question of overcoming dual thinking and relying instead on experience. Experience is the only way to actually know the truth (or otherwise) of non-duality/Buddhism. Nothing but muddle ensues if you try to explain it, as I'm sure you've noticed from Buddhist writings, which are endlessly self-contradictory. Many people mistake this for a sort of fake mysticism. There's nothing mystical at all in them really, they're written by people trying their hardest to be helpful, but inevitably failing again and again. If anyone makes a positive assertion about a non-dual substance then they're lying. Usually the ultimate metaphysical truth underlying Buddhism is understood via meditation (not thinking) or attention (a different way of not thinking). But these days we have more ways of talking about it (Goedel, Quine, Popper, etc). This doesn't help in knowing the truth, but at least it makes it seem a bit more plausible, a bit more worth the effort of exploring it. It is from this metaphysical truth that all the rest of 'Buddhism' logically arises. A sense of compassion is an inevitable consequence of understanding your own nature, and thus the nature of existence itself (umm, or is that non-existence itself). The particle-wave thing is interesting for another reason. There is a complete system of reasoning built on the fact that it is a wave, and another quite contradictory system of reasoning built on the fact that it is a particle. Physics has resolved this controversy by treating them as complimentary or equivalent explanations. Non-dual philosophy generalises this technique to include all conceptions and perceptions, in fact everything except one thing (or no-thing). All thinking is dual and therefore based on only one aspect of the underlying entity. (Hence Western metaphysics is simply a dusty repository for undecidable questions about contradictory dual aspects). Non-dual philosophy is about seeing that there are logically always two ways of looking at things that are each equally true and equally false, that experience (ultimately) is the only thing that is not two things, and about learning to experience it as not two things. One example so it doesn't sound quite so crazy. How can something simultaneously exist and not exist? It can if it is immaterial and thus does not exist by one meaning of exist, and yet nevertheless does exist by a different (and subjective) meaning of exist. That's over simplifying but you get the idea. Non-dual philosphy is not irrational, it just goes one metaphysical step beyond dual philosophy, which just happens to be the most important step that there is. All this is waffle of course, since all evidence for any of these assertions is circumstantial and will never be more. I hope I've partly answered that. Phew I think I should have done this unstoned. Canute
Stoned or not, I think you did an admirable job. I completely understand what you mean, and I completely agree. These "contradicting" items are a large barrier for many people when first reading up on Eastern religions. They are, in fact, what got me interested in Doaism to begin with. I try pathetically to explain these dual realities by the idea of the "scope" of one's view. It's pretty much the same thing as their 'perspective', but it encompasses more than just the angle at which they view the thing in question. It also include the field of view of the surrounding situation, and the time frame in which the item is viewed. By changing one of those factors, the perceived definition of the item can change drastically, even though the object itself has not changed at all. You can look at a grain of sand, which is small and insignificant. Or you can expand the scope of your view, and see the rock that the sand came from, the lava it once was, the roots which hold it in place, the animals that eat the plants, the people who eat the animal, the fungus which binds that sand to the same matter as that person as he decays. The oyster that creates a pearl around the sand grain, and the necklace that is created out of it. The matter which comprises the atoms of the sand grain, millions of years from now, incorporated into a black hole, the same matter, millions of years ago, hot and expanding outward, spinning in a plasma as is coalesced into a semi solid which is our planet. That insignificant sand grain has seen and effected everything in the universe, by bumping into the stuff next to it, and that stuff bumping into that stuff next to it, etc, etc. That sand grain has effected this universe as much as you ever will - infinitely. Then pull you scope back to the now and the here, and it's just a common sand grain, sitting amongst millions on a beach somewhere on a world out in the middle of nowhere. The two differing views are both correct, but are defined by the scope of the viewer. Freedom, IME, comes in when you can arbitrarily choose the scope of that view, instead of allowing it to be defined by your past experience. That's where the philosophy of Zen Buddhism, for me, because a practice in living. But as you say, once you define it, you have to contradict yourself. “The dao that is spoken is not the true dao” edit: after re-reading this post, I've realized that I have a very well-defined metaphysical belief system which I just never labeled as metaphysics before. I will have to go back, and pick out the items which fall into that classification. Thank you very much!
The sand grain example is certainly about different points of view, but it isn't actually a metaphysical question unless you extend your timescale all the way. The question is what is the sand grain made out of - and what is that made out of - and what is that made out of - etc etc ad infinitum. Or what was the sand grain before it was a sand grain - and what was that before it was that - etc etc. ad infinitum. For physics these are unanswerable questions since they are simpy infinite regressions. They belong to metaphysics, the study of what lies beyond science. What lies beyond science is the axioms on which science is built. These axioms are actually merely the arbitrary answers that science (and generally religion) gives to questions that according to science cannot be answered, which is a bit ridiculous when you think about it. Non-dual philosophy claims they can be answered but not with yes or no answers, because they're actually the wrong questions. Hmm. Just had a thought. I suppose the undecidable in principle questions of Western metaphysics are to non-dual philosophy what scientifically meaningless/trivial questions are to science. Canute
Well, that is part of it, yes. In both directions. infinatly large, infinatly small, and everything in between. an interesting statement. I'll have to consider this.
Sorry I was unclear. well when you are praying these kinds of things you are not really praying to the Buddha, you are actually "channeling" your positive, compassionate energy (thought) to the particular person. And you are right prayer can also be used as a tool to connecting to another enity which at the end you will find that the entity is you and all people merged into one. Unfortunately I can't help you with the 10 directions, but any other questions you can count on me. bye
I think you are right, spookz. Religions are irrelevant. We are living the lives our "spirit" creates--not church. Whatever you call "it," our spirit creates us. I also believe in the concept of the One Spirit of God (whatever your perception of your higher power is), there is only One. So the spirit that incarnates our Earthsuit is just a small part of the whole. Creative visualization, prayer, meditation, magick, miracles, whatever, nothing.... Whatever works for you. Even if you did nothing (which I think is humanly impossible because we have a brain), your spirit would work on autopilot. Hey, this forum is so nice, unlike the religion forum which has turned into a barroom brawl. Just as I suspected, those religious zealots don't have any clue about spiritual life. They're all spiritually dead.
Medicine Woman You might like this. "Spiritual seekers are lost children in a conceptual forest created by their own imagination." Wu Wu Wei - Adavaita master
