6, 7 and 8

 I usually deal in the 5 precepts and the 10 precepts. 

Today I want to look at the extra 3 in the 8 precepts:

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from taking food at the wrong time

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from dancing, music, visiting shows, flowers, make-up, the wearing of ornaments and decorations

I undertake [to observe] the rule of abstinence from a tall, high sleeping place.

Background: In Theravadan countries people will temporarily ordain. Uposatha was developed so the lay could be monks for a day. Reading the Wikipedia article it looks like the it's a weekly thing, with the new moon, half moon, full moon and half moon. Not only Theravadan countries (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos).

I really like being connected to the moon cycle. Even in the city I can see the moon and I think the moon is amazing.

Putting your Buddhism on a calendar is good, and hopefully that's one of the connections with a spiritual community. Helps dispel the lay/monk douality. 

Discussion: OK so what's wrong with taking food at the wrong time. Monks don't take food after solar noon. I get all ishkabibble with daylight savings time, but there are times when solar noon is near to 1pm, than it is 12 noon. So that gives you a little time. You can eat two meals and survive. There's nothing inherently holy about not eating half the day, but some asceticism is needed, it helps free one up. I knew a guy who would fast on solitary retreats, so he could focus on not eating. He said you could make big sandwiches all day on solitary retreat. I thought was a cute phrase, "big sandwiches". Anyway, the point is to have a gesture towards asceticism and the middle way doesn't mean you can be a glutton. You can survive easily on 2 meals a day. I could stand to lose some weight.

"dancing, music, visiting shows, flowers, make-up, the wearing of ornaments and decorations" My grandfather was a Baptist minister, and there was a kind of constriction around the house. I never knew what exactly it was, but they were trying to be good people, and supposedly dancing was taboo. I have ecstatic dance parties with my daughter, but she always wants me to dance more. I'm not as into it is she is, but I go along with it for her. Movement is essential to me, and dancing is good exercise. Footloose is a movie about breaking out of the restriction against dancing. I'm pretty weak on resisting this one. But I'm sure I could give it up 4 times a month. 

I honestly think I'd have a hard time giving up music, but I don't listen to it as much as I used to. Life doesn't really yield to sitting around and listening to Beethoven's 9th. But I honestly think I need more good music in my life. But I can not listen to music if I have to. I could do that for a day 4 times a month.

Haven't been to a show in ages. Wish I had more money for that. I really want to see Dune. I haven't seen a movie in years. Let alone a Broadway show, or a concert.

Flowers on the shrine are wonderful. I guess you could not have flowers on the shrine.

I'm not a big fan of makeup. I don't think women need to try so hard. Bless them though. 

I don't really wear ornaments or decorations but I do have a Mets cap. I have a blank hat with nothing on it, so sometimes I wear that and I feel virtuous. I wear a hat because I don't have sunglasses, and I want to protect my eyes. A blank hat does that.

My bed doesn't have a mattress or a frame, so I struggle to get up off the ground every morning half asleep with my rickety legs. I think it would be better for me to have a raised bed, but I wonder if I'm more virtuous for not having a higher bed. Doesn't seem real, but who knows. 

I think specifics like dancing and high beds are still ideas of a principle. The principles are sound.

So anyway, as usual nothing profound, but just thinking about the extra 3 Uposatha precepts today on my never ending quest to be a better person for the benefit of mankind. 

Had this post removed from r/Buddhism

I don't think I have the right to post whatever I want. Any reddit can be moderated however the moderators want them to be moderated. I don't have to go on Reddit, and one need not confuse the terms of use, with any freedom of speech (like certain Republican politicians think). I am free to post my views on my blog, though Google could take down a post. I think they took down a post once, but then put it back up. I can't even remember what it was about or how they almost thought it was controversial. Nobody is owed social media. The internet people want content on the internet so they can monetize and exploit your attention for advertisements. Eyeballs equal dollars. 

Anyway, here's my controversial thoughts of the day:

[Title] I'm reading about reincarnation and as a practitioner of 20 years, I have the following thoughts.

So if we are enlightened and don't cling to existence, we, with a state of our mind, stop rebirth.

In many ways, the monk acts like a Buddha, even if they haven't attained or transcended. A kind of fake it till you make it. Why can't we do that with reincarnation if that is not part of our present culture?

Reincarnation could be a cultural artifact of the times the Buddha was in, it was part of the ideology, world view and outlook. If the Buddha had been an American now he might talk about Cowboys football games, and the dynamics between Rachel and Ross. The culture he was embedded in took reincarnation as a fact, and he wasn't going to be that revolutionary, to reject everything. What he did was revolutionary enough. And he was not reincarnated. The Dalai Lama is talking about not reincarnating so the Chinese can't exploit his role. There is controversy about the Panchen Lama.

It is possible that reincarnation is a metaphor for understanding conditioned experience, the ability to imagine ourselves into various ways of being, a profoundly empathetic act. I am not wishing to do away with the empathy and ideas of imagining one's way into other lives.

You can be a gatekeeper and say people are not Buddhist if they don't believe in reincarnation, say they don't know the teachings, don't grasp the profound truths. What if you witness someone whom you respect, and find ethical and is a good friend, and seems to be genuinely progressing on the path. Then you find out they don't have any experience in reincarnation, and see it as a conditional aspect of the Buddha's teaching, would you then just reject them? Pity them for their confusion?

I get it that reincarnation is even more embedded in Tibetan culture, the Tulku system are an integral part of the way they work. They choose people to concentrate resources of teaching into. In a way it seems quite sweet. Nobody is trying to take that away from them over there. Can we exist over here without that?

[end]

So I'm reading The Truth of Rebirth by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. That is what provoked my thoughts. He points out that there was no uniform belief of reincarnation and karma, and that there were annihilationists, a grim fellow who tortured thieves to see if he could see their soul or if bodies weighed less after being killed. I mean who wants to be an annihilationist if that is what you do?

OK, so what if the Buddha had a kind of moral retribution idea for karma and rebirth, some divine metaphysical punishment, to hopefully scare people into acting kindly. My feeling is that I'm not feeling it, and it's important to me to develop my thoughts. I know experts probably know better, and I do have respect for experts, that's why I'm reading this book. I'm still not feeling based on disabusing me of a common belief in reincarnation of the times.

Link: Story about how Dalai Lama said if science proved reincarnation wasn't true, then it would be disproved. Not that the Dalai Lama is my guru. 

I continue to write posts about reincarnation, here is another one:

I don't have any experience of rebirth either. I was told to keep an open mind out of respect for the tradition, which I have more than done, but after 20 years, I've done my due diligence, read books, talked to people. Sorry, I'm not going to believe in the 33 Hindu gods the Buddha supposedly wooshed a discipline to, to help him keep his chastity. I'm going to interpret that as metaphorical, or whatever kinds of way, that make it not literal. The 33 Hindu gods may exist in the minds of Hindus, and I love and respect other cultures.

If the energy has to go somewhere from the molecules is orthodox enough, I can get that, but I don't think that's orthodox.

Science isn't that great. Look up the science of Phrenology, read some history of science. I wouldn't say it inspires confidence.

My problems is that I'm skeptical. Show me. That's a personality type that has pluses and minuses. I have felt profound devotion, and caught the bug of Buddhism despite myself.

All religions are assumptions. Blind faith, you assume a paradigm of spirituality is true, and if it works for you then good. Buddhism assumes the Buddha attained enlightenment and that that is something worthy.

Honestly, outside of this possibly anonymous medium, I don't talk about reincarnation. I talk about what works for me, and essential Buddhism works for me. Some people can call me not a Buddhist, but I suspect those people have more issues than being the guardian of Buddhism. I hope not, though, because I wish everyone well. How the world works is not up to me, I can only try to comprehend it to the best of my ability. To the extent I fall short, that is my limitation. I hate anti-vaccination people because I wish to have the freedom from spreaders of Covid, but I have made many stupid decisions in my life that hurt others. I hope to forgive myself and move forward in a positive way. I don't think anyone is immune to mistakes. I'm going to work on myself to the best of my ability, for the benefit of others.

Eckhart Tolle

I've stayed away from the Power of Now because it wasn't a pure Buddhist teaching, but I was on family trip to Florida,  NYC to Florida and I listened to the book on tape. It's a curious blend of Christianity and Buddhism. I think there are some Buddhists who are into it, though thinking about it now, I wonder who I really know. I think I've heard hints of a Theravadan monk who really is all in on now.

My understanding of it, is that one way to cut down on depressive and anxious thoughts is to focus on the here and now. The past and the future are de-emphasized. There is a kind of freedom in the moment, an opportunity to be mindful. Thoughts about the past and future are in a crucial way a distraction from the moment. There are many ways in which we spin out of being present. 

It's not clear how much reflection or meditation are needed to what later are quite interesting elaborations of this insight. It's not clear which teachings are important. There are a lot of interesting linguistic comments about open and closed concepts. There is a lot of talk about the emotional pain body, and living in the here and now could perhaps be congenial with Feldenkrist and Focusing (Tricycle review). I also thought a lot about Radical Acceptance by Tara Brach. I think that would be a complimentary book. I haven't read Be Here Now, because it's Hindu guru, and I read Buddhism, but I have a feeling this book would also be an unacknowledged source. 

There's a lot in the book, and there were times when I fell asleep listening to it, but I was trying to stay awake to drive, so I listened to the book in a way I haven't listened to it.

I thought the parable of a beggar begging on a box that contained money, was similar to the Lotus Sutra parables about already having what you need, the person who had money in their clothes, and the person who goes and wins over his own father with his hard work and reasonableness, without knowing he would be inheriting the family kingdom. 

In a way, he hides a lot of his spiritual journey. One day he's having a panic attack and all upset, and the next he's wandering around like a child in a candy shop, living in the now. It's not quite explicit the steps or the background to this big dramatic awakening.

It's OK that I don't know a lot of details and background, it's a fun coherent line of thinking that he presents, and I'd say it's an interesting important book, though I'm not sure how much it's going to influence me. It's influenced me because I've listened closely to parts of it. Anyway, I'm curious to learn more now that I've gotten some time listening to the text while I'm awake. 

Buddhist fiction

I don't know what Buddhist fiction is, but fiction that dwells in Buddhism somehow or some way.

The Godfather of Kathmandu by John Burdett was on a list of great Buddhist fiction, so I'm reading it. It starts in Thailand and then goes to Nepal. The layers of culture, from The Godfather, Poe, to Thai Buddhism to Tibetan Buddhism, to police procedural and murder.

There are fun places to look up: Boudhanath and Swayambhunath.

Links

New Yorker review from 2010: "Burdett’s fever-dream mysteries, set in Bangkok, recast the police procedural as psychedelic peep show. Here, as in previous installments, his hero—a half-Thai, half-farang cop and Buddhist monk manqué—investigates an outlandish crime and frets over his karma. Enlightenment, and freedom from being reborn into “this catastrophe called life,” beckons when he’s sent to Nepal to broker a drug deal and meets a shadowy Tibetan mystic who’s plotting an invasion of China. A mood of manic farce buoys this convoluted tale, which includes a deft social analysis of a Thai women’s prison, Tantric sex, and hot chocolate laced with high-tech pharmaceuticals. It’s all wildly implausible, but written with such louche authority that, by the end, one cheers the seemingly infinite multiplicity of Burdett’s universe."

 I know it's a stretch to think of the Jedi order as somehow connected to Buddhism, but I think it's kind of interesting anyway. 

Myanmar

There's a podcast with Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Crisis in Myanmar.

After the Dalai Lama, Bhikkhu Bodhi is perhaps one of the most respected spiritual leaders of Buddhism. He was born in Brooklyn and he's not some nationalist guy but he's raised in Brooklyn by Jewish parents, and he's a prominent American Buddhist, maybe the most prominent American Buddhist. He is the English translator to many volumes of the Pali Canon, which are the foundation of Buddhism. One of the things I like about the Theravadan monastics is that they make their teachings free. They are deeply rooted in the earliest writings about what the Buddha really said and taught. In addition the sangha, the monks community is a strong link back to the Buddha. I've downloaded his book of essays, I hope to follow through and read them.

Myanmar had a military junta overthrow a democratically elected government. 

BB talks in the podcast about the tradition of not getting to involved in worldly affairs. The other hand is that perhaps there can be good done by applying a Dharmic position to worldly affairs for the good of all beings.

The podcaster suggests that maybe there is a middle way between political apathy and full engagements in the political life.

The threats to the world in terms of climate change, and other obvious harms seem at least something that can be commented on. BB is reluctant to say specific things, but encourages peace and democracy. 

If there was no sympathetic joy

"Travel and tell no one" by Khalil Gibran

Travel and tell no one,

live a true love story

and tell no one,

live happily

and tell no one,

people ruin

beautiful things.

A focus besides meditation

There is a kind of person who comes onto r/Buddhism and complains about weird results in meditation. I go right to the Meghiya Sutta:

Spiritual friendship--you have to build a base of connections to others on the path to report into regularly, who monitor and support you. That is community power. You can't do it without other power, community power and self power. To go onto Reddit for spiritual advice, you're not building a solid foundation. Being willing and open to it, taking concrete steps by visiting a sangha regularly, meditating with others.

Ethical conduct: Follow the Vinaya. There are highly enlightened people who have not followed the rules, so people think they can just skip the rules like them.

Dharma talks, study. Most westerners like to read, but reading with others is quite important too. Listening to talks is great. There's an ocean of Dharma on the internet.

Avoiding unethical conduct, revulsion for it, making it impossible. Cultivating disgust for substance abuse is what AA is all about for me.

reflection on the path--Rantaguna wrote a really lovely book on the importance of the practice of reflection on the spiritual life. Doing the legwork about personal barriers in friendships and in grasping the dharma, being honest and real, not just posturing and show. 

I would add: puja. Chanting is a excellent way for the ideas to burrow into your non-permanent soul. It's a great activity. Ideally you do it mindfully, but doing it unmindfully isn't bad either. Of course rites and rituals as ends in themselves is to be avoided. You get less points if it's unmindful. 

Confession to a spiritual friend is good for ethical development. Really making it challenging and making it hurt. 

Getting right with the people around you is important. AA has people making amends, and the upshot of that is that you can't really make amends and undo the past, but being willing to be more ethical is the point, and not just in theory but taking it to people you have harmed. My experience with amends is that you really shouldn't approach some people, and others will forgive you too easily or minimize what you did. It's really weird hard work. How much of it really was alcoholism or substance abuse? Much of my ethical breaches feel like they were done sober, though surrounded by substance abuse. What do I do with that? I read that being ethical is the one thing you can learn. You can't become a great athlete, or math genius, those are sort of things you figure out in your teens and early twenties. But you can become an ethical person, kind and thoughtful, through the course of your life. Just being there, recognizing what people are going through is quite an amazing thing. This is yet another reason why friendship is so important. And yet trying to make a new friend in this day and age isn't easy. 

Chastity isn't something Buddhist start with, I think Buddhism would die if it was sold that way, and I feel a bit like an up tight fuddy duddy by suggesting it, but the chase for connections takes up quite a lot of energy and resources. Having longer periods of being alone between relationships is a prime suggestion. 

Spiritual bypassism is often discussed, and doing the work with a psychotherapist, and trying out all the technologies of change are recommended: Hiking in nature, yoga, making art, artistic appreciation, tai chi, public speaking, recovery programs, journaling, volunteering, feldenchrist, coaching and on and on and on. If it helps the world, and it helps you get out of yourself in a positive way, then it's going to be good. Life is short, some say it's a race for maturity before senility. Try to expand who you are and be honest about what works and doesn't work.

Work on your communication skills ala Non-violent communication. 

Can you think of anything to add here?

Then when you're ready:

develop good will (Brahma Viharas). The development of good will and equanimity is an important foundation.

mindfulness through anapanasati. Mindfulness will guide the insights in a positive way, and help you cope with the slings and arrows, but more importantly help you find joy. It is on this base that insight can develop. You can feel in your body the interconnections, not just agree intellectually. In community with others. Anapanasati can help integrate one's mind with the body, and the mindfulness of the body is very important. You want the insight to radiate throughout your body. Alienated awareness can't happen if you're connecting your awareness to the body. The body is where the trauma is stored, and the body is where some insights can come from. Tune into your body ala Focusing and tap into a new form of your wisdom.

Elsa, Anna, Buddha

 

Collaboration

The thing on the right “helps the Buddha to relax.” Collaboration Kamuka 54, Theradithi 5.
 

A shrine

 (Source)

Cool article about intimacy

“True love makes us happy. If love doesn’t make us happy, it’s not love; it’s something else.“ TNH

Misogynistic apocrypha

 I just looked up the Blood Bowl Sutra. Wow. Women in hell drinking menstruation blood because they had dirty women's bodies. Yikes. Luckily it's apocrypha. They would be for me whether or not they were officially. But supposedly earlier versions condemned warriors, so maybe it wasn't that bad when it was first written. (Fascinating post on Reddit)

This led me to the Ojoyoshu, a Pure Land text, which looks interesting. This led me to the Amitayurdhyana Sutra, Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra and Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, which are at the heart of the Pure Land tradition. I think I've read these. They could stand a rereading, of course.

My response

Post on Reddit by u/Ignacio_CLP:

For Secular Buddhist. Why the need to call yourself "Buddhist" if you don't believe what the founder of Buddhism taught?

Question

I don't want to judge anyone beliefs here. You all can do whatever you want. I just don't understand all this secular Buddhist thing, Its like the christian atheism movement.

If you read the suttas, you will find that the Buddha taught about: karma, rebirth, devas, hell and heaven, hungry ghosts, magical powers, etc.

Not only that,these beliefs are a central foundation of the Buddhist teachings, beacause it gives virtue its purpose, and helps align yourself with right view.

People can meditate and practice virtue, but why do you call yourself Buddhist if you don't believe what he taught.

If you think that they are metaphors, then are you explicitly stating that you have the real dhamma and that 2500 years of monastic lineage got it all wrong?

My Response:

    What I don't like about Christianity, Islam and Judaism is the expectation to believe in a monotheistic god. A narrow doctrinal point in the whole scheme of things spiritually. If you don't believe the way expected it's heresy. Dogma is to be followed. Thinking for yourself is a blasphemy. And yet there are many versions of the concept of god in active use among humans. They are seen as mistaken and lost. My opinion is that it's better for people to develop their own spirituality than to just follow what others think they understand because you never know what they really understand.

    The transcendental movement in Concord USA, was a rebellion against the Puritan ways, and pushed the questions on to nature and trusting in your own instincts. Being self reliant.

    The gatekeeping of a Buddhist who defines Buddhism as their sect's vision, feels similar. To presume to know what is literal or not, essential or a cultural artifact is what is being debated, but it forecloses the debate to say "anything that diverges from my sect's dogma is not Buddhism."

    I happen to think rebirth is a cultural belief of Hindu India of the times, and maybe the Buddha believed it as a metaphor, and maybe it's not essential. I know that's not the standard view here, but despite being told over and over again how it's essential and pure and great, I'm still not seeing it. After 20 years. The fault might be mine, no doubt. But I'm not going to pretend I feel what I don't feel, that's more of a spiritual death to me. It's important to me to think for myself, come to my own understanding based on the syncretic views of the best of the times I live in.

    I have tried to keep an open mind, but after 20 years, I feel I'm allowed to speak up and proclaim I don't get it even after trying. I respect the tradition, and I'm not sure yet whether there will be a sect that lives that doesn't include it. I guess I'd rather not even talk about it.

    I love mythological thinking, devotional thinking and feeling, and poetry, but I don't experience is as literalism, and I'm willing to have a big tent. Someone on Reddit can tell me not to call myself a Buddhist, but frankly they seem like the Christians I avoid with their talk of heresy, dogma and blasphemy. They just call it right view and wrong view

    The history of Europe is a history of the utilization of theology to back up nationalistic and power claims. I don't see spirituality as part of that grid, I see it as avoiding that kind of nonsense. Personal, private, intimate, beyond others judgement, except those I allow it to be judged by, my sangha.

    It feels like someone is trying to import that way of thinking into Buddhism when they act like a gatekeeper. Whatever. You don't know my practice, you don't know my experience, you don't know my study, you don't know my practice, but to judge it based on some doctrine point, that's frankly what most westerners avoid by going to Buddhism. There's a nuanced, flexible, psychological understanding in Buddhism. There are many schools. What you do is more important than what you believe. I don't even see this theological point to be of much importance to my meditation practice, my ethical practice, or my study of the Dharma, or my fellowship with other Buddhists.

    I'm afraid this kind of fundamentalism and focus on doctrine is a fetter. I hope I'm wrong and I wish you well Ignacio_CLP.

    I was reading Udana 3:2, and they talk about the 33 deities. When you google it, they are Hindu deities. I'm pretty sure if the Buddha was in the Christian country he would talk about the Christian mythology as though it were real. Yes, maybe I'm taking grave liberties with the tradition. Maybe I've winnowed out what is essential and what is cultural. Time will tell.

My spiritual journey

 

fusatsu

In the Zen tradition, at regular intervals during the year we practice fusatsu, a renewal of vows centered on the Buddhist precepts. During that ceremony, the sangha chants:

Being one with the Buddha with all sentient beings, raise the bodhi mind, let the Supreme Way be realized;

Being one with the dharma with all sentient beings, penetrate all sutras, let wisdom be like the ocean;

Being one with the sangha with all sentient beings, lead the people, let harmony pervade everywhere.

(GEOFFREY SHUGEN ARNOLD in Lion's Roar)

 

 

Right View

Perfect understanding or integral view or you can mismatch the translations of the first two words for the 8 fold path, part of the 4 noble truths: Pali: samyak-dṛṣṭi, Sanskrit: sammā-diṭṭhi. The Buddhist view is the opening frame of it all. How can you move towards the unconditioned when you can't talk about it? These and more questions raise up when I listen to Sangharakshita's 1968 talk about Right View.

There's an article in Lion's Roar with the byline: It’s possible that most Western Buddhists are “unaffiliated.” That is, they practice alone or in small informal groups not listed in the phone book or on the web. There is therefore no record, no official trace, of their activity. They practice off the books.

I've always thought that America would somehow produce an interesting form of Buddhism. In a discussion on r/secularbuddhism, it was pointed out that IMS is perhaps a secular Buddhist organization, but what I always find interesting about them is that they're a lay tradition of the Theravada ilk. Leave it to Americans to not fall in line on tradition. It is both our strength and our weakness, and I would also say that that was true of myself as well.

I have stepped away from Triratna. Honestly it was my negative actions and mistakes that pushed me away. Maybe that was what I needed. I'm surprised to see on r/Buddhism that my root sect isn't looked upon as even Buddhism sometimes. I get regularly downvoted, I'm not hard line enough. For better or worse Sangharakshita has formed my initial view of Buddhism, and I don't think that is bad. I have had amazing retreat experiences at Aryaloka that I will never forget. There is one point in the talk when Sangharakshita talks about having a flash of insight and forgetting it. I'm trying not to forget but I have to with pain admit that I haven't always acted on my insights, I got lost. I had trouble sustaining the right view.

In AA and recovery psychology, I can feel a kind of fight for right view. The need to find a higher power of your understanding is the quest for the right view. I like it that it is less insistent that you find the right doctrine. You must come to your understanding. Something needs to be beyond the nihilism of just drinking when your disease tells you to. 

I don't think Buddhism is a philosophy, I think it's a psychology of meditation. That may be controversial. What I like about psychology is that it's not insistent on dogma, everyone comes to their own understanding based on their psychology, personality, history, talents.

I'm not saying anything goes, and sometimes I am wary of diluted new age pablum. I forced myself to listen to The Power of Now. It's not bad, but I listen to a Theravada monk to balance it out. 

Wat Chedi Liam, Thailand

 

Wat Chedi Liam. Built in 1287 and remained in use during the early Lan Na period after the new city of Chiang Mai had been established by King Mangrai the Great.

Yikes

Monks, this cycle of rebirth  is endless. The beginning of this extremely long journey cannot be discovered. These beings, hindered by lack of knowledge of the true nature of life and bound by craving, roam and wander on in this endless journey. What do you think, monks, which is more: the stream of blood you have shed when you were beheaded as you roamed and wandered on in this journey—this or the water in the  four great oceans?”

Source (alt)

Brahma Viharas

The canon of present day books on the Brahma Viharas is pretty hard to track down, it's taken me some 20 years to collect books about this Buddhist topic.

I read Boundless Heart  (2017) by Christina Feldman.

Tara Brach's Radical Self-Acceptance is perhaps quite supportive.

Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation by Analayo.

Heart by Vessantara.

Lovingkindness by Sharon Salzberg is another book.

Just found Love and Sympathy in Theravada Buddhism by Harvey Aronson (1980). Going to be trying that one out.

I also need to get through the Visuddhimagga.

Kamalashila book on meditation has a section on the meditation which was where I learned it. It talks about the near and far enemies to metta, karuna, mudita and upeksa. A friend in social work school like the idea of horrified anxiety that you get when you look at others suffering. The near enemy to karuna is pity.

Anyone else want to add books to the list about Brahma Viharas?

Someone added:

A Guide to Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation by Bhante Vimalaraṁsi

Awakening Loving Kindness by Pema Chodron

The Sublime Attitudes: A Study Guide on the Brahmaviharas, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu (here)

Audio meditations:

Bhikkhu Anālayo on Barre Center for Buddhist Studies.

Images

 

Devotion

I think some personality types benefit from devotion and supplication. Maybe all. It's seen as important in substance abuse recovery. It might be part of a complete psychological makeup trying to be whole and integrated. 

Sports is a distraction and a diversion. It feels important to me in my relationship to one of my sons. NYCFC started some time after my son got into soccer, and we bonded over going to games. 

One of the players is Maxime Chanot. He was born in France, but he plays internationally for Luxembourg. He's played in England, France and Belgium, before he came to NYC. He's played for NYCFC for 5 years, only missing the first year of their existence. No other player from the 2016 roster is still on the team.

Maxime has a devotional routine you see him do. He touches his head, belly, and two shoulders, holds his hands up, looks upward, how bows down twice I think. He prays in the laundry room in Yankee Stadium. There is a caplin who comes midweek, and pregame. 

Fascinating video

 

Tenzin Palmo photo of text Reflections on a Mountain Lake

 

Urgency

 

Practice like everything is on fire.

Posted this and then saw this

 

Mara and Buddha in dialogue

 

Korean temple I drive by

 

Uruvela Kassapa in the Vinaya Mahāvagga

Reading about Uruvela Kassapa in the Mahavagga. This kassapa keeps saying, "But he is not an arhat like me." In a way it's a doubter of the Buddha, but proving him wrong by miracles is the wrong way to go to my modern sentiments. The Buddha confronts him and he just snaps out of it. I'd like more information. Just like I'd like more information about the gradual teachings that converts Yasa, his father, mother, and his father's ex-wife (nice detail there). In a way what comes down to us is pretty sketchy. It can fill up a bookshelf, but it's so ancient, it's hard to get through to it. I'm trying though. Someone asked on Reddit if as a Buddhist you really had to read the Pali Canon. I'd say you don't have to, the only have to is uttering the refuges and precepts, but as others pointed out, couldn't hurt.

Stuck

 P. 28 The Life of the Buddha:

"...seeking the unborn, unageing, unailing, deathless, sorrowless, undefiled, supreme surcease of bondage, Nibbana."

PS, I read about the 5 dreams and thought about posting and then remembered a past post.

Reddit photos and images

 

Interesting Characters And Details Reading the Life of the Buddha Edited By Bhikkhu Nanamoli

Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu died in 1960. He led an interesting life, he was an intelligence officer during WW2. He and his friend Ñāṇavīra Thera went to Sri Lanka and ordained as a monk. My heart warms so much when a friend is mentioned in a Wikipedia entry about a person's life. 

He was taught by Nyanatiloka, German born, who was among the earliest western monks in Sri Lanka. Nyanatiloka went off to Sri Lanka in 1903 at the age of 25, and went on to Burma. You can read about him in a biography that is online. 

Nyanatiloka met U Dhammaloka, Irish born, who ordained in 1900.

Nanamoli left us an amazing modern edited book from the Pali Sources about the life of the Buddha. 

How it is that I can read these awesome texts in English today is amazing to me.

People Gotama met before enlightenment and his family

Ananda remembers the discourses, what the Buddha said. It is his great memory that comes down to us. He was a first cousin to the Buddha.

Upali remembered the monastic rules. "He was ordained before the princes, putting humility before caste." He was a low caste barber. 

There is Asita, an ascetic who laments he will not live enough to see the Buddha. "Among the bipedal race he is unique."

King Bimbisara offers the Buddha a lot of money to be a general in his army.

Alara Kalama was a teacher who taught Gotama everything he knew on his spiritual quest, but he kept going.

Uddaka Rāmaputta was his second teacher. The teachings do not lead to dispassion, fading of lust, cessation, enlightenment. 

Tapussa and Bhalluka: Two merchants who came upon the Buddha while he was freshly consolidating the insights of his enlightenment under the Mucalinda Tree. They gave him some food. The Buddha wasn't really into eating but the Four Devine Kings persuaded him with food from the 4 corners of the world, rice cake and honey. His first meal after enlightenment. Tapussa and Bhalluka took refuge in the Buddha and the Dharma, but there was no Sangha yet to get the three jewels. They were the first disciples of the Buddha. 

Details:

Gautama talks about the need to go forth from home life: crowded and dusty. 

I would add crumbs. My daughter eats pretzels in bed before she goes to sleep, and there are crumbs.

Gautama went off and was in nice parks where deer came up to him and peacocks were around. I can hear their cries. He talks about hair standing on end, what an amazing detail, fear and dread arose, which he subdued. I kind of like these details of the struggle. 

The Buddha's family includes his father Suddhodana and mother Maya and his foster mother Mahapajapati Gotami.

There are bits where they say he went forth young, and don't mention a wife. It is possible that that whole story line cropped up later, but in the legend his wife has a name, Yashodhara.

What does it add to the myth that he went for not as a late teen but as a father at 29? Does that add more gravity, more drama? Does that make it more relatable?

The vanity of death entirely left me

Has anyone felt the vanity of life entirely leave them? That's pretty intense. I feel like looking at death isn't easy. I'm not sure what to make of something like that, it seems experience far. I suppose that just proves once again I'm not close. This happened to the Buddha before he was enlightened, before he went off on his 6 year quest. What do you make of it? Is it something one can get to through reflection? Meditation? 

There is a part of me that wishes to survive, a survival instinct, that rebels against not existing. I can intellectually understand that the cycle of life means I will eventually die. I have read a lot of books on the subject of death and dying to try and understand. Maybe I understand that I will not live forever. I'm not sure if the vanity of life has left me. 

Among the bipedal race he is unique

 

Five strands

 "There are five strands of sense desire. What are these five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for, desirable, agreeable and endearing, bound up with sensual desire and tempting to lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear... odors cognizable by the nose... flavors cognizable by the tongue... tangibles cognizable by the body, that are wished for, desirable, agreeable and endearing, bound up with sense desire, and tempting to lust.

(Source)

 

Quotes: Thomas Pynchon tells a Buddhist parable

 Bleeding Edge by Thomas Pynchon:

"Shawn tells her the Buddhist Parable of the Burning Coal. “Dude is holding this burning-hot coal in his hand, obviously suffering a lot of pain. Somebody comes by—‘ Whoa, excuse me, isn’t that a burning-hot coal in your hand, there?’ “‘ Ooh, ooh, ow, man, yes and like, like it really hurts, you know?’ “‘ I can see that. But if it’s making you suffer, why do you keep holding on to it?’ “‘ Well, duh-uhh? ’cause I need to, don’t I—aahhrrgghh!’ “‘ You’re . . . into pain? you’re a nutcase? what is it? Why not just let it go?’ “‘ OK, check it out—can’t you see how beautiful it is? lookit, the way it glows? like, the different colors? and aahhrrhh, shit . . .’ “‘ But carrying it around in your hand like this, it’s giving you third-degree burns, man, couldn’t you like set it down someplace and just look at it?’ “‘ Somebody might take it.’ “So forth.” “So,” Maxine asks, “what happens? He lets go of it?” Shawn gives her a nice long stare and with Buddhist precision, shrugs. “He lets go of it, and he doesn’t let go of it.”"

There are some other fun quotes:

"And who, really, is so fancy-schmancy they can’t appreciate “Volare,” arguably among the greatest pop tunes ever written? Young man dreams he’s flying in the sky, above it all, defying gravity and time, like having midlife early, in the second verse he wakes up, back on earth, first thing he sees is the big blue eyes of the woman he loves. And that will turn out to be sky enough for him. All men should grow up so gracefully."

and

"...sounds of jollification and a music track including Motor City psychobilly Elvis Hitler, at the moment singing the Green Acres theme to the tune of “Purple Haze” and providing Maxine an unmeasured moment of nostalgia so unlikely that she begins to feel targeted personally."

 

Jack Kornfield

A redditor went pretty hard at Jack Kornfield. His talk on an Oprah interview wasn't orthodox Buddhism. Here is my response (since expanded upon here as I thought more and more about this):

Feels like an Oprah interview is setting him up to be a more than Buddhist teacher and being open to a more Abrahamic background, to widen his audience beyond the 0.7% Buddhist in America. He has been ordained by the marketplace, his books have sold. I've read most of them and his first book is about the various meditation practices he encountered in Thailand, published in 1977, feels like good information. 

Kornfield, strikes me as a good writer. Good writers don't necessarily start movements or make a lot of hay in Buddhism, but I also like Stephen Batchelor. There's a synthesis going on with Buddhism as certain western ideas are being integrated into Buddhism. It feels like some of the negative aspects of Christianity can avoided, and there's a hope in a religion that is going to be more suited for our current times.

There is a syncretism going on in America, and it's hard to imagine the Buddhism that is going to emerge. The lay Theravada tradition, with the lay going for it instead of just trying to make merit, along with their worldly lives, is another example of Americans trying to have it all. 

New movements have always gotten pushback from traditionalists. Time will tell if the American lay tradition of Theravada is going to be a thing (IMS).

I'm not ready to cast Kornfield out for a populist and honest interview with Oprah, but it's good to get information and to see how far a perspective can go. Every country reconstructs Buddhism, and that is OK. I feel like Buddhism is strong enough to be tested by being adopted to a new country in the modern world. Spirituality has always been adapted and adjusted to a culture it enters. Look at the spread of Buddhism in China. Maybe you can't snuff out what Buddhism has to offer, maybe we want something beyond a secular humanism, which can be a glorious spirituality too. If we're allowed to explore and make sense of things, not just swallow doctrines whole, maybe we can sift out an essential Buddhism, or an American Buddhism that works. As the many sects of Buddhism show, there are lots of possibilities. Americans don't take to being told how to be. That is both our strength and downfall. 

The quote "Buddhism is not just whatever some white guy makes up after visiting Thailand and learning meditation" is a bit provocative, but it makes the point that perhaps syncretism needs to have some limits. It's true that if you want a good brand of Buddhism perhaps don't experiment with a new one, but I myself am more flexible and think that new movements don't need to be snuffed out. Of course rigid fundamentalism trying to snuff out other traditions, is also a American tradition as well. I'll be interested to see this dance play out with the remainder of my life.

We need traditionalists who make us aware of our choices. We need innovation and creativity as we adapt to new circumstances, too, that is the essence of mindfulness to me.

My feeling is that the creativity and innovation of Chogyam Trungpa was too wild, not disciplined enough. On the other hand, I don't want to be a monk who can't touch a woman, when it's an elderly relative who could use some support with some stairs. The real question is what really works and are we just adopting something without really changing. The change of moving towards enlightenment can be quite challenging and it's hard to sort out what growing pains and dark nights are necessary, and which ones are not. The push/pull of a lay Theravada movement is utterly fascinating to me.

A vibrant dynamic movement, and intense devotion will look cult like, will be suspect. The sexual misconduct in American Buddhism has been pretty damaging. Mistakes have huge ripples throughout time that are not easy to see. Trying to do things will always invite criticism. We want a solid foundation but nothing is perfect. 

If Buddhism came to America in the 1840's with Chinese immigrants we've had it on this land for 180 years. I think one time I came up with 250 years. Both estimates are minuscule over the history of Buddhism. Buddhism came to China around 67 CE, maybe 150 CE. They've had Buddhism a little longer, though communism has tried to snuff it out. My point is that the newness to a continent and the newness to a culture churning and changing is going to produce some interesting results. Maybe traditionalism is what is needed amongst this churn, but some periods are more open to change. I appreciate the redditor drawing the traditionalist line, but I feel like Kornfield's journey is his own, and his early books provided good information to a culture starving for Buddhist information. There are some Buddhist teachers that adopt some Christian language, I imagine in the hopes that it will help spread Buddhist ideas in a Christian America. I'm turned off by that. And maybe the criticism that adopting a foreign religion doesn't get around the various tricks and boondoggles of religion, but it feels like there's a minimalist essential Buddhism combined with mythological awareness and sophistication, and fear of literalism, can really make a religion for the times we live in, here in America. If it can draw this athiest in, I think anything is possible.

I would also add that I can't buy into lineage ideas being paramount. I respect people who feel that is important, but sorry, too much time has gone by and it's great if you got it, but I don't think that means you can't make a new movement without a lineage. The Buddha created a new movement that wasn't there before. Not that these new people are on his level, but it's possible.

 

Beginning of rainy season retreat

The Buddha had the monks not wander during the rainy season. (Link)

Here is a photo of the monks in Wheaton MD.

Installed at Aurangabad Buddhist Caves, in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. "the statue was placed offset to challenge the Buddhist locals sense of inner piece against their OCD and basic maths"

Not a panacea

“I began meditating in search for a decrease in stress and anxiety. I got that, and then somehow became swept away in a new-age super religion without even knowing it. There are parts of this essay that embarrass me. But, when you’re vulnerable and looking for answers, you take what is available. For me, that was the enlightenment pill, and I almost choked on it.“

Fascinating article by Dan Lawton about his negative experiences meditating, a few researchers who listen to negative experiences, and how many teachers deny there can be negative experiences in meditation. Courageous article.

I have panic attacks sometimes on retreat, when I feel trapped, can't move, in meditation. But then I cry and it seems to release a lot of things. I wouldn't describe that as a negative experience, but I suppose it's a challenging experience.

Rahula does not mean fetter, that is a later insertion by a self congratulating monk

Someone went onto r/buddhism and asked if they should have children, or that would lead to attachment. I see a little red when "attachment" is used, because it's a useful and powerful concept in modern psychology. 

But they mean clinging to sense pleasure, not the healthy child need. OK. I propose Buddhists stop using the word "attachment" because the other sense of the word is primary, stronger, more important and interesting. (I'm pretty sure I picked that up from the culture of Triratna, but I guess I'm owning it now. I honestly don't think I'm original, but I googled "Rahula doesn't mean fetter" and I just got all the articles that spout that terrible idea, thus I have to add it to the dialectic of the internet.)

Nobody was giving the opposite view, so I stepped in and tried to articulate why having children isn't a death sentence to the move towards enlightenment. 

The spouting of doctrine and cant was pretty difficult to bear. One person actually purported to be the voice of the Buddha. 

First off, a human isn't a fetter. They are a subject with feeling, not an object in your way. Maybe attitudes are fetters, and maybe some people can't see the long term affect certain ideas.

And yes, there is a dance between engagement and retreat, and retreat is vital to the spiritual life. But I also feel it's important to think for yourself and not just spout doctrine without processing it through the human who says it and the humans who hear it.

There's plenty of stuff in the canon that needs to be interpreted, updated, modernized. In a good way.

A human is not a fetter, I think that Rahula should not be seen as a word for fetter. If it really was at that time, and I'm not convinced that is true, then maybe it's a mistake in our times when humans have a certain dignity and everything isn't about finding your hierarchical place in the universe. That was the caste system and the Buddha rejected it.

Spiritual individualism is to be avoided when it harms others. There are so many instances where the Buddha brings in the family to make sure things are right, that he's not out of disharmony with the larger society. He didn't want a family to stop giving money to a rival sect, he thought that would create disharmony. He thought about the welfare of others, not just putting his methods forward. There is a time and a place.

The "great I am" is not the spiritual endpoint, and when you steamroll a human being to get your imagined spiritual ends, that's a sign things have gone off the road, lost their way.

I'm very much into the spirit of the dialectic, every thesis has an antithesis, and the veracity of a statement is about the vector it takes in relation to other ideas, and the opposite idea also has some truth in it, often. Discussion is the life blood of the spiritual life. 

Fusty doctrine defense feels hollow, unliving. Breathe some life into the teachings. Whenever I heard a statement that feels changing, I am more interested to investigate and discuss. I like books that have the title like Why I am Not a Buddhist or What the Buddha Didn't Teach, I'll be interested when I get a chance to read those books. I think there is a place for challenging provocative statements. 

1987 classic I've never gotten around to until I found it today

 "in craving we also have a distorted view of the world, and in having a distorted view of the world we also crave."

from The Buddhist Path To Awakening by Rupert Gethin

A Handful of Leaves has an amazing library available on PDFs. With Sutta Central, there's no real need to buy a book, but I do like something I can put in my hand that doesn't require recharging.

Epistemic priority

"While, generally speaking, all human beings have similar minds and mental states, at the more subtle level we are all quite unique mental configurations. We are the only ones who can truly know our own mind, so we are the only ones who can truly know how to work with it."

Working With The Five Hindrances by Ajahn Thiradhammo

I saw this and liked it:

 

SN 24 5

 5. There’s No Meaning in Giving

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight. This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of air. The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes. Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive teaching it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death’?”

“Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”

“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’

What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“That which is seen, heard, thought, known, sought, and explored by the mind: is that permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would such a view arise?”

“No, sir.”

“When a noble disciple has given up doubt in these six cases, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”

(source)

Beware of Darkness

Beware of darkness by George Harrison has always held me since I heard a Concrete Blond version of it, and I traced it back to it's source. My stepfather might have had the George Harrison album but I didn't hear the original first. I'm open to different versions. I saw a Sheryl Crow and Brandi Carlile version this morning and the song continues to hold insights for me.

Maya in Buddhism is "pretense" or "deceit" that is identified as one of the twenty subsidiary unwholesome mental factors within the Mahayana Abhidharma teachings. Harrison was influenced by Hindu gurus but Buddhism is the universal religion that springs off of the ethnic religion of Hinduism. 

An ethnic religion is something you're born into: Hinduism and Judaism. A universal religion is something you can convert to: Buddhism and Christianity. Now the distinction isn't always clear cut. There's a Korean Christian church, and many vedanta teachers see it as universal. There are Jews for Jesus, combine Judaism and Christianity. Joyce can reject Christianity as an atheist, and write a book they teach in Catholic schools, because his whole mind couldn't just reject it. Religion is confusing and sneaky. The Abrahamic religions make you think god is at the center, but there are not theistic religions such as Buddhism and Taoism. There are even christian non-theistic versions. 

"Beware of greedy leaders. They take you where you should not go." I also think Trump is a "soft shoe shuffler" of sorts.

But my revelation today made me think about why I love this song. Fans of Ted Lasso will say a kind of relentless self help and optimism is essential to success, but I would argue that a dialectical approach is what is needed. Too much optimism misses out, is wasteful, but gets more done. Pessimism isn't sustainable either, doesn't get much done. What needs to get done?

We are facing a time when optimism and being positive can't erase insurrections and cult like behaviors. The Marjorie Taylor Greens continue even after suggesting Jews shoot lasers from outer space, and harass AOC. Maybe partisanship is over for the near future, and the ruthless victories of what used to be an essential conservatism, have become toxic. 

News viewership has gone down, Biden hasn't attracted our attention with lurid actions designed to distract. He is just quietly leading as best he can. Seventy three million people voted for Donald Trump, after all we know or should know if we have good epistemic character. Eighty million people didn't vote, essentially letting other's voices count more.

It's becoming more popular to be aware of the effects of robber barons manipulation of the system.

When do you stop dialectical thinking and when do you double down on one side?

I think conservatism is essential to America, even though I am progressive. I bet if the progressives took over for a while, like Reagan and his minions have since 1980, I might be conservative. There are a lot of conservatives that were born of the progressivism from Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, they felt things had swung too far left. Conservatism is too successful, they are grasping for too much, and the leaning on populism is the lasp gasp. Things are shifting. Younger people see the dark side of capitalism.

Capitalism and communism are two poles. In America the roads are owned by everyone. Garbage is taken away for the collective good. Police and fire services are seen as essential services. That is as communist as it gets. 

In China and Russia they realized they needed the dynamism of capitalism, even if a few people got disgustingly rich. 

The growth of the federal government is huge. My grandparents saw the creation of a federal income tax that they promised to do away with, but didn't after WW2.

It's obvious now that universal health care would save lives. Utilitarianism is the idea that you preserve the most good for the most people. 

There are often unintended consequences to government control, like the criminality of prohibition. Infact, we are moving away from criminalizing drugs, and that is decreasing crime and the costs of crime. I saw an article today about a for profit prison complaining about not having enough prisoners. Certain institutions should just not be for profit: schools, infrastructure, prisons. The Margaret Thatcher experiment failed. Injecting business into institutions of the public trust just doesn't work. Look at what's going on in Texas with power. It's just wrong.

The 5 precepts guide us to avoid easy extremes of negative unhelpful harmful behaviors. It's pretty broad actually. 

Dialectics are the idea Hegel has developed. It's why one teaching for one person can be right for them and another teaching for another can seem contradictory.

Lyrics:

Watch out now

Take care, beware of falling swingers

Dropping all around you

The pain that often mingles

In your fingertips

Beware of darkness

Watch out now

Take care, beware the thoughts that linger

Winding up inside your head

The hopelessness around you

In the dead of night

Beware of sadness

It can hit you

It can hurt you

Make you sore and what is more

That is not what you are here for

Watch out now

Take care, beware of soft shoe shufflers

Dancing down the sidewalks

As each unconscious sufferer

Wanders aimlessly

Beware of Maya

Watch out now

Take care, beware of greedy leaders

They'll take you where you should not go

While weeping Atlas Cedars

They just want to grow, grow and grow

Beware of darkness (beware of darkness)