Thread: Anyone else here Buddhist?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Can't compassion for oneself come from within? Is it Avalokiteśvara or is it just you? Is that even a meaningful question?

I don't think it's a meaningful distinction. You're running up against emptiness here. There is no "you" that has compassion for yourself. There is just compassion. When it seems like there is a you that is being compassionate, you are compassion. If you happen to be cold at the time then you are compassion and cold. If in addition, you are hungry, then you are cold and hunger and compassion. When you get warm and full then what is the same? It's a different entity than it was then. So what is this "you" that is there to be "just you" and what is it that's Avalokiteśvara and not you?

Regardless the compassion is what makes the difference, the love. Not some god.

I think that compassion and love are over-rated. They occur as a natural extension of properly understood emtiness of self. That's not just a book talking either, that's direct experience. I haven't fed myself to a sick lioness yet but most people that know me in life know that I'm a very compassionate person when ideas aren't involved and that I'm mellowing fast on those.

The important part is to realize that you suffering is categorically the same as someone else suffering. I gave my blanket to somebody that didn't have one and was cold every single night until someone gave me a blanket (about a week). It naturally occurred in the moment because I would suffer significantly less from being cold than he would have. I can relax into discomfort and minimize suffering. So there was no thought of "I should do this" or regret after it happened. I simply got up and offered the blanket because it minimized suffering.

So shooting for compassion is maybe missing the point. The point is to minimize suffering. We can all agree about that. From there contemplation of emptiness leads to "compassion" or whatever but it's still essentially just the selfish drive to minimize suffering. There's just no self left to hog the benefits.

Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

How does that relate to Buddhism?

The Siddhartha in the novel is not related to the Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), but he exists in the same time as him, and the two cross paths in the book. Even though they are unrelated, the novel implies that the Buddha exists everywhere and in everyone and is merely a representation of the enlightenment available to anyone, at any moment.

...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I think that compassion and love are over-rated.

Sure, gods and rituals are too. My point was that it's the change in perspective that's important, not Avalokitesvara.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Sure, gods and rituals are too. My point was that it's the change in perspective that's important, not Avalokitesvara.

My point was that it's the change in perspective that's important, not not Avalokitesvara.

So is Avalokitesvara essential? Isn't possible be compassionate without knowing a thing about him?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So is Avalokitesvara essential? Isn't possible be compassionate without knowing a thing about him?

No, Avolokitesvara is in no way essential.

What is essential is having as many methods as possible for people to overcome suffering. Avalokitesvara is one such method. Meditation doesn't suit everyone. Prayer suits some people better and yoga suits yet other possibly overlapping groups of people better still. These things can change over time. The fact that you currently prefer one method (i.e. set of metaphysical assumptions) with which to overcome suffering is no reason to claim that other methods (i.e. sets of metaphysical assumptions) are some how less suited to the task.

Originally Posted by Emecom

I try to practice Buddhism but I wouldn't really classify myself as belonging to a branch (mostly because I don't really know what they are or the differences) I mostly just believe in the basic Buddhist principles. But I have never sought Buddha in a dream, tho I may now try

This

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No, Avolokitesvara is in no way essential.

What is essential is having as many methods as possible for people to overcome suffering. Avalokitesvara is one such method. Meditation doesn't suit everyone. Prayer suits some people better and yoga suits yet other possibly overlapping groups of people better still. These things can change over time. The fact that you currently prefer one method (i.e. set of metaphysical assumptions) with which to overcome suffering is no reason to claim that other methods (i.e. sets of metaphysical assumptions) are some how less suited to the task.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/boy-di...dicine-125904/
I'll resist the urge to write a long winded response about how prayer actually causes suffering(dependency) in many cases.

Only when used in desperation.

Gratitude is a muscle. It must be exercised for your life to get richer. Stop being a victim. Then your prayers will start working.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/boy-di...dicine-125904/
I'll resist the urge to write a long winded response about how prayer actually causes suffering(dependency) in many cases.

This is a predictable strawman.

I never said to pray to Avolokitesvara for health. I said that s/he is as real as a tree as can be verified by honestly praying to her/him. I cited 'feeling the compassion of all the Buddhas" as the effect of doing such. S/he is also as real as the medicine/operation/what-have-you that could have saved the boy's life. The effect of prayer is strongly affected by what is being prayed for, what the motivation for prayer is and the manner in which subsequent events are interpreted. If the cited effect of taking the medicine was fixing the disease from which the boy was suffering, then that would clearly have been the move to make.

How does prayer lead to dependency? I think that if you carefully examine this assertion you will find that it is always something else that actually leads to the dependency. Prayer is a tool to be used in the same way as medicine, meditation, science or yoga. Perhaps the 'something else' is picking the wrong tool for the job? Perhaps that's motivated by attachment to a particular world view? Are you demonstrating attachment to a particular world view here? Are you allowing your preference for one way of interpreting sensations (i.e. personally constructing your own 'reality') to interfere with your ability to accept tools that are rooted in another method?

What's really going on here?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is a predictable strawman.

I never said to pray to Avolokitesvara for health. I said that s/he is as real as a tree as can be verified by honestly praying to her/him. I cited 'feeling the compassion of all the Buddhas" as the effect of doing such. S/he is also as real as the medicine/operation/what-have-you that could have saved the boy's life. The effect of prayer is strongly affected by what is being prayed for, what the motivation for prayer is and the manner in which subsequent events are interpreted. If the cited effect of taking the medicine was fixing the disease from which the boy was suffering, then that would clearly have been the move to make.

How does prayer lead to dependency? I think that if you carefully examine this assertion you will find that it is always something else that actually leads to the dependency. Prayer is a tool to be used in the same way as medicine, meditation, science or yoga. Perhaps the 'something else' is picking the wrong tool for the job? Perhaps that's motivated by attachment to a particular world view? Are you demonstrating attachment to a particular world view here? Are you allowing your preference for one way of interpreting sensations (i.e. personally constructing your own 'reality') to interfere with your ability to accept tools that are rooted in another method?

What's really going on here?

I was just talking about prayer generally. In your first post you were obviously talking about Avalokitesvara but in the second one it seemed you were just talking about prayer in general, including christian prayer etc.

With regards to dependency I'm talking about looking to a messiah or God or guru for your salvation or enlightenment(who are you praying to?). Do I need to elaborate? I'm assuming your quite aware of how this works. It is extraordinarily common.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I was just talking about prayer generally. In your first post you were obviously talking about Avalokitesvara but in the second one it seemed you were just talking about prayer in general, including christian prayer etc.

Sure. Avolokitesvara is just an example. Substitute with Jesus if you want. Jesus wasn't just good, he was good enough. He would make a fine example.

With regards to dependency I'm talking about looking to a messiah or God or guru for your salvation or enlightenment(who are you praying to?). Do I need to elaborate? I'm assuming your quite aware of how this works. It is extraordinarily common.

This was really addressed in my last post. The question is not so much one of who one is praying to as it is one of who is doing the praying. If you just meditate on emptiness then it should really all be clear...

If there is a car coming at me, I do not want to feel the love of my father that is in heaven, I want to get out of the way of the car. Hence prayer would probably be the wrong tool. Walking or running might be a good move. If there was some diety that you knew of and had direct experience with that could consistantly and rapidly make you levitate over the car, that would be fine too.

If I want to free myself from the defilements of greed, hatred and delusion, then I don't want to just feel Jesus's love. I want to find them within myself and uproot them. If there was a diety to do it for me, that would be awesome too. I don't know of such a diety.

If, in going to uproot the three defilements, I run across thoughts such as "I'm not worth it" or "I can't do it" or "I don't deserve it", then feeling the love of Jesus, Avolokitesvara, or some other diety, bodhisattva, angel or guru could very well help me to reject identification with such thoughts and just let them pass as transient phenomena.

See what I'm saying? Reality is the thusness of here and now and that's where progress happens. In the here and now of direct experience Jesus is no more or less a figment of the imagination than the chair that you are sitting on or the imagination that is doing the imagining. Sit and feel pressure. Pray and feel love and wisdom. I would no more try to kill bacteria with love and wisdom than I would try to develop my compassion with antibiotics.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Only when used in desperation.

Gratitude is a muscle. It must be exercised for your life to get richer. Stop being a victim. Then your prayers will start working.

That's hilarious coming from you. I got a good chuckle.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If, in going to uproot the three defilements, I run across thoughts such as "I'm not worth it" or "I can't do it" or "I don't deserve it", then feeling the love of Jesus, Avolokitesvara, or some other diety, bodhisattva, angel or guru could very well help me to reject identification with such thoughts and just let them pass as transient phenomena.

Maybe you use "prayer"(this doesn't really sound like prayer to me) to help you see the emptiness of things, but that's not what most people use it for. Do you disagree?

If you can use prayer to help you find wisdom and compassion then go for it, but it isn't needed. I think there are much more effective methods out there.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Buddhism is tough to pin down because it differs a lot from region to region (let alone how mangled it got by Westerners in the 20th century). Some elements of Buddhism (such as rebirth) are equally faith-based and superstitious as aspects of other religions. Things start really getting trippy in Buddhist cosmology.



You're on a roll.

buddhist cosmology aside, if you get passed the misinterpretation and the literalism (and there is a fair bit of that) of some of the metaphor and really sink your teeth into what the teachings are trying to reveal to people about the nature of mind and the nature of being, it makes an alarming amount of sense. like any religion, many people project what they already are expecting to hear or what they want to hear onto the teachings. this is the case with buddhism as well. but i maintain that since one of the main goals of the practice is to see things for exactly what they are, people who make the hell realms and such things out to be literal places beyond this world and not aspect of our own
psychology, etc. etc., have completely missed the point.

Originally Posted by tommo

Rebirth, and all the other "trippy shit, for that matter, only emerged after Buddhism merged with Hinduism though.

The actual fundamentals of Buddhism say nothing of anything except how to achieve Nirvana.

and may i just point out, buddhism emerged from hinduism. the trippy shit has been there the whole time.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I dunno, I just don't experience any of this stuff as relating to gods. Can't compassion for oneself come from within? Is it Avalokiteśvara or is it just you? Is that even a meaningful question? Regardless the compassion is what makes the difference, the love. Not some god.

baby, avalokitesvara IS you. all those buddhas, historical, celestial, primordial, paleolithic- are you. so it does come from within, in the same way it comes from within avalokitesvara. and we're not just talking about compassion for oneself, because true compassion for yourself is not possible if it doesn't encompass all beings. i believe this to be true from firsthand experience. for every being i cannot find compassion for, there is a hole in me, and in my compassion and love for myself. i see this as solidly as i see my keyboard. the only way i can heal that is through accepting completely and having complete compassion for those beings.

The Magician would say Gods are symbols which help evoke a greater ability to accomplish the task. It is much easier to project our intention through the help of a deity that reflects the power needed for that intention rather than to take on that responsibility with our own humble forms.

sure... as long as the magician, as you put it, recognizes that the symbols are tools of his/her own making.

That defeats the purpose of utilizing the gods in the first place. If I want to move water, I don't move it myself, I call on Poseidon to move it. If I call on a hypothetical Poseidon, I won't accomplish anything more than what I believe I am capable of. However, if I call on the real Poseidon, I can accomplish anything that I believe Poseidon is capable of.

But I do understand that the power of Poseidon would emerge from within, and I would do well not to confuse the real master.

Originally Posted by thespiz

and may i just point out, buddhism emerged from hinduism. the trippy shit has been there the whole time.

Already pointed out and clarified. Better luck next time.

haha just making sure.