Jawnie

Its entry into the west marked a turning point and a 'reset' for Buddhism outside of Asian.

Along with three elected American Buddhist House of Representatives, the election of America's first Buddhist senator this week, certainly may lead to an integration of Buddhism with western culture in ways greater than we might think.

Quote:

Maizie Hirona who will be the nation’s first Buddhist senator when the new Congress convenes in January.

Hirono, who is also the first Asian-American woman elected to the Senate, was one of three Buddhists in the House of Representatives.

The other two, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. and Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii, both won re-election on Tuesday.

I agree Rockysdt. Again, in Tibetan Buddhist circles, things are really turning toward America. I'm here in Thailand and i find myself longing to be back in the US because there are lots of Tibetan teachers there but very few in Thailand. The relative freedom of worship and religion in the US is a huge magnet for Tibetans since not only can they practice Buddhism unhindered, they can resettle and become citizens. They can't even do that in India, their status in India is as refugees and they face restrictions on movement, property ownership, employment, education, etc.

I don't know why no one is interested in this topic. In any case, Buddhism continues to grow and evolve in the west (I'm from the US). With regard to the Thai Buddhist perspective, because Thai Buddhism is Theravadin, ie, not really socially active, it will always have a somewhat subdued presence in the west. As well, Thai Buddhism is far from the only form of Buddhism taking root there. I refer specifically to the Tibetan form which is growing and thriving in the US, Europe, and Latin America. I think it is the 'activism' of Tibetan Buddhism, ie, its ceremonies and rituals followers are encourage to take up, often in large groups together. Also, there are already a number of ordained American lamas and even a few American or western tulkus (incarnated lamas). Of course, we can't forget HH Dalai Lama, who has been the international face for Tibetans for over 50 years.

So, the future of Buddhism in the west hardly lies with Thai or Theravadin Buddhists alone. It has already been one full generation of Buddhism coming to the west. And by this I mean that, again, the Tibetan style is the most prominent. Its entry into the west marked a turning point and a 'reset' for Buddhism outside of Asian.

Compassion is a fundemantel and natural exp<b></b>ression of the enlightened mind. This is why Mahayana and Vajrayana emphasize it so much. One must and will eventually experience a natural state of compassion for all sentient beings. "So why wait?" they ask - start now to express your compassionate nature.

I view compassion as a double edged sword.

When one acts compassionately, their act not only uplifts the other, one finds oneself uplifted.

The compassionate hearted find themselves free from the rigidity and closed mindedness indifference brings.

To those practicing awareness, freedom from rigidity and closed mindedness banishes the short breath and brings a state, both spacious and open.

A state ripe for contemplation of breath, body, mind, feelings, and the external.

Each of us appear to align with specific paths, be they Mahayana, Vajrayana, Theravada, Zen and others, or open to all.

I wonder what causes us to identify with one over the others?

Might such alignments be influenced by Kharma and consequently Vipaka?

Is alignment a form of attachment?

The reason the Buddha taught different paths is stated over and over again in Mahayana teachings: the Buddha taught many different paths and methods to account for, and to accord with, the varieties of capabilities of beings. Not all times, situations, and beings are best suited or inclined the Theravadin approach. The Buddha taught other methods and paths for those people. Theravadins generally deny the Buddha taught anything beyond their Theravadin view, however.

Regarding compassion, a Theravadin practitioner once said to me, in denying any form of Buddhism beyond Theravadin exists, that compassionate action as an 'attachment' and hence a sin in Buddhism...that practitioners are to be detached and uninvolved with worldly affairs. However, beyond Theravada, generating the compassionate mind is an 'escalating requirement' in that full and complete enlightenment is not possible without possessing complete and unbounded compassion for all sentient beings. We don't find this in the Theravada.

Hahaha.....great.

ABSOLUTELY &lt;deleted&gt;' GREAT.

Love it!!!

In the original post, it is asked, "Do we really believe we can awaken?.

Whilst I do enjoy reading many of the thoughtful posts here, and don't wish to distract from anything already posted, I think mentioning Love is not without merit.

Sorry for any confusion caused.

I have heard of "Spontaneous Awakening" (Awakening without practice) taking place but don't know of anyone who has experienced it, or whether it is fiction.

The usual method, the Eightfold Path, does involve a type of Love.

More specifically:

• Metta: loving kindness/boundless friendliness,
  
• Karuna: compassion/to feel anothers pain as if it was yours,
  
• Mudita: sympathetic joy, &
  
• Upekkha: equanimity.
  

Can I ask?

Is it your feeling that there must be some level of Love for Awakening to take place?

Are you uncertain as to whether we can "Awaken"?

Compassion is a fundemantel and natural expression of the enlightened mind. This is why Mahayana and Vajrayana emphasize it so much. One must and will eventually experience a natural state of compassion for all sentient beings. "So why wait?" they ask - start now to express your compassionate nature.

Merit is a huge topic in Buddhism. If you are in Thailand, you see Thais making offerings all the time. If you travel to other Buddhist countries, you will see the same. (Not sure about what is going in Japan according to the OP).

In the Tibetan tradition, there are two main goals to be accomplish: generating merit and wisdom. Wisdom through study and practice, merit through action and pratice. Most Tibetan style practices are for the purpose of creating merit, in part. The act of undertaking any Buddhist practice generates merit for the practitioner. I don't know about Theravada Buddhism, but in Mahayana and Vajrayana, the merit generated through ritual and practice is always dedicated to others. I'd have to look through my sources again, but I recall that one indicated merit is actually a separate dharma, a "construct" which can be increased or diminished. It's sort of like creating positive mental habits for the future. Contrary to FabianFred, it is considered somewhat of an "account", one accumulates it - one simply should not be attached to it, should always try to increase it, and should always give it away.

Well, yes, westerners from democracies understand that everyone has the right to express their opinion and to be involved. It's when those westerners express the opinion in support of military coups to remove the democratically elected Thai government that things start sounding idiotic.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

What is idiotic is someone who supports Thaksin and the reds, lecturing someone else, anyone else, about the importance of democracy.

Just because someone does not like the idea of a coup does not automatically make them a Thaksin or red supporter. I can see all the crap which this Government is doing, but having a coup will not solve the problem - it fact it will probably make it worse.

All the coup supporter, support it for 2 reasons:

1) They don't see any other way to restore democracy and get rid of the worst corruption (I think no one would complain at the usual 10 % corruption)

2) They don't believe that any military government could be worse than this Thaksin government.

And actually the last coup supports this ideas. It was the cleanest and best government since 10 years. Just their reforms were too weak to make an impact. A complete reorganization of the police, courts and structur of laws. But it was still the right way.

Nonsense...the last coup only means that corrupt individuals, corporations, and Army generals didn't like the government the people elected. The MOST, and only, democratic path is to allow the elected government to complete its term and let the people decide again. It is not the role or proper place for a small group of corporate interests and Army generals to determine what is best for the people when the people decided already. Period.

I repeat my usual refrain about the expats who come to Thailand from western democracies and sit on the sidelines in Thailand, cheering on undemocratic military coups removing an elected government. Such hypocrits....

Although soldiers have the civil right to take part in a political rally, it is considered a violation of military discipline and their superiors' orders if they join political events.

Which one is it then?

Read!

Any person has the CIVIL right to take part in a politial rally, also a soldier.

However, being a soldier, there are other rules and laws governing your behaviour, in or out of uniform.

Hence why it is considred a breach of military discipline AND orders from a superior.

Yes...what about off-duty soldiers? No political rights?

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

More specifically "how could he have thoughts that beings could not understand", or that "teaching would not be of value", or "that he would need time to digest this", when clearly they could, particularly in light of his powers 1 - 10?

That this occurred is a dilemma, if it is that, for you to solve unless you think the Buddha was not perfectly enlightened or that enlightenment is incomplete.

Just more hot air.

Yes, but without all the nasty hydro carbons and whatnot.

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness. It emphasizes his being a sammasambuddha rather than a paccekabuddha (who doesn't have the ability to teach).

This opens up a huge can of worms.

BuddhaDasa Bhikkhu placed special emphasis on the purity and security of Theravadan Buddhism.

Quote: Being the only teaching which succeeds in preserving the ancient pure Buddhism by admitting only the additional which enhances the strictness of the original while being against the revoking, changing, or altering of the original even in the least form. (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 5).

"O Bihikkus, so long as Bikkhus do not abrogate that which is established, do not introduce that which is not introduced, and observe in good term those matters well established, so long the Sangha may be expected not to decline, but to prosper." (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 6).

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

If they have, could the Canon be full of such embellishments/misinterpretations?

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

Unlimited, all knowing, supreme, infinite in power.

A state which is permanent and unconditioned.

In terms of hesitation towards teaching, why would such a mind need time to decide whether to be compassionate enough to teach the Dharma?

Why did the Buddha have to think about it?

Doesn't what appears to be the need for a thinking process to take place indicate a state (Awakening), as powerful as it is, not as omnipotent as many of us believe, but rather the pinnacle of the state the human can aspire to?

The Buddha was perfect, with perfect knowledge. Everything he did proceeded from this perfect knowledge. He was also selfless with complete confidence. Whatever he did was for us, not him. Any hesitation was not doubt on his part but an illustration to us for how difficult and subtle the knowledge he realized is.

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

I don't speak much Thai but I know numbers and when I hear him talking nine times out of ten its about money. I realise we need it for various necessities, but we also need toilet paper and we don't obsess over that. Its a shame, I know, and it gives those who dislike Buddhism ammunition. There are many decent monks who focus on Dhamma though and show obvious detachment from material aquisitions. I guess the old saying is true, you cannot serve God and Mammon.

Number 1, any monk talking about material wealth in anything other than a negative material fashion, isn't a monk.

Number 2, no one needs toilet paper.

Number 3, The words Buddhism and ammunition should not be used in the same sentence, ever.

Number 4. Mammon, I was tempted to say good god, but I'll tone it down to good grief.

1, maybe in a detached fashion. Bowl and robes are still material.

2. I use toilet paper to clean up the puppy's little messages. I don't own the dog, I'm raising it for someone else.

3; Never say never. Execpt when saying never say never. Ammunition was used on monks in Burma and pretty liberally in Tibet. Bullets are just bullets, intent is the real weapon.

4- its just a saying. How about; one cannot pursue realisation and profit simultaneously.

What if your pursuit of profit is solely to benefit the Dharma or other beings? Like, to build temples, support the Sangha, build hospitals, feed people, etc.? I think it's entirely possible to pursue profit and realization at the same time. It depends on the motivation.

The Buddhas and most other masters have usually said the enlightened state can't be described or defined so we should probably stop trying too, also. The Buddha did not need to practice because he had attained the deathless, wishless state of original Buddha nature where all experience is pure and there are no defilements, separate beings, real appearances, etc. To say that the Buddha needed to continue to practice misses the essential point that practice is only for those who have not yet regained the original Buddha nature.

It is as the Buddha said, namely, that he thought what he attained was too subtle and difficult for beings to understand. As it says, this was the reason for his hesitation at the beginning.

It all depends on motivation, the motivation of the monk. What is the motiviation for getting out there and meeting people, for talking about money, for recieving alms, etc.? Is it simply a distraction or following an attachment? Or is it from compassion and the genuine concern for others and for dharma practice? Whether these things are harmful or beneficial relies on the motivation of the monk.

I love it when all the expats rant in favor of a military coup in Thailand - something unthinkable and never happens in their home countries. Such hypocrits!

yes but I would also prefer a military coup in some western country. Actually I think it would be the duty of the military if the government wants to start a war.

Which western country comes to mind? Militaries fight wars, and should stick to that.

in a country where the laws of the land, constitution, charter, courts, police etc fail to stamp out corruption then the military is there to pull it all back into line, I'm amazed this debacle has been allowed to continue for so long, as I said on another thread - in my minds eye I see hundreds of reds and PT Mp's in a bank vault surrounded with shelves of cash and they're stuffing it into their pockets until they can hold no more while duping the poor people of this country into thinking they are a government with only the peoples interest at heart - TS has the biggest pockets

This is utter nonsense. You can't prove any of this. Do you have one shred of a fact or actual evidence? Utter nonsense.

So I take it that this rally is not in support of reconcilliation.....?

So, the answer is: no, we can't all just get along. Pathetic.

Do it Thai style. Get her as a trophy and add a mia noi. Has worked for hundreds of years.

Some of us just aren't 'wired' for that, strange as it may seem to you. It's not always the answer and rarely solves anything.

I think you should keep going exactly the way you are, while negotiating some 'give and take' on all issues, not just sex. By give and take, I mean identifying the cultural differences and the personal differences - they are not the same.

As to sex, at face value right now, you two don't seem to be sexually compatible regarding frequency. If that is truly the case, it will cause major issues as time goes by. Btw, average couples do NOT have sexy 3-4 times a week...it's far less than that. If you think she's going to change from 3 times a month to 3 times a week after marriage, you are dreaming.

Even if you think sex is an important part of a relationship, maybe she doesn't and the fact that you love her changes none of that. I don't think you are seeing this clearly and that you are expecting her to change toward what you want.

Question: can you live with sex 3-4 times a month? If the answer is no, or even a qualified no, you need to think about moving on regardless of your feelings. For example, I'm an American, healthy, balanced, etc., and sex 3-4 times a month with the woman I love would be, and always has been.....beautiful.

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.

Was the teacher Vajrayana?

Yes.

... but others seem to have their ego totally wrapped up in their teachings and their comments here. And it shines right through in this forum.

Now I don't mean to attack anybody and I respect your efforts but there is an irony to that and it's as if a friend should really let you know.

You've not attacked anybody specifically, Beb, but you've made a blanket criticism. This doesn't help me much if you don't provide any examples of the ego-absorbed behaviour you see on the forum. If, "as a friend", you're letting some of us know something, can you give an example or two, so we know what it is?

Having one's "ego totally wrapped up in their teachings", etc. can be interpreted in different ways, can't it? A Buddhist fanatic? One who sees things from only one perspective. One who takes excessive pride in being Buddhist? One whose identity is exclusively bound up with one's religion? One who responds aggressively?

I would like to see some examples, or a clearer explanation of what you mean. After all, you're the one sitting in judgement.

I get your point but I don't want to cite specific examples because I don't want to point anybody out for criticism. That's not my purpose. My statement was not meant to be a blanket criticism as much as an observation on the differences in comments as I see them. I guess you could say it was a blanket-just-over-the-legs criticism.

I think that others probably recognize what I'm talking about, possibly even some of you that are buddhist.

I guess I would say that there is a similarity to some of my Christian friends and family who seem more focused on projecting their beliefs than living them.

It really depends on your perspectice regarding all of this. A long time ago, a teacher explained the difference between Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana like this. The Hinayana treats the emotions as though they are weeds to be eradicate as each one arises. The Mahayana sees each emotion as a plant, also, each of which is used to produce medicine for healing sickness and disease, while in the Vajrayana, emotions are seen as poisons which are ravenously eaten by a peacock, digested, and transformed into beautiful tail feathers.