First Train in the Preliminaries: What Are Those?

B. Alan Wallace in *Buddhism with an Attitude* writes about the preliminaries of mind training. I have read a few books on lojong and none have really discussed this part, so I always thought of it as he puts it, “a code word for ‘skip this and get to the important stuff'” (16) in the back of my mind.

Initially, I thought he was off topic and filling space, but then realized that he was laying groundwork for those newer to Buddhadharma and for the Westerners who have never really learned the preliminaries.

So, now that I’ve heard a couple of teachings on this, I have to ask: How did none of the other teachers give clear instructions on the preliminaries? Or, not enough to really make it clear to a slow learner like myself?

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2NUNjVd
via IFTTT

Which Way is Wake the Hell Up?

“… they have renounced the world of appearance to find reality.” Dhammapada, vs. 96 (trans. Easwaran). This verse is talking about the “saint,” the person who has attained nirvana, who has broken the cycle of death and birth. Easwaran’s translation says, “They have completed their voyage; they have gone beyond sorrow.” (vs. 91).

This is where most who start on the path of the Buddha want to end up. This is the “goal” if there is one. However, for some, this is all. They are called arahants/arhats. This person is finished and will not come again in a new birth. For others, this is a step. They are called bodhisattvas. They will continue to return in an effort to help all sentient beings to reach enlightenment.

I don’t claim to fully understand why there is this distinction. I think if someone has achieved a certain level of awakeness, they would be more than willing to go on to be a bodhisattva. But, who am I and what do I know?
I’m sure this has something to do with the different schools. I don’t even want to get started on that bramble bush!

Tell me why every major belief system, including Buddhism (which can be practiced without the necessity of supernatural, metaphysical, and religious trappings; i.e. as a secular practice), has to split up into all these various and sometimes warring factions. I mean really! What the hell?

This doesn’t sound like a group of people renouncing the world of appearance. It sounds like a bunch of people fighting to have their way in a system in which the leader said, “Don’t take my word for it, practice for yourself and see if it is true.” These followers of the Buddha fight over the “correct” doctrine, practice, titles (the worst: I’m the super guru, who are you?), and dogmatic rituals. The Buddhadharma of the suttas/sutras seems so relaxed and free and the absolute opposite of much of what is called Buddhism today.

In my humble and not-very-educated opinion, Buddhist practitioners should try to focus on the basics, the foundations. The Noble Eightfold Path, for example. Or meditation or mindfulness.

I don’t want to disrespect any of the great teachers in any of the schools or traditions, but I have heard/read very few teachings on this central and foundational way to stop suffering. I have heard/read many teachings on bodhicitta, emptiness, and other deep (and, for some, confusing) topics. So, I appreciate when I come across a book or teaching on simple nuts and bolts things one can do to wake up and reach nirvana.

While I appreciate the depth, complexity, and beauty of the Mahayana schools,  the Theravada school (also complex and beautiful and covering deep topics in its own way) tends to focus on the simple, powerful, foundational basics that a person needs in order to grow as a Buddhist and to walk on the path toward enlightenment. Because of the Buddha’s statement, I try to take the parts that work for me and let the others go. So, it’s like my taste in music, eclectic.

Now, where am I going with this? Well, if you want to actually wake up and not just run around trying to figure out how to wake up, you might try the Noble Eightfold Path. I highly recommend the Dhammapada, something like Thich Nhat Hanh’s Awakening of the Heart: Essential Buddhist Sutras and Commentaries, and a lot of time practicing what you read, including mindfulness and meditating as much as you can.

That’s my two cents, which may not be worth even that…

 

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2IoEDUe
via IFTTT

The Revolutionary Buddha Way of Working Shit Out

In Meditation: How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind, Pema Chödrön writes:

It is the usual approach; you just try to solve the outer problem again and again and again. But the Buddha said something quite revolutionary, which most of us don’t really buy: if you work with your mind, you will alleviate all the suffering that seems to come from the outside.

 

It kinda sucks how much we do this, even after we start to realize how stupid it is. What was it that one yoga teacher said?

“Those who believe in existence as solid are stupid. Those who believe that everything is empty are even more stupid.” Saraha, qtd. in Chödrön, pg 137.

It’s not about being stupid. It’s about believing things to be as they appear to be. I can be thick at times and so I fall into this “stupidity” and have to re-learn the things I already know. Problems, like everything else, are impermanent. So, to try to stop that from the outside is somewhat futile, right?

According to the Buddha, the way to fix this shit is to work on the mind. When we see and think differently, our suffering which “seems to come from the outside” will be alleviated.

Dude! Why is it so hard to do what we know will stop the suffering?

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2FsxcJ7
via IFTTT

Is Buddhism religion?

Well, I love what Robert Thurman writes in chapter one of his translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead: “Rather than a founder of a religion, [the Buddha] was primarily a critic of religion. He critiqued its absolutist tendencies, its devaluation of human reason, and its legitimation of unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive structures of authority.”

The Buddha did not say, “This is the way it is.”

He said something like, “Here’s what works for me, try it for yourself.”

That was his critique of the absolutist tendencies. Also, having gone through several years of extreme ascetic practice after having lived the high life in the palace, he realized that there is a Middle Way. This reminds me of Sona Sutta. I’m including the relevant part of that here:

“Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?”

“Yes, lord.”

“And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?”

“No, lord.”

“And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?”

“No, lord.”

“And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned[1] to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?”

“Yes, lord.”

“In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune[2]the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme.”

 

While discussing meditation, it is somewhat applicable to the Middle Way idea.

As to religion’s “unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive structures of authority,” it seems that enough has been witnessed and written about that. I love that the Buddha, and many Buddhist leaders, encourage people to stay with their religion. Buddhism doesn’t require that a person leave their religion in order to practice. There are aspects that may conflict from the viewpoint of the other religion, but do they really conflict? I leave that to the practitioner of those religions to figure out; it’s not my place to make that call.

If you would like to read more of Thurman’s translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, you can get a copy, here.

Peace.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2Ee8ADq
via IFTTT