Ogyen wrote:What would Buddhism look like without the -ism?
A bit like orgasm without the -asm I suppose.
gregkavarnos wrote:I liken meditation sessions to martial arts classes (being a martial arts teacher): the stuff you "learn" or do during the sessions and classes is not for the benefit of the practice (ie my practice is going well) itself, but for application afterwards in the "real world" when you really need it. One does not learn martial arts so they can execute a perfect technique in class but so that, when attacked, one can defend themselves. One does not meditate in order to maintain perfect posture and composure during the session, they meditate so that in the midst of an emotional tornado (samsara) they can manage to maintain mindfulness and deal "correctly" with the situations/phenomena that arise.
I call myself a Buddhist because the Buddhist practices that have been taught to me and I practice allow me to be capable (most of the time) of maintaining my mindfulness exactly when it is really needed. I call myself Buddhist because I acknowledge that the practices, the sangha and the Buddha provide me with the fertile ground, water and sunlight for my seeds (my enlightened nature) to grow and blossom.
LastLegend wrote:If people are really free from attachment inside out, then whatever they do in every moment is practicing Dharma, Buddha's teachings. Buddha does not worry about those people. Buddha worries about those abandoning the ism as in abandoning the precepts, conducts, teachings, rafts, tools, etc before they are free from attachment. Free from attachment here does not mean necessarily mean enlightenment, but it means the mind (inside) no long attached to what it sees, touches, smells, tastes, hears.
Buddha played the role of a teacher and he showed how good a teacher he was through his actions, how he carried himself. His followers should strive to do the same in our actions of body, speech, and mind. That's the best way we can teach others the teachings of Buddha. We have to be the example. When others look at us, must see the good and positive sides that we are presenting and Buddha had always presented that. In Chinese Buddhist literature, there was a mad monk who ate dog meat, drank a lot of alcohol, and did not act like an ordained monk at all. This mad monk was actually a Bodhisattva and warranted to do so. Should we learn from his example? In other words, should we break all precepts and moral conducts just because everything is empty? I mean if we are really empty inside out and like a Bodhisattva or at least free from attachment, then yes. Enlightened masters such as Chan/Zen masters who broke a precept or moral conduct only to demonstrate to their students their teachings. But other times, these masters have carried themselves just like how Buddha carried himself.
Buddha's concern is that we might lead ourselves to further suffering without knowing it. So I find it is important for beginners like myself to stick to precepts and moral conducts. I have often asked myself honestly if what I am doing is really helping me. I have come to understand that I often rationalize my attachment to things that I am doing, want to do, or have done. And I am working on that.
Thanks for reading my parroting words.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 5 guests