全 32 件のコメント

[–]asrava 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

A Theravadin will emphasize Faith.

The Zen Practice relies on Doubt as springboard for investigation.

From Buddhism Dict (Use guest at login prompt)

The 'critical phrase,' 'principal theme,' of the larger gong'an/kōan/gongan exchange. The classic example is the longer gong'an, "A monk asked Zhaozhou 趙州, 'Does a dog have buddha-nature 佛性, or not?' Zhaozhou answered, 'It doesn't have it (wu/mu/mu 無)' " (more commonly translated as 'no' ). 〔無門關 T 2005.48.292c23〕 The gong'an is the whole exchange, the huatou/watō/hwadu is the word wu/mu/mu. The hwadu is the focus of a sustained investigation, via a more discursive examination of the question, "Why did Zhaozhou say a dog doesn't have the buddha-nature when the answer clearly should be that it does?," which is called 'investigation of the meaning;' this investigation helps to generate questioning or 'doubt,' which is the force that drives this type of practice forward. As that investigation matures, it changes into a nondiscursive attention to just the word 'no' itself, which is called 'investigation of the word' 看話 (K. ganhwa) because the meditator's attention is then thoroughly absorbed in this ' sensation of doubt.' This type of investigation is said to be nonconceptual and places the meditation at the 'access to realization,' viz. 'sudden awakening.' The most sustained treatment of the use of hwadu in Chan/Zen/Seon meditation appears in the Korean tradition and 'Keyword Meditation' (ganhwa Seon 看話禪) remains the principal type of meditation practiced in contemporary Korean Buddhism.


When do you start doubting someone? Only if someone holds 'X' and 'not X' as true at the same time or if someone does 'X' and 'not X' at the same time.

I am partial to Theravada / Pali Canon myself. Here is a good example how doubt can be used for furthering understanding.

For example, For example, you might conclude from reading one sutta [Sn 4.1] that your practice should be to avoid all desires. But upon reading another [SN 51.15], you learn that desire itself is a necessary factor of the path


skeptical & I think it's a good quality to have

The Buddhist practice -- be it Zen or Mahayana or Theravada -- is to ultimately let go of "identity views". Sticking to an identity, makes you less flexible. A True Buddhist is one who neither values doubt or faith. He is a one who acts appropriately.

So, instead of asking "Is it True" or "Is it False", ask "Is it appropriate?" and "When is it appropriate?"


A true skeptic cannot doubt himself. i.e., he has to confidence in his own judgement.

A true follower of Dharma should cultivate an earnest sense of doubt so that his investigation his fruitful and his faith strengthens rather than withers away.


The practice of Dhamma is to convert Faith in (or Doubt about) Dhamma in to Confidence in Dhamma.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

There are things I have a hard time taking by faith. Like rebirth or some of the other more supernatural claims in Buddhism. But Buddhism still really appeals to me, and meditation without Buddhism isn't enough.

[–]asrava 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Like rebirth or some of the other more supernatural claims in Buddhism.

The question that you have to ask is not

"What Buddhists believe in?"

but rather

"What is that one thing that if Buddhists stop believing in will they cease to be Buddhists?"

Asking such questions will help you think clearly.


If you want to ask what Buddha taught you shouldn't go with the opinion of a Random Joe on the internet or in your neighbourhood. You should instead ask The Buddha himself. This is what he says:

Dhammapada 183: The non-doing of any evil, the performance of what's skillful, the cleansing of one's own mind: this is the teaching of the Awakened.

Where is rebirth here?


This is what Buddha says everyone should hold as true:

Dhammapada: (1) Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. (2) Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

Where is rebirth here?


When a Buddhist takes refuge, it is essentially an act of taking refuge in the doctrine of karma: It's an act of submission in that one is committed to living in line with the principle that actions based on skillful intentions lead to happiness, while actions based on unskillful intentions lead to suffering; it's an act of claiming protection in that, by following the teaching, one hopes to avoid the misfortunes that bad karma engenders. To take refuge in this way ultimately means to take refuge in the quality of our own intentions, for that's where the essence of karma lies.

Where is rebirth here?


This is what Buddhists use as a framework for leading their lives: The Four Noble Truths Noble Eightfold Path.

Where is rebirth here?

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thanks for the reply. What do you personally think about rebirth?

[–]asrava 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

What do you personally think about rebirth?

I really don't think about it. I also stay away from discussions that talk about it.

Personally, The Four Noble Truth and Eightfold Path gives a nice and very simple framework for thinking things through.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Mind if I ask what school you belong too? I'm just curious. I don't really belong to one yet. I still don't know what one is for me so I'm just meditating in the meantime.

[–]_engaged_to_smile_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Rebirth doesn't require faith, just some observation.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you explain?

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Couldn't a Christian say the same about say, the Holy Spirit?

[–]urbanzennistJackie Ch'an Buddhism 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Zen because I hear they strike down "sacred cows" so-to-speak and are more skeptical of teachers and things they are told. I think it's a good quality to have. Though I heard they reject scriptures and I also don't fully understand the differences between Mahayana and Theraveda.

Note that though zen emphasizes scriptures less than personal realization, most serious zen practitioners DO study the scriptures and derive wisdom from it. Some (even some of the most famous zen practitioners such as Dogen) even believe in the cosmology. It is just that zen provides much more latitude in departing from "hearsay" and "study" and depends more on personal realization than belief.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thai Forest seems to put an emphasis on meditation as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[–]urbanzennistJackie Ch'an Buddhism 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not very familiar with the Thai Forest tradition, actually. Zen does emphasize meditation, but I'm not sure if it does so more or less than other Buddhist sects (although the methods of meditation are different. Compare Dogen's brief instructions on zazen in the Fukanzazengi to other traditions such as Vipassanā, or various mantra meditations for a point of reference). The true thing that sets zen apart is the focus on individual realization (directly realizing the four noble truths/the benefits of the eightfold path from experience), over following the instructions of a text, or even seeking meditative experiences such as the jhānas as markers of progress. Individual realization and insight isn't a meditative experience as much as it is a paradigm shift, as it were, on how the practitioner views the world. One can get this from the instruction of a master, during meditation, or even while reading a sutra/sutta (despite claiming Ch'an as my lineage, I love to read, so I read many sutras). What distinguishes realization in my opinion, is a change in the way of looking at, and/or experiencing life that persists, whether in meditation, or in daily life.

While some schools are very meditative (Sōtō zen), others focus more on koans (Rinzai), which are "riddles" meant to be contemplated for the sake of having an insight. Although there is a difference in focus neither sect rejects the other's method as invalid, despite popular academic opinions otherwise (in fact, Dogen, founder of Sōtō zen compiled his own collection of koans, the Shinji Shobogenzo, shortly after returning from a pilgrimage to China to study in the Ch'an lineage, which is, in many ways, the direct precursor to what is today called "zen").

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yea, I think you found them. I think it's Soto Zen and Thai Forest.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you know why exactly? I heard this from other sources but I was never explained why it's so. And why Soto Zen compared to other Zen schools and why's it seem so different from other Mahayana schools? What makes Thai Forest so different from other Theravada schools?

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I'm a bit less familiar with Thai Forest. I've never actually met a teacher from that tradition. But from what I gather, Thai Forest is a reform movement that broke away from the mainstream Theravada tradition. I believe most mainstream Thai Theravadins at the time (mid 1800s?) believed that it was impossible to attain nirvana in this age. So naturally, their reform movement would be a bit skeptical of the mainstream.

Soto Zen I'm more familiar with. I've studied and practiced with about a dozen teachers from that tradition. They ran the gamut from full belief in sutras, to uncertainty, to near flat out rejection of some fundamental tenets like rebirth and karma. Now, Zen in general de-emphasizes scriptures, it's not just Soto.

My speculation is that one teacher had a profound impact on English speaking Soto - Gudo Wafu Nishijima. Now, Nishijimas translation of the Shobogenzo was pretty much considered as the definitive translation for some time, so I think he had a strong impact on English speaking Soto Zen. Also, Nishijima basically taught that literally rebirth isn't true. So that's my best guess about that one.

[–]grass_skirtacademic 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Zen because I hear they strike down "sacred cows" so-to-speak and are more skeptical of teachers and things they are told.

In Zen you kind of have to prove yourself before you do such things. The student is not skeptical of the teacher. It is the one who has already mastered what he was taught who has earned the right to break the rules.

By that stage, he/she would be proceed with a confidence informed by realisation, and not cautiously by means of an evaluating skepticism.

[–]asrava 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is the one who has already mastered what he was taught who has earned the right to break the rules.

A good teacher may know what to teach but he still needs to rely on the student himself to inform his own Upaya. A poor or a very sharp student can test a master and make him evaluate his own teaching method vis-a-vis it's efficacy. The master may have his own methods to keep a poker face when cornered & challenged ...

It is interesting that folks talk of 'Doubt' as a thing in and of itself without qualifying what it is that they are doubting. Doubt is such a useless word because it signifies a spectrum of attitudes.

[–]grass_skirtacademic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A teacher's repertoire of upayas may become more robust as the range of his students grows, but he would not become agnostic about his Way unless he encounters someone of greater realisation than himself. But that someone would be their teacher, not their student.

Doubt and questioning can lead to good outcomes for the Zen student who is trying to make sure they really understand what their teacher is teaching. That's testing to see you haven't misunderstood. It's pretty different from a more classically skeptical tradition, one which has no particular outcome in mind.

[–]abhayakaramadhyamaka 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Striking down sacred cows isn't so useful if you don't have anything to put in their place. What Zen does right is to assiduously avoid reifying incorrect views. But too often you talk to Zen practitioners who assume that because we aren't supposed to reify the thing, the thing isn't real. Other traditions lean heavily in the other direction. It's a tightrope.

[–]jty87Interbeing 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Thich Nhat Hanh's "Order of Interbeing" emphasizes openness, non-attachment to views, and freedom of thought in the first 3 of the 14 mindfulness trainings for formal members of the order (a modern distillation of the traditional Bodhisattva precepts of Mahayana Buddhism):

The First Mindfulness Training: Openness

Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.

The Second Mindfulness Training: Non-Attachment to Views

Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing nonattachment from views and being open to other’s insights and experiences in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.

The Third Mindfulness Training: Freedom of Thought

Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our view on others, we are determined not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination – to adopt our views. We are committed to respecting the rights of others to be different, to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, learn to help others let go of and transform narrowness through loving speech and compassionate dialogue.

In the more basic 5 mindfulness trainings there is one sentence on the topic (The Five Mindfulness Trainings are based on the precepts developed during the time of the Buddha to be the foundation of practice for the entire lay practice community):

Seeing that harmful actions arise from anger, fear, greed, and intolerance, which in turn come from dualistic and discriminative thinking, I will cultivate openness, non-discrimination, and non-attachment to views in order to transform violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Hope this question doesn't come off the wrong way, but isn't Mahayana more supernatural in it's beliefs than Theravada as it has more tantric aspects?

[–]jty87Interbeing 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It depends on the school. The various schools of Zen are mahayana lineages and can be very naturalistic. Theravada in places like Burma and Sri Lanka can be very supernatural.

But Thich Nhat Hanh's approach integrates many Buddhist teachings in a non-sectarian way. He treats scriptures as guides to truth rather than absolute truth and interprets supernatural elements metaphorically.

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

IMO, it's not really accurate to call it supernatural. The way I see it, Theravada is more supernatural in a way because they see the Buddha as some extra special person that cultivated these excellent qualities. The Mahayana has a completely different understanding of the mind, which is why things look supernatural to someone with a different understanding of mind and the universe. In Mahayana, the Buddha is simply someone who realized their own nature. All sentient beings have the Buddha Nature, it's nothing special in that sense.

Also, not all Mahayana is tantric. There are many sutra Mahayana schools, like Zen and Pure Land.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Theravada says Buddha was just a human being like us who achieved nibbana and not through any special guidance of a deity or anything else.

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Right, but he has supernatural powers: flying, ability to read minds, recollecting past lives, "divine eye" which can see anything in the three realms, etc. In Mahayana, these are all considered as natural qualities of any sentient being's mind. In Theravada, it's some added quality that is cultivated on the path, not inherent in all sentient beings' minds.

Also, Theravada does not say Buddha was a human being. They say he was born as a human being, but became a Buddha. Buddha himself refuted the idea of him being a human in the Pali Canon.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Really? I was under the exact opposite impression that he refuted being anything more than human. As for those miracles, I heard some Buddhists say they can all be taken metaphorically.

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Really? I was under the exact opposite impression that he refuted being anything more than human.

It's not like he's "more than" human. Well, a Theravadin might say that, but a Mahayani wouldn't - that was my point in my previous comment. He's a Buddha, one who has realized their own nature. He is a completely awakened being. Mahayanis assert that the qualities of Buddhahood are present in the nature of all sentient beings - most Theravadins reject this outright. In the Dona Sutta (AN 4.36):

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1] On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2]

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

[...]

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.'

.

As for those miracles, I heard some Buddhists say they can all be taken metaphorically.

Yea, sure. But that's not specific to Theravada. There are plenty of Mahayana practitioners that take those metaphorically as well.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But Mahayana Buddhists accept the Pali Canon too.

[–]Thomas_Amundsen_mahayana 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, of course. I wasn't implying that they don't. However, Mahayana regards the teachings from the Pali Canon as provisional. There are Mahayana sutras that teach about Buddha Nature which are held as definitive.

[–]Ariyas108seon 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

but isn't Mahayana more supernatural in it's beliefs than Theravada as it has more tantric aspects?

Not really. Theravada thoroughly acknowledges psychic powers, god beings in deva realms, hell beings in hell realms etc. Orthodox Theravada has many "supernatural" elements.

[–]AnarquistaLibreBuddhist Anarchist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I heard different interpretations of the realms and that the devas weren't anything supernatural but mortals like our self, or that they represented states of mind or whatever.