Byaggha's Buddhism: A Primer

[Cranium Squirrel]

1 - Introduction: Byaggha the Buddhist Explains it All.
(Or at least what she understands of it all)
A poste in several partes
With a Cast of Some
And Many Wonderfuul thynges.

So, yesterday (July 29th, for those of you who need precision in these things) I get an IM from Tea over AIM. Tea says to me, "Hey, are you part of the PFRC?"

I, of course, say "Sure, but I mostly lurk there. I don't generally have much to say. Why?"

I get back a message that says, essentially, "You should SO do a PathWays thread!", but with less Valley Girl and more of Tea's actual typing style.

She also sent me a recipe for microwave cake in a mug. I'm so making that later.

Yeah, I totally paraphrased that whole conversation, but I figured Tea was right. I haven't ever really explained myself anywhere, and this kind of thing is great for investigating my personal systems and beliefs, which is always encouraged among my particular faith - heck, some monastic communities actually hold ritual debate just to keep re-evaluating themselves.

So yes, welcome to my thread. I hope it helps you as much as it helps me. 3nodding  

[Cranium Squirrel]

2 - Index. You are Here.

1 - Introduction: Byaggha the Buddhist Explains it All.
2 - Index. You are Here.
3 - Who I am and How I Got Here.
4 - A Quick History of Buddhism and What Faith Means to a Buddhist.
5 - Four Noble Truths. Five Precepts. Eightfold Path. Ten Perfections. NUMBERS!
6 - Karma: What it is And What it's Not.
7 - Cosmology and My Take on it.
8 - Rebirth: Not Reincarnation, and There's a Reason.
9 - No Self and Hungry Ghosts: What The Heck?
10 - Meditation and You: A Brief Intro.
11 - Stringing It Together: The Three Jewels and Practice.
12 - Monastic Life vs Lay Follower.
13 - My Buddhism is Not Everyone's Buddhism.
14 - Basic Holidays and What Kind of Party is This, Anyway?
15 - Lessons in Story Form: Fables That Teach.
16 - Lexicon of Words. Redundancy is Fun.
17 - Q&A: Anything That You Need Clarified?
18 - These Links Are Relevant to my Interests.

Other posts may be reserved, in case of emergency, later addition and reshuffling of information.

Edits to the thread as a whole
1 - July 30, 2008: Thread is now in creation. 3nodding This may continue several days as I refine and add to posts.
2 - July 31, 2008: Most posts finished now, thread opened to public posting.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

3 - Who I am and How I Got Here
A Brief Introduction to my World and Path

I figured one of these was as good a place to start as any, so here we go.

On the internet I go by the name ByagghaMetta, or more commonly, just plain Byaggha. The first is a bit of a joke - effectively, it translates to tiger of loving kindness, or loving predator. I thought it was funny at the time, mainly because I posess a bad habit of high-speed tacklehugging people I am familiar with.

I am a Buddhist, a follower of Vietnamese Mahayana/Zen-type Buddhism, mixed with a heavy dose of Theravada. I am not a real nun, I just play one on Gaia.

I'm female, 28, married, and I live in upstate New York. I've been a half-hearted Buddhist for many years - nearly ten now - and an actual, dedicated one for a little over six. I still occasionally suffer a crisis of faith every now and again, but these are fairly healthy in my mind: without them, I don't question, and without questioning, I can never be sure this is my path. Sure, they hurt, but my beliefs come out of them a lot stronger in the end.

I got to where I am now - a rather pleasant personal spin on Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhism - through several years of investigation. I've spun through the basics of every branch of the faith I could get to, and this is the one that settles most favourably in my mind. I do not think this is a path for everyone - heck, I don't even think Buddhism is a path for everyone - but it's the one that's working for me.

I hope to explain a little bit about it, so as to untangle my own knotted beliefs for both your education and my own. I will make no claim to be capable of speaking for all Buddhism, or even all of my own chosen branch. My understandings are my own; other people may not have the same view. 3nodding

From the get-go, you should be aware of the following: I am what I classify as an apathetic agnostic. I do not know if there are, in fact, one or more deities responsible for the creation of the world and everything in it. I do not claim to know if there are still some who take care of our daily lives. I also don't feel I need to know, one way or the other. I do not feel they are relevant to my being a good person and following the dharma (literally "the way") in the here and now. They are not making themselves known to me, but this should not stop my good actions from continuing.

And without further delay, the rest of the thread! Here we go!  

[Cranium Squirrel]

4 - A Quick History of Buddhism and What Faith Means to a Buddhist.

Alright, I'm only going to do a basic history of Buddhism and a quick sketch of the spread of it, mainly because I feel there's probably far better places to find this information if you really need it to be more in-depth. Rather awesomely, Wikipedia actually has a great section on this part of Buddhism, cites and all, so I recommend them if you want a heavier dose of this stuff.

Strap in, it's whirlwind tour time!

A Brief History and Spread...

Modern Buddhism began in what's now Nepal (but which, at the time, was part of ancient India), with the birth and subsequent enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama, aka Buddha Gautama, aka the Buddha, sometime in the sixth century BCE. According to legend, His parents were told at birth he'd either be a great leader (a world shaking monarch) or a spiritual leader. His father, being a king, wanted the first, so he sheltered the young man in his palace and surrounded him with distractions.

Gautama lived a life of luxury. Everything he wanted was handed to him on a platter, sometimes in a very literal sense. He recieved a great education and was terribly bright. He wasn't happy though, despite the huge harem and all his toys. He often fell into melancholy about life on the whole, and did a lot of thinking.

At this point, stories between schools of Buddhism do have differences. Some insist there were gods afoot, helping the Buddha get outta his palace and ensuring he saw certain things that'd make him a contemplative. Others insist he just snuck out and happened to see four things that changed his world forever. Either way, he manages to get outside the walls and sees them: An old man, a sick man, a corpse and an aescetic. He left home and started a long journey to enlightenment.

After several unsuccessful attempts at gaining what he wanted through mastery of various doctrines from all over India, he parked under a tree and spent days there in meditation. He didn't move until he did it, and at age 35 attained enlightenment. He wound up with a huge monastic following, eventually encompassing every social strata of India - including women, which was something no one had done in a monastic community previously aside from the Jains.

His refusal to name a direct successor lead to several doctrinal breaks and formations of new schools of Buddhist thought over the next few hundred years; some are still cropping up today. This isn't a problem for most Buddhists - the teachings of the Buddha himself allow for additions it, so long as it fits certain criteria. Plus, we also expect the teachings to get befuddled and eventually disappear. Either way, it's not a big deal to us.

As far as I can tell, Buddhism spread in both Northern and Southern forks, and blended with local folkways as it moved. Most of the spread seems to have been originally Mahayanan, but a lot of the Southern (particularly India and Sri Lanka, as well as Thailand) tended to keep Theravada.

Major Schools of Buddhism

By now you've noticed me drop the words Theravada and Mahayana - those are the names of two of the three major schools of Buddhism currently in existence. The third, Vajrayana, sprung from Mahayana roots and flowered in Tibet - it's the school the Dalai Lama is the head of.

Theravada is the root school of all three, and used to be part of a much larger school. Many of the other sects in it have perished through persicution, however, and they're pretty much the only ones left. Theravada is much more monastic-centered than the other two, with the life of a monk being the best thing someone can do to further their practice. Theravada holds that perfect wisdom is the key to enlightenment, and practitioners aim to develop that facet first. Theravada holds the Arhat as an ideal; essentially a Buddhist saint, they're people who attain enlightenment and cease their rounds in the cycle of rebirth.

Mahayana is a much more lay follower centered branch, and asserts that everyone is capable of enlightenment if they are just willing to do the work. This is not to say that Mahayana does not have a very large monastic community - quite the contrary. Because it is so widespread, there's a huge monastic community. Their scriptures include those in Theravada, as well as a series of new sutras on specific Mahayanan practices and ones centered on the cultivation of loving kindness, the perfection Mahayanans strive for first. Mahayana also holds the popular Bodhisattva ideal, whereby a person makes a concious choice to forgo final snuffing in order to try and help others attain awakening.

I'm tremendously iffy on the specifics of Vajrayana, but I know it holds the Bodhisattva ideal along with Mahayana and a degree of mysticism not present in the other two schools. As far as I can see, it involves trying to shed your personal delusions and misconceptions through various 'quick' methods - this is sometimes considered akin to trying to reach the roof of a building via a Wile E. Coyote rocket rather than taking the elevator or stairs. It may work, and there's a very good chance you'll get to the roof, but the burnouts and failures will be spectacular.

All three schools contain smaller sects within themselves; the most unified is probably Theravada and Mahayana is probably the most diverse. All three also see the others as valid paths, at least on the monastic level - my husband personally witnessed Mahayana and Theravada monks discussing the fine points of their own practice while the former was staying at the latter's monastery.

Sometimes lay followers forget that, and personal bias stands in the way of them getting along.

What Faith Means to a Buddhist.

Regardless of school, there's something most every Buddhist I know keeps true: Faith is not blind. Faith questions, prods and tests. Faith is knowledge, hard won and often tried. Faith is nothing at all if you just believe in words because someone famous for being holy said them. I hold one verse from the Tripitaka for this kind of thing to be particularly good: The Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection, from the Kalama Sutra.

Kalama Sutra

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

While this whole thing may seem like a giant Buddha-sized 'woo hoo, I can do whatever I want to' - and in a way, it is, because you can always do whatever you want, you just need to deal with the consequences of it later - it's really something much bigger.

It's a call to constantly re-evaluate your beliefs and your ideals. Don't just follow it because it's old, you've always done it, or some wise man says you should. Do it because you've tested it to within an inch of its life and you KNOW you should.

That is faith.

Oh, and a few other small details about this: Buddhists, according to my learning of things, should not be attached to anything so severely they cannot let it go. This, in fact, does include the teachings of the Buddha. One way or another, we are eventually going to have to let them go too. They are either going to disappear from the face of the earth, or we are done with them due to our understanding.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

5 - Four Noble Truths. Five Precepts. Eightfold Path. Ten Perfections. NUMBERS!

All schools and sects of Buddhism have, at their cores, certain things in common, regardless of outward practice. These things are the absolute basics of Buddhist teachings; these things are the foundation upon which all else is built. These things are the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Five (or more, depending) Precepts and the Ten Perfections. All these things are tied together, sometimes causing one another to arise.

On the whole, we're big on using numbers in stuff. It helped the original Buddhists remember these things in a time before the sutras were written down, being able to count it out in the form of a chant. 3nodding

I'll start at the beginning.

Four Noble Truths: At the beginning of all Buddhism, there's the Four Noble Truths. Many people outside - and I'm sure some inside - Buddhism are under the impression they're tremendously nihilistic and ugly, failing to account for the wonder that is life on the whole and ignoring neat things. They are not that ugly at all, upon examination. At least I don't find them so. I find the idea of life being suffering to ring fairly true, and the hope of leaving the suffering behind to be very wonderous indeed.

Sure, being told all life is suffering (the first of the Noble Truths) is harsh. I mean, what about chocolate ice cream? Surely that's not suffering - it's chocolate, and it's ice cream! There's nothing bad about that! The problem isn't the ice cream, or chocolate; in fact, eating some isn't a bad experience at all. The problem comes when the ice cream is gone. The pleasure fades, and sometimes becomes craving for more. If there is no more, you suffer the want of it. If you eat too much, you suffer having too much of it. You may resent having to wash dishes when you're done, so you suffer for that too.

This leads into the second Noble Truth: All suffering arises from craving. Craving things, you chase them. You suffer without them, you suffer to get them, you suffer when they're gone. This does, in fact, include enlightenment; chasing it and craving it rather ironically puts you farther from it.

That brings us to the third Noble Truth: It's only by not-craving that you don't suffer. That bit usually gets me accused of just being 'blah' about stuff, neither caring if they do or don't exist. I'm bad at this one though; it's why I still suffer so much. xd

The fourth of these is, of course, the way out - how to stop the craving and move on. That'd be the following of the Buddha's dharma; his way is the way to calm the fire of craving and live happy for those who can work with it. Eightfold path to victory, GO!

As I've said before and I'm sure to repeat, however, this isn't a path that everyone's good with. And I can understand why. Telling me I need to lay off fun things does sound kind of crap, but hey - the fun ends, and I suffer for not having the fun, so I can see why I'd want to stop too.

Eightfold Path: Right, so, the Four Noble Truths point here next. The Eightfold Path consists of eight (go figure) practices (and, occasionally, two arising conditions from practicing them), which can be divided into three subsets - wisdom, conduct and concentration - that lead to enlightenment when practiced correctly. It is said that being a master of one of these leads to mastery of the others, something that's often said about the Ten Perfections as well. Right, in the case of the Eightfold Path, can been seen as equivalent to correct or proper.

The list is as follows: Right View (the way you look at the world), Right Intention (the exertion of your own will to change yourself and your views), Right Speech (making the best use of your words), Right Action (being morally upright and not harming yourself or others), Right Livelihood (don't have a job that directly harms other beings), Right Effort (persistant effort to shunt wrong views, harmful thoughts and words), Right Mindfulness (constant alertness to things affecting you both internal and external) and Right Concentration (practice of meditation to gain awareness). For further explainations, please see Wikipedia or BuddhaNet on the subject.

Also useful for both the Eightfold Path and Four Noble Truths is this page at BuddhaNet - it's a nice basic overview with clear explaining of all of them. Much clearer than I can do, but that's what happens when monks run your website. 3nodding

So what's the easiest way to follow that path? A good series of reminders: The Five Precepts.

Five Precepts: Not so much a Ten Commandments style list that will bring you punishment if you fail to live to them, but rather a list of suggestions to help the followers of Buddhism remember how they should be acting - following the Eightfold Path. There's five most lay followers adhere to, with a couple of extras being added by others for special holidays/observances.

The five common ones are thus: Avoid killing, avoid harsh speech (and yes, lying counts), avoid intoxication, avoid sexual misconduct (and this one is in debate; there's a series of opinions on what, exactly, misconduct consists of) and avoid stealing. I've also seen them written positively, which is nice, but I like them as negatives - this is probably a holdover from my Catholic upbringing. They seem more serious that way to me.

For more information, I recommend this page at BuddhaNet.

Ten Perfections: Gained through right practice, the Ten Perfections are shining examples of human virtues. It is said that by perfect understanding and practice of a single one of these, a practitioner can gain all of them. For this reason, the different schools stress different perfections, but can still be Buddhism - they still get all the others, they just get there through different gates.

For example, Theravada stresses wisdom, whereas Mahayana stresses loving kindness. I personally split the difference and enjoy both simultaneously, but this may mean I take longer to get to perfection because I'm splitting my effort.

Here's the list, taken from Wikipedia again, because honestly, their Buddhism section is pretty good:
Dāna - generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla - virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma - renunciation
Paññā - transcendental wisdom, insight
Viriya - energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti - patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca - truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna - determination, resolution
Mettā - loving-kindness
Upekkhā - equanimity, serenity  

[Cranium Squirrel]

6 - Karma: What it is And What its Not.

Since the 1960s and the explorations of Westerners into Eastern faiths, karma is probably one of the concepts people from this side of the globe have the biggest problems really understanding. It often either gets mistranslated as sin, assumed to be good or bad depending on originating action alone and something with immediate response in the life of the creator, and somewhere along the line seems to have picked up a gift for handing people back their actions in some multiplier. It doesn't help that the idea of what, exactly, karma is and what it results from differs between karmic faiths - I was taught that Hinduism, for example, holds that you only accrue bad karma through failure to live up to your personal dharma, which is something different from Buddhist karma.

The direct translation for the word karma is literally 'action' or 'deed'. In Buddhism, karma is an arising result of literally everything - thought or action - a person does. There really isn't such a thing as good karma, contrary to tip jars in New Age stores, according to Buddhism; all karma serves to lock you in the rebirth round - and the suffering - for another go, something we're trying to stop doing. Sure, there is 'yay' and 'crap' karma (my own words there, thanks), but neither one of them is really good, even if they seem it at the time.

Karma is also not an immediate backlash for your actions; it is not one of those fun desk toys with the steel balls. Rarely do you get belted by what you've done in a timespan you recognize it. But it does play out, and there's no getting around it. You will feel the karma eventually. It does not multiply; you get what you deserve. This can, literally, take lifetimes according to scripture.

But it gets deeper and more complex than that.

See, the base of all karma in Buddhism is your intention, not necessarily the action alone. You can put on an outward act of total piety and goodness and still accrue something nasty in your future for it, provided your intention was one with malice in it, such as showing up a competitor or personal gain at the expense of others. This can also lead one - as it has with me - to the conclusion that sometimes, an action that looks bad can be good if given the right intention. How far one can push that, I'm not sure - at what point, even with a good intent, does an act just become too evil?

This all seems to come off as me claiming karma as a retributive force, as something that actually tallies your actions and doles out justice by it's own whims. It is nothing of the sort. It simply is. It is not angry, retributive, vengeful. Nor is it kind, loving and just. It just is.

This is still something I'm wrestling with. I may edit this later as I come to a more satisfactory conclusion. But there you have it, karma in a nutshell.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

7 - Cosmology and My Take on it.

This is another point the various schools and sects wander off tremendously. While all of them - and I do mean all of them, regardless of what Theravadans sometimes claim about their school - make mention of other realms, spirits, gods and the like, most of them don't agree on how many, where and what exactly all of this entails. From my own personal investigations, this is where I currently stand on all of this stuff.

Buddha-hood and Buddha-nature: Sometimes people have trouble understanding what is and isn't a Buddha, and claims get made as to their station within the cosmology that make little to no sense. A Buddha is not a god. A Buddha is a human who has attained enlightenment, and can see the consequences of all their actions spread before them. They are actively able to understand the nature of all things, and cease the production of karma for themselves, allowing them to leave the cycle of rebirth. Some are capable of teaching others; many more are silent Buddhas, unable to share their insights with us.

Buddha-nature, on the other hand, is something that all beings have. It is the Buddha within, the ability to realize their potential and become Buddhas themselves. It is the ability to awaken, something that the cycle of rebirth and suffering allows us all to have. It's a common Mahayana doctrinal teaching, and is often used to help cultivate metta (one of the Ten Perfections) - after all, if every man has a Buddha in him, it's a lot harder to hate him.

Gods and Demi-Gods: Not Abrahamic or even Eastern creator types, gods are not set in stone creatures who have been and will be the same guy or girl forever. They are not all powerful, all knowing or all seeing in any sense; this comes up in more than a few stories in various Buddhist canons. They do, however, lead very comfortable lives in their current states - I often liken their lives to One Constant Party. They're well fed, happy and overall, really don't bother humanity at all. They have power, yes, but it is fleeting - they will eventually die and be replaced. They're stuck in the cycle of Samsara with us.

From my experience, they don't tend to talk to us much either - I've never been visited by one, but I supposed that's because I'm a bit of a noob and don't know enough about how everything works to be of any use to one. They are not, as far as I'm concerned, objects of worship in any sense - they have no more power over my life than I do. I've never met one, but I don't discount their existence. I've got no proof they aren't there either, so until one directly interferes with my life, I just live like they're not around.

Or - and this is what I've come to believe about them lately - they may just be really powerful people. See Other Realms for my explaining on this one.

Oh, and by the way: Demi-Gods I mention there are often called Devas; that name can literally mean everything from demi-deity all the way down to nature spirit. They sort of do it all.

Also, one important thing here: everything changes. Existence and everything in it survives on conditions, when those conditions disappear, so do the things that they're creating. Don't be afraid of it; it is necessary. It also means things like the heavenly realms and the hells are impermanent - you don't go forever. 3nodding

Other Realms: Buddhist cosmology mentions no less than six realms one can be reborn into (Godly, Demi-Godly, Human, Animal, Hungry Ghost and Hell); all of them touch one another and overlap in some way or another. Some Buddhists take them as literally being other planes of existence, one sect even takes it so far as believing that in order to reach nirvana at all, one must go through a rebirth in one of the Heavens first.

I digress.

My personal take on it is, much like that of Thich Nhat Hanh, that the realms are all right here, right now. Godly realms? Try being born tremendously wealthy, and having everything handed to you from day one. It's very much akin to the descriptions of the Godly Realms in Buddhism - a life of pleasure and distractions, your whims filled and your belly full. The Hells? Try being born drug-addicted and starving in an underclass part of a big city, where you literally have to fight every minute of your painful life to survive.

All realms are this one, you just have to know where to look.

Mara: Okay, here's one who often gets a problematic description in western cultures. He's been cast as the devil, pure evil, and unchanging. All of those are untrue. Granted, Mara is a tempter - he often shows up in stories of the monks and nuns under the Buddha, trying to distract them from their goals. But that doesn't make him pure evil - he's a guy with a job, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a good one, but it's the one he's got. He also won't be there forever. Mara changes, much like everything else in our universe. Like the gods/devas, he's been several people doing the same job for a long time, if he is a separate being from us at all. Heck, there's mention of one of the Buddha's major disciples coming up against him; when Mara questioned how the man could see him and block his attempts so well, the monk replied "I did the same thing when I was you."

Then again, we're back to my cosmological view here. I don't believe anymore than Mara is something separate. I believe we are our own Mara - our own mind attempts to distract us, to make us seek pleasure and experience over just sitting because the mind is conditioned to like these kinda of things more than just sitting. It tells you 'you're bored, get up and do something'. And I don't believe that's any kind of outside force whispering, regardless of the fact that sometimes you'd really like it to be so you can blame your meditative and concentration failires on someone else.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

8 - Rebirth: Not Reincarnation, and There's a Reason.

This one inevitably comes up in discussion with western Buddhists; there's a lack of understanding of the concept of rebirth versus that of reincarnation. The dividing line between them is actually pretty simple: Reincarnation requires a permanent spiritual body (a soul), something that gets passed whole from life to life. Rebirth does not. Rebirth only requires the karma to continue. The person reborn is not the person that once was, and vice versa, but the karma of the previous life affects them none the less.

It's a bit esoteric, frankly, and something that was a big sticking point for me for a long time. I mean, seriously - what's passing on, and how can there be memories from previous existence (as there are claims of in scriptures) if there's nothing that actually travels from life to life? It just doesn't sit right in the mind, does it?

I've been told in past that it works like this (thanks to Wikipedia for explaining it coherantly): "Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the consciousness of a person (as conventionally regarded), upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas) which make up that person, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas which may again be conventionally considered a person or individual.

The consciousness arising in the new person is neither identical to, nor different from, the old consciousness, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. The basic cause for this persistent re-arising of personality is the abiding of consciousness in avijja (ignorance); when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases." Still a bit on the tricksy side, but at least they explained it better than I did. I don't know that it really matters anymore, myself.

I now see the doctrine of rebirth as more a call for the recognition of interbeing of all things rather than a part of doctrine that must be adhered to - a teaching that carefully links together everything in existence, one arising from another, all things dependent on each other for being. If that sounds a bit strange and hard to wrap your head around, try this instead.

Look at a piece of paper. In that paper, there's a cloud. How? Simple. All the things that created that paper are part of it - the sunlight that shone, the dirt it stood in and the rain that watered the tree that was cut down by workers, the saw mill, the paper plant, the trucks that shipped it. Gasoline, sweat, soil...the cloud that the water came from. The river that the cloud evaporated from. And for all you know, the water in that river came from a treatment plant that cleaned your sewage, meaning you're in the paper too.

Interbeing is fun. And because of it, I'm not sure I need to cling to literal rebirth anymore.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

9 - No Self and Hungry Ghosts: What The Heck?

I probably could have tacked this in with cosmology, given the Hungry Ghosts fall in there, but I've recently come to a new understanding of these things due to my own revamped view of the cosmology, and I figured I should separate them so I could explain it more clearly without totally overrunning that poor, lengthy post.

In Buddhism, there's a state of being known as a Hungry Ghost, or Preta. As the name implies, it's a state characterized by extreme longing for something - usually simple food - and an inability to get it. Some schools describe the Hungry Ghost as having a teardrop shaped stomach and a neck so thin, they can't swallow what they hunger for. They are believed to have been jealous, greedy people in past lives, and now they suffer for their past karmas by being stuck in their current form and being given a supernaturally strong lust for a particular food. Said foods are often repulsive, like feces or corpses. They're invisible to most humans (except those with the psionic gift of seeing all realms), and generally don't bother them much. Some monks are prone to leaving them an offering of food or flowers before meals.

Given the Buddhist view of no-soul (a lack of a permanent self/soul that is present in many other religions), how is this kind of thing possible, that someone suffer so much for past acts, and it's both them (because in China, the Hungry Ghosts are sometimes recognizable ancestors) and not them at the same time that's doing the suffering? To be honest, I couldn't really rectify this myself. It was a big problem until I read through The Two Treasures, by Thich Nhat Hanh. There, I finally got what I needed: A new view of cosmology.

Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the monks in modern Buddhism who argues from a standpoint of all cosmology in Buddhism being a method for describing the current state of being for living things in a way that people raised in Vedic faiths could understand. By pitching the situations of all creatures as different realms of being, some of which are invisible to humans, the Buddha may have made it easier to understand how everyone suffers in our own world to people who otherwise wouldn't have cared how their underclass felt or lived.

If this is the case rather than the Hungry Ghosts being literally invisible beings, and the cosmology is metaphorical, then Hungry Ghosts aren't ghosts at all, but people who are ignored but who travel life feeling empty, with a dire need to get something, but an inability to feel 'sated' or 'full' no matter how much they collect. Others in society may ignore them due to percieved obsessive tendencies and a distaste for their behaviors, thus lending them an amount of invisibility.

Some of the things that were suggested as catalysts for Hungry Ghost behavior in The Two Treasures are a greed, desperate want for knowledge or religious experience. How can a want for knowledge, something that's not really inherently bad, be considered a nasty thing like this? Simple. When the lust for knowledge overrides good sense, and fills your mind so completely you cannot think of anything else, when you feel empty and stupid no matter how much you have read or learned, when you are unsatisfied no matter the amount of learning you have stockpiled - THAT is Hungry Ghost time.

I do hope I've managed to make as much sense of that for you as it made in my head. 3nodding If not, feel free to ask. There's always the Q&A post.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

10 - Meditation and You: A Brief Intro.

Central to my practice and the practice of many Buddhists is meditation. Other faiths have different views on what it is supposed to accomplish on the whole; sometimes even different Buddhists can't agree on the methods. The one thing we all do agree on, however, is that meditation is a useful thing for us to practice.

I meditate to watch my mind. I mainly breathe in and out, trying to focus on counting as I do so. If any other thoughts enter my mind, I aknoweldge they're there and let them go, going back to counting. It sounds easy, but it's amazing just how much I think of other stuff when I'm supposed to be focused on breathing alone. xd

There's a lot of different forms of meditation throughout the diffrerent Buddhist schools and sects, some focusing on different things than others, some with a specific goal and some just sitting. Here's the two types I'm most fond of. My favoured style of meditation helps produce Right Concentration, one of the Eightfold Path parts previously mentioned.

Vipassana Sitting Meditation: Maintain a comfortable, but not slouchy, posture with your legs crossed and your back straight. Rest your hands in your lap, either on your knees or crossed one over the other in the center. If it helps concentration, close your eyes. A warning though - this might actually encourage you to fall asleep.

Breathe in and out at a normal pace; no more shallowly or heavily than usual. Pay attention to your inhale and exhale, and only them. Should other thoughts enter your mind, say hello to them, and let them go - I liken this to tacking them on a balloon and letting it float off. When the thought is gone, return to your breathing.

Do this for as long as you can. I think my longest so far was a half hour - you get really itchy after a while, lemme tell you. *giggles*

Vipassana Walking Meditation: Same as above, but with walking rather than sitting. Pay attention to your steps this time, when one foot falls and one is picked up. Oh, and don't do it with your eyes closed. It can lead to severe lapses in Concentration, and bad accidents involving traffic.

For further information on these practices, please see this website, or this one if you want a more general course of study.

Oh, and for the record: No, I don't believe you need to be Buddhist to use these techniques. They're pretty universal, to be honest, so if you feel you want to try them, go for it. smile  

[Cranium Squirrel]

11 - Stringing It Together: The Three Jewels and Practice.

I'm thinking this post might be a short one or a long one, depending how into it I get. But, as the Mad Hatter so rightfully suggested to Alice, I'll start at the beginning, and when I get to the end, I'll stop.

So, thus far you've got a basic understanding of my personal Buddhism. It's a fairly good idea of the beliefs I currently hold as of the time of typing, but the big question is this: What does it all mean from a practice standpoint? What's Byaggha doing to actually engage Buddhism daily? And how, on the whole, is a Buddhist layfollower supported in their path by Buddhism itself?

To understand all of this, I need to introduce you to the concept of the Three Jewels: The Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. When someone starts taking the teachings seriously, they tend to take refuge in those three things. So what do they mean? And what's taking refuge?

I suppose I should start with that refuge bit, considering it sounds a bit odd. In the sense of Buddhism, refuge is meant as 'something you can trust in' - Buddhists, thus, trust in the Buddha, his teachings and their community. Taking refuge is a process by which they affirm this trust. It can be as simple as just saying you take refuge in these things and believing it, or as elaborate as a temple ceremony. I opted for the previous. I don't stand on ceremony at all, and I get just as much out of it if I dedicate myself.

So why should Buddhists place trust in the Buddha? Obviously, given the Kalama Sutra previously mentioned, not simply because he was a Buddha. In fact, I've not interpreted it as trusting him, but rather, myself and my ability to do better for myself with the teachings. This is due to my belief in Buddha-nature, which is explained further in the post on cosmology, so I won't expound upon it here. But yes, there's the first of the jewels, the Buddha.

Does this mean one should worship the Buddha, ask him for favors and bow to him as if he were a god? I don't think so, no. While I respect the Buddha and what he's done by giving us these teachings, I do not worship him in the sense of godhood. He was a man, albiet a wise one, and not a deity. Even if he were a deity, given Buddhist cosmology, he'd still not really be worth worship.

The second one is the Dharma, or the teachings. Again, I don't think I should trust these just because they're old or the sayings of wise men; I take refuge in the Dharma because I have put a number of its teachings into practice and seen for myself that it is what works for me, it is what's true. I trust it because I have tested it.

Okay, Sangha. The jewel that is the community of followers. First off, you've got to understand this: Community is very important. I blame the concept of interbeing for this one; no person is an island to me anymore. We're all alike, and we all affect each other, sometimes in more ways than we want to admit. Thus, there's a strong Buddhist community tie - one of support, outreach and general help with understanding things. It includes lay followers and monastics, both sides leaning on one another for support.

My offline sangha is currently regrettably small, but very helpful. It consists of myself and my husband, as well a trove of books. We discuss things constantly around here, bouncing ideas back and forth and strengthening our own understandings. My online sangha is here on Gaia: the guild called Loving Kindness.

The ultimate things I've picked up from the refuges in the jewels are these: The source of joy and my problems is within me, not external. It is okay to ask for guidance and help. Every person has the potential for good in them, so don't jump to the belief they're horrid automatically.

My practice, because of all this, boils down to something fairly simple: Live a good life according to the teachings I have personally investigated and found true in my life.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

12 - Monastic Life vs Lay Follower.

When he first saw the title for this post (I've had him proofreading and letting me know if I've missed something important; a second set of eyes have been very useful in those regards), my husband just looked at me and said "You know that's going to be a long one," or something to that effect. I've been thinking about it since, and I'm not entirely sure it needs to be ginormous.

The difference is actually quite simple: Monastics spend more of their time in contemplation of the Buddha's teachings than lay followers do. Their entire lives are based around discussion of, meditation on and understanding the teachings. They eschew life as we know it for a lot of sitting, thinking, walking and teaching. They rely on the kindness of the rest of the community to support them on a mundane level, and they in turn support the rest of us spiritually. It is for these reasons that many schools and sects place special importance on the monastic life; some go so far as to say the renunciate is practically already a saint.

Lay followers, on the other hand, are the rest of us - the Buddhists still engaged in the world on the whole. We're hanging with the rest of you, and some of us may well be unrecognizable as even being Buddhist at all. I, for one, get mistaken for a really friendly Christian who doesn't preach more times than not. Our life is generally seen as a rougher path to enlightenment due to our stronger worldly attachments, but we are needed by the monastic community. Without us, they aren't capable of devoting nearly as much time to spiritual growth and teaching.

We support the monastics, and they support us. Interbeing again, at it's finest.

For a look at the differences in rules (and believe me, there are serious differences), there's the Layperson's Guide to Theravada Monk Discipline on Access to Insight, as well as the full Buddhist Monastic Code from the same site. Take these against the Layperson's Code of Discipline, for example, and notice just how much stricter the monk life is.

Of course, that's to be expected, religious orders are generally like that in my experience...but the layperson's code is pretty specific on what we should or shouldn't do. It's got everything, really, down to how to look for true friends (which, honestly, I don't mind too much - the criteria are reasonable things I was already trying to do before I was even aware of Buddhism) and what kinds of things you should be doing to help people.

I view the layperson's code of discipline as a friendly guideline for my life more than a 'you MUST DO THESE THINGS all the time, and be perfect at them to keep 'good' karma coming' - sure, I'd like to be perfect at them, but if I recall what I ought to be doing and ought to avoid, I keep myself out of trouble on the whole. It's not a karma thing for me; it's more a friendly advice on how I should be dealing with life thing.

Then again, a lot of Buddhism comes across like that to me.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

13 - My Buddhism is Not Everyone's Buddhism

I'm not sure how many times I've seen this on the forums (and the internet in general), but there's almost always at least one claim made per Buddhism thread that someone is a representative for all of Buddhism, and thus what they say is the only way. I find these laughable claims - only a Buddha could be one of those, and we're without one who is capable of teaching the rest of us at current time. When we go get a teaching Buddha again, I'm sure we'll all be willing to listen to them. Making claims like this, as I am guilty of doing in the past, is a great expression of ego, and not something I want to do any more.

Fact of the matter is, right now, no one person is a representative for all of Buddhism and its beliefs. Besides just the doctrinal splits between different schools and sects (some say the way to Nirvana is prayer to Buddha Gautama, others insist it's by chanting certain phrases to accrue good merit, and still more say they're both nuts and the only way is dilligent practice and meditation), there's the fact that even within a school or a single temple, not everyone has the same understandings of things. This is just because we all have different lives, ways of thinking, and methods of processing information. Sometimes, these different views help. Other times, they do things like this and cause us problems.

This is also linked to scripture itself, in some ways.

The Buddha taught in a way that was somewhat strange at times. His words didn't always make sense to everyone who was listening at the time. Sometimes they had impact later, other times they didn't matter at all to the listener. What one person understood immediately, another may never grasp. He said at more than one point that what he was saying wasn't always for everyone, and if you didn't understand what he was talking about, drop it altogether - you don't need to sit around and puzzle it out.

Humanity, however, is a beast of habit. People like to sit around and think about things, especially stuff they don't quite get. This has lead to armchair philosophy about some of the sutras, leading occasional Buddhists (particularly Western ones without access to monastics) to jump to conclusions that probably shouldn't have been reached - and then taught them to other people.

It all leads back to the Kalama Sutra, to me - in the end, if I test it and it holds up, if it makes sense to me, I'll take it. If not, it gets tossed. This has lead my Buddhism to not be someone else's.

And in the end, it won't be mine either - because once the boat's helped me cross the river, I'm not carrying it anymore. It's getting left on the banks. 3nodding

Consequentially, I'd appreciate not being cited in other discussions as a valid source for Buddhist understanding - I just have what I have; I'm a newbie layfollower with her own comprehensions. Many of these do not match common explanations for things, especially not in the cosmological section of things. I am not a learned master.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

14 - Basic Holidays and What Kind of Party is This, Anyway?

Buddhism doesn't have too many holidays of its own; there's only a few that seem to get followed across multiple Buddhist countries. Most of the holidays ascribed to it are local festivals that have been incorporated into Buddhism after the two met.

Here's the short list of holidays as I know them. Please keep in mind that I can't give accurate Gregorian dates; Buddhism runs on a lunar calendar, so the best I can generally give you is 'first new moon in ' or something similar. I'm not going to do school or sect specific ones, either, just some of the basic ones.

New Years - Depending on country and who's calendar you're on, this either falls on the first full moon in January (most Mahayana countries), three days from the first full moon in April (Theravada), or sometime in March (Vajrayana).

Sangha Day (Maha Puja Day) - A holiday commemorating the legendary spontaneous return of 1,250 arhats to pay respects to the Buddha at a monastery. Celebrated on the full moon in March.

Vesak - Pronounced Wes-sack (I think, my Pali is shifty and somewhat crap), this is the big one in Buddhist countries. Considered the Buddha's birthday, it falls on the first full moon in May. Unless it's a leap year, then it shifts to June. A nice catch-all celebration of the Buddha's birth, life, and enlightenment in one go.

Dharma Day (Asalha Puja Day) - Held on the full moon in July, this one's a celebration of the Buddha's first sermon.

Kathana Ceremony (Robe Offering Ceremony) - Held on a convenient day sometime in the month after the monks return from their rain retreat (keep in mind that Buddhism comes from an area of the world where monsoons are common, and the rainy season is a time most people don't go out much), this one's one of my favourites. Lay followers visit the monastics and gift them with some brand new robes, cloth to make robes, and other needs for living.

I'm really not sure why I like this one so much, it just seems to be the one that sticks out for me.

So Where's the Party, Byaggha?

I've purposely left out how, exactly, Buddhists celebrate holy days for two reasons. The first is somewhat obvious; practice of holiday celebrations differs from country to country, so much so that most holidays held as Buddhist are really localized festival days. What a Thai Buddhist celebrates differs dramatically from what a Japanese Buddhist does.

The other is that in the festivals that we do agree on celebration style for, it's not a party so much as an actual holy day. For the most part, the celebrations are kind of subdued - there's scripture reading, dharma talks, and sometimes Buddhism-related toys for the kids (my favourite was the Vesak Buddha's Life colouring book). There's no loud music and dancing, nothing that counts as a feast. Just a quiet celebration of faith and a renewed understanding of Buddhism.

Of course, this doesn't stop us from throwing our own spin on it. Some countries and towns hold HUGE local festivals for these days on top of the subdued learning and whatnot. I'm thinking of getting the Buddha a birthday card next year. I think the idea is silly enough for me to like it - a birthday card for someone who's not got one anymore. 3nodding

We shall see.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

15 - Lessons in Story Form: Fables That Teach.

So, I'm pretty sure that by now you're generally sick of infodump. I'm sorry, I'm only really good at explaining my beliefs that way. But there is another way Buddhist beliefs are shared - stories are very popular ways of teaching children, and some of them are quite fun. The most common ones are the Jataka Tales, or the birth stories.

These are stories of Buddha Gautama's former lives, and encompass all sorts of stories of his history as various animals. Generally, they teach some lesson, such as wisdom or compassion. There are quite literally thousands of them at this point, and there's a good chance more are being written daily.

These are probably two of my favourites of the ones I've read.

The Banyan Deer - Also known as The Golden Deer, it's a story of great compassion wherein a king literally lays down his life for a woman of another tribe.

The Sandy Road - A story of two merchants traveling in a dusty and dry area, they almost lose their lives when the water runs out. It is only through great effort that they are saved - a nice parallel to Right Effort, if you ask me.

There's more of them here, if you'd like to see them. I also found a semi-functional animated site, which is available here.

There are also short parable-tales that are attributed to the life stories of masters, generally. Many have been fictionalized into different forms over the years. My favourite of these retellings is in the form of a children's picture book mentioned in my link post - Zen Shorts. Zen Shorts tells three of these short fables, and the rest of the narrative is shot through with shorter lessons based on the everyday happenings of three kids and a giant panda named Stillwater. I've recently found there's a sequel, I'll probably grab it too.

On top of those, there's always Zen Koans, which are probably one of the best known facets of Zen Buddhism in the west. I'd get further into them for you, but aside from saying that they're mini-puzzlers of a fashion that are meant to grind your brain to a halt and force you into a sudden awareness, I really can't. See, they're only supposed to be offered to students through a Zen Master, which I am not. If I were to say the wrong thing or present the koan incorrectly, there's a good chance I'd screw up your understanding of things even more than they usually get by a koan, and not in a good way.

So yes. Ask a master. biggrin