Attended a Buddhist lecture/meditation session

[Prime Junta]

Modern liberal Christianity or the bible?

Before both of them. The idea was about what might have happened between the time a historical Christ wandered around Galilee, and the time somebody got around to writing something down about it, by which time the message would already have been garbled.

Since the only bits in the Bible that we can attribute to the historical Christ with any kind of confidence are the Kingdom parables, there's obviously no way to know what he actually taught -- which makes that idea nothing more, nor less, than a bit of speculative whimsy. Please don't take it more seriously than it's intended.

 

[JemyM]

Before both of them. The idea was about what might have happened between the time a historical Christ wandered around Galilee, and the time somebody got around to writing something down about it, by which time the message would already have been garbled.

Since the only bits in the Bible that we can attribute to the historical Christ with any kind of confidence are the Kingdom parables, there's obviously no way to know what he actually taught -- which makes that idea nothing more, nor less, than a bit of speculative whimsy. Please don't take it more seriously than it's intended.

I am not that concerned with Jesus as a person, I believe Jesus is created inspired by multiple sources anyway. However, the books of the New Testament is still a product of it's time. Someone wanted to say something through those books. That way the historical value of the book isn't depending on the historicity of Jesus.

Taken separately you can find traces of Asian philosophy in them, such as asceticism, but this can be an illusion. The ideas can as well be inspired by stoicism, gnosticism or Plato, or it can simply be a natural human evolution of thought to find out that human emotions are best controlled or even rejected.

I believe I read somewhere that put forth the theory that Jesus and Buddha were the same person, but I cannot found his name atm.

 

[dteowner]

Playing resurrectionist here to write a small update.
--snip snip snip--
I've also had a few experiences that were pretty much completely unexpected and rather weird.
--snip snip snip--
And finally, this morning, while I was meditating, I shifted into a different mental and physical state. Previously, I had become conscious of all the little movements my body is involuntarily making as I'm sitting, as well as the thoughts that chase each other around in my mind.
--snip snip snip--

Dude *exhale* are you sure this doesn't belong, you know, in the, like, cannabis thread?

 

[Prime Junta]

More like LSD, from what I've understood. All the fun of mind-expansion, no legal complications -- what's not to like?

Seriously, though -- the only psychoactives I use are caffeine and alcohol, and those rarely to excess. The last time I smoked tobacco was about eight years ago, and the last time I smoked cannabis was about ten years ago (and I didn't like it much). I've never tried anything stronger than that.

 

[Prime Junta]

I am not that concerned with Jesus as a person, I believe Jesus is created inspired by multiple sources anyway. However, the books of the New Testament is still a product of it's time. Someone wanted to say something through those books. That way the historical value of the book isn't depending on the historicity of Jesus.

Taken separately you can find traces of Asian philosophy in them, such as asceticism, but this can be an illusion. The ideas can as well be inspired by stoicism, gnosticism or Plato, or it can simply be a natural human evolution of thought to find out that human emotions are best controlled or even rejected.

Have you read Karen Armstrong's book on the topic? "The Great Transformation" that is. She has some pretty intriguing ideas about how these thoughts developed and were diffused around the (Old) world.

I believe I read somewhere that put forth the theory that Jesus and Buddha were the same person, but I cannot found his name atm.

Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. There aren't a great many common features in their traditional biographies, and the timescales don't match either.

 

[peko]

I was thinking about the timescale to IIRC Buddha was born some 400+ years before Jesus.

 

[ffbj]

Be aware that many experiences related to sitting, doing zazen are illusion. The mind always wants something to focus on. That's why the counting of the breath is a common technique to quiet the mind. In actuality you become more aware of just how messy your mind is. It is like being in a noisy room filled with people and one by one the people leave, gradually the room gets quiet, and then even a small sound may seem loud. So the room is the mind and the people are our many thoughts, thoughts come and go but if you don't follow them or expand on them they eventually go away. Like the people in the room will leave if you don't entertain them. So don't entertain thoughts, of feelings, or visions.

These experiences are valueless, they are not to be followed, or considered. Just let them go. This is an indication of deepening concentration but those with deep experience do not suffer from these types of Mayko, or illusion. You may fell lightness, see visions, or the body may feel hot or cold, or you may have feelings of oneness or even that the body does not exist. I have had many of these types of experiences. One I will relate.

Sitting during a lecture I suddenly experience the collapse of space. The lecturer was talking, and the distance between him and me, about 10 feet, just disappeared. I did not feel that I was him or anything like that, but that the space that separated us was just gone. This lasted for a few seconds only.

A little blurb on Mayko which I though might help a bit.
http://www.heartsongctr.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2208

I certainly do not agree with one of the posters here that you should explore these experiences. Don't. Every single teacher I have had, or everyone I have read on this subject agree. Ignore these phenomena.

One more of interest was a description, can't remember who wrote it, about a deep Mayko experience. This practitioner started seeing every thing as if it was a Paul Klee painting. Very bright, colorful images. He lingered in this state for many days before finally snapping out of it. You may experience many types of these Mayko, some of which are very pleasant. Those are the most dangerous, as if something is horrific, demons or devils, that's probably something most of us won't want to experience again. Lastly consult a teacher.

 

[Prime Junta]

Thanks, ffbj -- I have read about makyo, and realize that that's what I'm experiencing. I certainly don't ascribe any deeper meaning to them, and I am trying to take your advice of just letting them go.

What are your thoughts about the feeling of "insight" in anatta that I also described? Also makyo?

I will be seeing a teacher; it's set about three weeks from now. I'm greatly looking forward to it.

 

[ffbj]

I thought about commenting on that. I think you mean the feeling that occurs when the everyday experiences we perceive are all filtered through the self. Suddenly on occasion you have this feeling of directly experiencing something without the normal filtering going on. That is the ego-less just direct experience, sometimes referred to as Samadhi. Of course there is angry samadhi, jealous samadhi, etc... We are always in samadhi of some sort. Another way to experience this is in deep concentration like in sports, when someone will say I was in the zone, or in study, areas of deep concentration. I play chess and it is quite easy to get lost in the game. So I would say that that feeling is not Mayko, and is a positive, but we have to remember that ego is a false ego, so that anything experienced by the ego is false, even if it is the disappearance of that false ego, for who is it that is perceiving that the false ego is gone?
For more information on this take a look at the four concepts that is:
ego, person , being, and life.

I did look at the web site of that group and it seems to me the are legitimate and correct, in that the course of study they embrace includes many of the elements of sanctioned Buddhist schools of thought. I wish you well.

Something from Han Shan:

"54. The unstoppable stream of the ego’s conscious thoughts cannot stay still long enough to comprehend the truth. Yet people are always trying to think up a barrier to the flow, to use thoughts to stop thinking. Thoughts are like wildcats. We would never use one wildcat to tame another.

How then do we enter the state of non-thought? We understand the non-substantial nature of both the one who thinks and the thought itself. We understand that in reality there is not even a single tiny thought of a thought, or a thinker either. When we bear witness to this reality, our own testimony liberates us from bondage of thoughts of having no thoughts.

55. The very nature of mind and body is clear and calm and possesses not a single thought. It is the ego that thinks just as it is the ego that thinks that it desires not to think. The ego causes problems it tries to solve. To be empty of ego is to hear the soundless sound, to see the invisible sight, to think the thoughtless thought. "

Han Shan (cold mountain):
http://www.hermitary.com/articles/han-shan.html

 

[JemyM]

Have you read Karen Armstrong's book on the topic? "The Great Transformation" that is. She has some pretty intriguing ideas about how these thoughts developed and were diffused around the (Old) world.

No. But I might. I have been accepted to the university I spoke about, meaning I will spend the next few years studying the development of ideas. Add to that 2h every day on bus/train and there will be a lot more read on these kind of subjects for now on.

Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. There aren't a great many common features in their traditional biographies, and the timescales don't match either.

There are those who claim that there are. I do not know what archeology have to say about the historicity of Buddha, and I do not have details of how they can make the claim that they are similar, but I have seen lists of things that was similar between them. I'll try to find you a source later on.

 

[Prime Junta]

I thought about commenting on that. I think you mean the feeling that occurs when the everyday experiences we perceive are all filtered through the self. Suddenly on occasion you have this feeling of directly experiencing something without the normal filtering going on. That is the ego-less just direct experience, sometimes referred to as Samadhi. Of course there is angry samadhi, jealous samadhi, etc... We are always in samadhi of some sort. Another way to experience this is in deep concentration like in sports, when someone will say I was in the zone, or in study, areas of deep concentration. I play chess and it is quite easy to get lost in the game. So I would say that that feeling is not Mayko, and is a positive, but we have to remember that ego is a false ego, so that anything experienced by the ego is false, even if it is the disappearance of that false ego, for who is it that is perceiving that the false ego is gone?
For more information on this take a look at the four concepts that is:
ego, person , being, and life.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not too concerned about that transcendent business at this point. If it happens, it happens; for now, I'm interested in... well, I guess, just meditating, experiencing what happens to me while I'm doing it, and perhaps learning what other people think about it. The experience is already a good deal deeper than it was when I (re)started two months ago; I've no doubt it'll continue to deepen if I stick with it, and I've noticed that it increases my general well-being. That's reason enough to keep going.

One thing I have learned is that you can't chase thoughts or distractions away; you can just take note of them and let them slip away, or not, if they don't want to. I'm relatively certain that that applies to the ego even more.

I did look at the web site of that group and it seems to me the are legitimate and correct, in that the course of study they embrace includes many of the elements of sanctioned Buddhist schools of thought. I wish you well.

Thank you.

I don't think I posted the website of the group I'm (thinking of) joining. There were aspects to the New Kadampa thing that didn't quite agree with me; it was too "magical" for my tastes, to pick a word that you also used.

The one I'm meeting with in a few weeks is this one: [ http://www.zazen.fi/hzc-english.htm ].

 

[Prime Junta]

No. But I might. I have been accepted to the university I spoke about, meaning I will spend the next few years studying the development of ideas. Add to that 2h every day on bus/train and there will be a lot more read on these kind of subjects for now on.

IMO it's well worth reading -- probably Armstrong's best work so far.

There are those who claim that there are. I do not know what archeology have to say about the historicity of Buddha, and I do not have details of how they can make the claim that they are similar, but I have seen lists of things that was similar between them. I'll try to find you a source later on.

I don't think archaeology says anything about the historicity of the Buddha, and contemporary written records are pretty sparse too. In any case, with religious leaders, what actually happened is far less interesting than what people believe what happened, and what that means to them.

 

[magerette]

Best of luck with your endeavors, Prime J. I'm not sure if you're pursuing a spiritual or a health and well-being path, or a fusing of both and other aspects of human awareness, but everyone needs a bit of non-materialist, non-self-oriented thought going on in their world, however they get there, and I tend to look kindlier on the Buddhist path than the rather militant and at this point garbled spiritual side of Christianity and other westernized religions.

You're making me want to take another stab at the Armstrong book, as well. I'll take it out of the bookshelf and put it on my nightstand for those old-people insomnia attacks I get.

 

[ffbj]

About the best advice I can offer is to keep going. Weird things will happen, but the feeling of well being, calmness, is a good sign. It's a bit tricky to give advice to beginners when I am just a beginner myself, but just to hear of Buddhism, and too study it is a wonderful, though, difficult thing, since it mostly goes against our false nature, or our ego.

The ego desires things that it thinks, will make it happy..the 5 desires. Of course if the ego thinks enlightenment will make it happy it wants that too, and the path, or search just becomes another desire, that when fulfilled, will make ego happy. But the ego can never realize, experience no self, since that experience is the eradication of the very thing trying to get it.

One story. A particular monk came to the Buddha for advice.
(my paraphrase)
Monk: How do I practice the Way?
The Buddha: What did you do in your former life?
Monk: I was a musician, a lute player.
The Buddha: Just as you tuned your lute strings your practice should be tuned.
The practice should not be loose or lax then the notes will be flat, nor should it be too tight or stressed, for then the notes will be sharp.

But there is the way seeking mind or aspiration mind. This is still desire but, in the Mahayana it is for the benefit of all. You aspire and seek for the sake of other beings. As you progress along the path you become more calm, less inclined to give offense, and generally beneficial to those you have affinities with, your family, friends, co-workers. It's sort of like giving someone you love a gift, it makes you feel happy too.

 

[JemyM]

I don't think archaeology says anything about the historicity of the Buddha, and contemporary written records are pretty sparse too. In any case, with religious leaders, what actually happened is far less interesting than what people believe what happened, and what that means to them.

I saw a documentary on Buddha that claimed that some British (I think) discovered some early archaeological traces of Buddha's historicity, but I haven't verified these discoveries myself. I confess that my interest for the history of Buddhism haven't been as great as the history of Christianity.

Anyway, historicity is interesting if Buddhism gave inspiration to Jesus or if Jesus was even based on Buddhism. Narrowing down what kind of evidence there is to place Buddha 500 bce is necessary to even begin to trace the line, of there is one. If you can place him there, there are 500-700 years between them in which the tale could have changed bit for bit, generation for generation, into what eventually became the gospel according to Mark.

 

[Prime Junta]

Best of luck with your endeavors, Prime J. I'm not sure if you're pursuing a spiritual or a health and well-being path, or a fusing of both and other aspects of human awareness, but everyone needs a bit of non-materialist, non-self-oriented thought going on in their world, however they get there, and I tend to look kindlier on the Buddhist path than the rather militant and at this point garbled spiritual side of Christianity and other westernized religions.

You're making me want to take another stab at the Armstrong book, as well. I'll take it out of the bookshelf and put it on my nightstand for those old-people insomnia attacks I get.

I don't think there are very good ways to express what I'm pursuing, at least in any of the languages I speak. Which is probably why most of the stuff I've read about it is liberally sprinkled with Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit, or Pali terms.

In a small way, I think I am pursuing whatever it was that Layman P'ang was pursuing. Whether that's called "well-being" or "spirituality" or "enlightenment" is, IMO, not of all that much importance.

 

[Prime Junta]

I saw a documentary on Buddha that claimed that some British (I think) discovered some early archaeological traces of Buddha's historicity, but I haven't verified these discoveries myself. I confess that my interest for the history of Buddhism haven't been as great as the history of Christianity.

Anyway, historicity is interesting if Buddhism gave inspiration to Jesus or if Jesus was even based on Buddhism. Narrowing down what kind of evidence there is to place Buddha 500 bce is necessary to even begin to trace the line, of there is one. If you can place him there, there are 500-700 years between them in which the tale could have changed bit for bit, generation for generation, into what eventually became the gospel according to Mark.

I'm inclined to simple explanations. Mine (for both Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhattha Gotama) is something like this:

Somewhere around 30 CE and 500 BCE respectively, individuals named Jesus son of Joseph and Siddhattha Gotama respectively, walked around Galilee and Northern India respectively, saying things that impressed a significant number of people enough that they started passing on whatever they had said.

Later, lots of other things that other people had said, or that were just generally regarded as something worth remembering, got attributed to them. Since the biographies of both individuals were considered relevant to what they were saying, a lot of stuff that had happened to other people, or that was just plain ol' folklore, or even completely made up to illustrate a point, was ascribed to their respective lives.

By now, it's as good as impossible to say exactly what each of them said or did, and what's been attributed to them after the fact.

This means that it's entirely possible that ideas or events that happened to, or were originally attributed to, Siddhattha Gotama would have made it to Galilee by 30 CE, and have subsequently been either repeated by or ascribed to Jesus son of Joseph.

Does this mean that Siddhattha Gotama and Jesus son of Joseph were the same person? Not in any meaningful sense, from where I'm at. Does it really matter? Not all that much either, IMO. If an idea has worth, it doesn't matter where it originates. The Buddha may never have transmitted direct insight to Mahakasyapa in the Flower Sermon, but the story of the flower sermon contains an important thought nevertheless. The Christ may never have risen from the dead, but the story of the Resurrection remains significant nevertheless.

 

[magerette]

Well, I looked Layman Pang up in wikipedia, and if it's a valid representation I have to say I was a bit disappointed. I respect the shedding of wealth and the itinerant lifestyle and so forth, but I'm afraid I can't share that particular aspect of Buddhist belief (as illustrated in his quoted deathbed remark) that all life is empty and being alive is a charade of shadow and illusion. It seems too black and white, too fatalistic, for my prejudiced Western mind. Also the koans and logic/word gymnastics attributed to him seem either a bit pretentious or way beyond me.

But I know my understanding of these things is very limited.

 

[Prime Junta]

Well, I looked Layman Pang up in wikipedia, and if it's a valid representation I have to say I was a bit disappointed. I respect the shedding of wealth and the itinerant lifestyle and so forth, but I'm afraid I can't share that particular aspect of Buddhist belief (as illustrated in his quoted deathbed remark) that all life is empty and being alive is a charade of shadow and illusion. It seems too black and white, too fatalistic, for my prejudiced Western mind. Also the koans and logic/word gymnastics attributed to him seem either a bit pretentious or way beyond me.

But I know my understanding of these things is very limited.

I didn't actually read the Wikipedia article; I read the Sayings of Layman P'ang. Many of them struck a chord, not least because the man had a wicked sense of humor and a refreshing lack of respect for authority. (I get a feeling that a lot of it doesn't translate well, though -- cultural context, lots of words needed instead of just one, and a lot of the sense lost on the way anyway.)

Re the shadow and illusion, it's a bit more complicated than that, I think. I read a story about an enlightened master that went a bit like this:

"The master had just received news that his son had died, and he was weeping bitterly.
"His students came to him and said, 'Master, you teach us that life is nothing but shadow and illusion. How can you weep like this if it is true?'
"The master said, 'It is true, but of all illusions, the death of a child is the most difficult to bear.'"

I'm not about to sink all my belongings in a river (or the sea, for that matter) just now, though, but nevertheless. I certainly wouldn't mind being able to face the prospect of my eventual dissolution -- or, worse, the eventual dissolution of the people I love the most -- with Layman P'ang's equanimity.

 

[magerette]

I didn't actually read the Wikipedia article; I read the Sayings of Layman P'ang. Many of them struck a chord, not least because the man had a wicked sense of humor and a refreshing lack of respect for authority. (I get a feeling that a lot of it doesn't translate well, though -- cultural context, lots of words needed instead of just one, and a lot of the sense lost on the way anyway.)

I'm sure going to the source--as best as can be done considering language and cultural barriers--is probably more conducive to a genuine understanding than reading a summary. Translation depends a great deal on the skills and knowledge of the translator, and few seem able to do it so that the material doesn't have that worn feel of having passed through too many hands.

Re the shadow and illusion, it's a bit more complicated than that, I think. I read a story about an enlightened master that went a bit like this...

It always is (more complicated than that) where my own understanding is concerned ; thanks for a very good illustration of what is for me a very difficult point.

...snip..I certainly wouldn't mind being able to face the prospect of my eventual dissolution -- or, worse, the eventual dissolution of the people I love the most -- with Layman P'ang's equanimity.

A reasonable goal, and I know there's wisdom in acceptance.
I guess this is what I, as a somewhat emotional person, distrust about the concept of practicing non-attachment. I always feel as if it lessens the ties between us as humans to want to discount them because they hold such potential for grief and loss. It seems like a flinching away. Perhaps you'll be able to help me to a better understanding here as you have with so many other complicated concepts over the years.