Self-Defense

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

Well said, well said! The Buddha is our guide, however there are (at least) three paths (that are all one) The Sravakayana (sometimes called Theravada or Hinnayana) the Mahayana (Zen and Pure Land Schools) and the Vajrayana (Tantric schools or "thunderbolt" vehicle) each having their own texts. If I were studying and practicing the Sravakayana I would not reference Mahayana texts any more than I would reference a field guide to alaska while hiking here in Okinawa. They are all part of the one vehicle, but with different means whereby, and (as I have learned the hard way) it may become important along the way to understand there is a reason for the three classifications. Not sure if that was clear, let me know.

Well Fuken, I don't know where to start. Maybe I miss something in this response, please let me know if that's the case. In your previous post you said that we should according to Mah?y?na act with nobility, yet you call other parts for "lesser"? Is that nobility? Yes, it could be! You are calling things as they are, aren't you?

I think you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of lesser vehicle, it is not a slight, it is the nature of the practice.

The Therav?da and H?nay?na are not the same thing. H?nay?na consists of all the early school, and perhaps most notably the Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?da. Therav?da is but one of the early schools.

Yes, but as they are really the only one surviving, they are often assumed to be one and the same.
I suspect you already know this as well.

In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered.

This is your opinion, it is mine that we should understand the difference between pepsi and coke.

Since the Mah?y?na s?tras are often written as teachings succeding the pali canon, it is wise to first have an understanding of the suttas. So, reference to pali suttas is indeed valid.

Again, I disagree with you here, I grew up on the Dhamapada and still cherish it, but it is not useful at all if you are studying the Lotus Sutra. It could even be seen as a hinderance, along with the rest of the teachings of the Sravakayana.

If you compare the difference between suttas and s?tras to field guides of Alaska and Okinawa, well, you clearly have a strong opinion of what constitutes lesser and greater, and seems to cherish this dualism.

That seems crass to me. But we enter dualism as soon as we open our mouths. (or type something out, in this case. As one who appreciates the Sutras I would expect you to appreciate the analogy.

I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!

But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun!

Joy...

the La?k?vat?ra s?tra is devoting numerous chapters to the "Erroneous views" of philosophers, and brahmans, "like simple-minded ones they are". Most notably those who have a wrong view of what constitutes dharma. In Vimalak?rtinirde?a s?tra, a clearly polemical work against the h?nay?nist view, Vimalak?rti makes fun of the h?nay?nists personified by ??riputra, with all their petty rules that hinders them from seeing the true dharma.

And the Surangama addresses demonic states of mind of practitioners who think they understand the dharma... Again, so what?
This seems a distraction from the main debate, which was if I can even remember, weather or not the precepts were a hard and fast set of rules or not, I am in the camp that says they are not.

It does not matter if it is a sutta or s?tra, there is always the need to call things what they are.

Indeed.

Oh, and that quote from Mah?parinirv??a s?tra I agree with completely! It says the same thing I say about the precepts.

Last but not least, yes, buddhadharma points out ultimate reality. Ultimate reality exists not depending on your view of it. Smaller rules for a samgha can be replaced, the graver ones (no matter if it's sa?gha rules or precepts) can not.

I agree, but fail to see the point of addressing it, it does not change what has already been addressed.

Let me ask you a question: how much are you willing to reinterpret the precepts? Until they become what you have always wanted them to be?

What do you think I want them to be, what do you want them to be?

For me, it is as I have already made clear, the precepts are not a grounds for causing harm to another by action of body, speech, or mind.

When they fit with your current line of work, lifestyle, actions? Where do you draw the line?

Right here __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

I think you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of lesser vehicle, it is not a slight, it is the nature of the practice.

No I am not. I most often encounter the word "lesser" in that context by early Mahayanists who wanted to distance themselves from earlier schools. Nowadays there is no need for this kind of description of their practice. That's just my opinion though.

Yes, but as they are really the only one surviving, they are often assumed to be one and the same.
I suspect you already know this as well.

Yes, I know that, but didn't think you knew. I didn't understand why anybody would want to keep this misconception if they knew, so I figured you didn't. My bad, I apologize!

In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered.

This is your opinion, it is mine that we should understand the difference between pepsi and coke.

It is not just my opinion though. It's what I have learned is generally taught. Obviously we haven't been taught the same thing. No biggie!

If you compare the difference between suttas and s?tras to field guides of Alaska and Okinawa, well, you clearly have a strong opinion of what constitutes lesser and greater, and seems to cherish this dualism.

That seems crass to me. But we enter dualism as soon as we open our mouths. (or type something out, in this case. As one who appreciates the Sutras I would expect you to appreciate the analogy.

Well, not all analogies are appropriate. Some, even out of context or misguided. Not saying yours was!

I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!

But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun!

Joy...

This one I don't get. I do not cherish dualism. I sometimes fall into it myself though. If you wanted to, though, I could keep my arguments to the s?tras. I thought that would be more fun for you, since you obviously don't need the suttas for this practice. Right?

the La?k?vat?ra s?tra is devoting numerous chapters to the "Erroneous views" of philosophers, and brahmans, "like simple-minded ones they are". Most notably those who have a wrong view of what constitutes dharma. In Vimalak?rtinirde?a s?tra, a clearly polemical work against the h?nay?nist view, Vimalak?rti makes fun of the h?nay?nists personified by ??riputra, with all their petty rules that hinders them from seeing the true dharma.

And the Surangama addresses demonic states of mind of practitioners who think they understand the dharma... Again, so what?
This seems a distraction from the main debate, which was if I can even remember, weather or not the precepts were a hard and fast set of rules or not, I am in the camp that says they are not.

Well, you said that that devadatta sutta wasn't valid, and that Mahayana doesn't see it that way. You said that there was nothing like that in Mahayana. I proved to you that there is indeed. It may be off topic though, you are correct in that. Maybe we should move that to a separate thread?

Last but not least, yes, buddhadharma points out ultimate reality. Ultimate reality exists not depending on your view of it. Smaller rules for a samgha can be replaced, the graver ones (no matter if it's sa?gha rules or precepts) can not.

I agree, but fail to see the point of addressing it, it does not change what has already been addressed.

Well, you asked me a question and I answered? You asked "So if I understand you, you think that the Buddha Dharma occupies a fixed position?

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

Ok, This is getting way off topic, but if no one minds...

I think you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of lesser vehicle, it is not a slight, it is the nature of the practice.

No I am not. I most often encounter the word "lesser" in that context by early Mahayanists who wanted to distance themselves from earlier schools. Nowadays there is no need for this kind of description of their practice. That's just my opinion though.

Not at all, The Sravakayana, is the path where enlightenment is restricted to those on the path to Becoming Buddhas, by way of becoming monks Stream entry through arhatship etc... Laymen are left to make merit by supporting the monks... This is how it has been historically. This is why it is called the small or lesser vehicle. Or at least this is what I have heard...

Yes, but as they are really the only one surviving, they are often assumed to be one and the same.
I suspect you already know this as well.
Yes, I know that, but didn't think you knew. I didn't understand why anybody would want to keep this misconception if they knew, so I figured you didn't. My bad, I apologize!

No biggie, I'm pretty slow but I've been around a while, not that that means anything.

In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered.

This is your opinion, it is mine that we should understand the difference between pepsi and coke.

It is not just my opinion though. It's what I have learned is generally taught. Obviously we haven't been taught the same thing. No biggie!

I can not imagine how the differences between the schools could be taught like that, that seems so strange to me. Many of the Mahayana sutras The Lotus and Mahaperinirvana off the top of my head, seem to make it clear that the Sravakayana sutras are not to be relied upon.

If you compare the difference between suttas and s?tras to field guides of Alaska and Okinawa, well, you clearly have a strong opinion of what constitutes lesser and greater, and seems to cherish this dualism.

No, sorry for this misunderstanding, I was referring to the sravaka path and the Mahayana path, and using a sravakayana text in a basis for argument in a Mahayana forum.. My apologies if that was not clear.

That seems crass to me. But we enter dualism as soon as we open our mouths. (or type something out, in this case. As one who appreciates the Sutras I would expect you to appreciate the analogy.

Well, not all analogies are appropriate. Some, even out of context or misguided. Not saying yours was!

Ah, they can't all be winners, and frankly I am mostly just having fun here and not putting too much effort into this, so the analogy may have been pretty poor, but I enjoyed it at the time.

I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!

I think something dropped off here, but I think this was regarding duality, conversations without duality tend to be pretty short.

But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun!

Joy...
[/quote]

This one I don't get. I do not cherish dualism. I sometimes fall into it myself though. If you wanted to, though, I could keep my arguments to the s?tras. I thought that would be more fun for you, since you obviously don't need the suttas for this practice. Right?

A quiet room is best.

the La?k?vat?ra s?tra is devoting numerous chapters to the "Erroneous views" of philosophers, and brahmans, "like simple-minded ones they are". Most notably those who have a wrong view of what constitutes dharma. In Vimalak?rtinirde?a s?tra, a clearly polemical work against the h?nay?nist view, Vimalak?rti makes fun of the h?nay?nists personified by ??riputra, with all their petty rules that hinders them from seeing the true dharma.

And the Surangama addresses demonic states of mind of practitioners who think they understand the dharma... Again, so what?
This seems a distraction from the main debate, which was if I can even remember, weather or not the precepts were a hard and fast set of rules or not, I am in the camp that says they are not.

Well, you said that that devadatta sutta wasn't valid, and that Mahayana doesn't see it that way. You said that there was nothing like that in Mahayana. I proved to you that there is indeed. It may be off topic though, you are correct in that. Maybe we should move that to a separate thread?

Again, because the sutra you were using is from the sravakayana, it is still not valid, however if you had gone for the next few verses after what I quoted in the Mahaperinirvana sutra, you could have totally shot me down... not that it changes my view on the original argument at all....

Last but not least, yes, buddhadharma points out ultimate reality. Ultimate reality exists not depending on your view of it. Smaller rules for a samgha can be replaced, the graver ones (no matter if it's sa?gha rules or precepts) can not.

I agree, but fail to see the point of addressing it, it does not change what has already been addressed.

Well, you asked me a question and I answered? You asked "So if I understand you, you think that the Buddha Dharma occupies a fixed position?[/quote]

Ah, so are you saying that for you ultimate reality occupies a fixed position? We should definitely start another thread for that one if you do, caus that I want to hear about...

Back to the original point, and I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am...

It is my view, that we should not use the precepts as a measure for anyone's practice but our own.

Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your answer from your own reason and not from a textbook.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Self-Defense

Gentlemen,

Discourse over the finer points of Buddhist philosophy is well and good, I would simply like to say the following:

The core, the marrow, the body of this practice isn't found in suttas or sutras, but in shikantaza zazen. This is the main ingredient to the soup, without which it is still water.

As for the validity and acceptance or rejecting the written accounts of the Buddha, such as the suttras, well that's not really the point is it? No one said to reject the finger pointing to the moon, but we should reject the idea that the finger is the moon.

Lesser and greater are only words. The truth of this practice is found in the stiches of the Buddha's robe, gently rocking back and forth on the zafu; it's validity is seen in the meal gatha, in fetching water, chopping wood.

[Rich]

Re: Self-Defense

I'm having trouble following this conversation. Sometimes you just need to take a break and give up everything. So if someone wants your wallet you give it and ask how else you can help them. I am not really a student of suttas or sutras. Relying on practice, I've arrived at a place where I just don't know what this is or what to do. At the same time I have a strong self preservation instinct and trust that I would do the correct action if faced with annihilation. Sometimes I am so clueless, I have to focus on the most simple basic actions just to survive. Maybe that's self defense.

[Hans]

Re: Self-Defense

Hello Christopher,

just another two novice cents that you are all free to take with a pinch of salt and ignore as you see fit.

As far as I can tell, nobody here stated that "the finger was the moon". IMHO different positions are being exchanged regarding points that are by no means "finer points" but instead fundamental points - the topic of this thread is Self-Defense and this led to a very important meta-discussion about where we get our understanding from of what would be an appropriate "Buddhist" response to a real life dilemma.

This discussion can help us all to question our own positions, see where they might be coming from and how we can drop them all on the cushion.

As I mentioned earlier, everyone of us has a different cut-off point and definition-preference as to what constitutes Buddhadharma and how this flows into/interacts and informs our day to day practice.

On a purely personal level I am all for modern day re-interpretations in many cases, but once it comes to a point where one might just as well sit like a frog or alternatively like a follower of the Advaita Vedanta path, the question arises, why one practises the Zen-Buddhist path and not another one? For some the answer is faith in particular parts of doctrine, for others meditation experiences, or aesthetics, for others again it is an underlying idea of a Philosophia Perennis to be found in different religions all doing more or less exactly the same, for others it really doesn't matter and for others they just practise because causal relationships have somehow brought them here.

It's good to be able to see/read all these different perspectives based on individual life experience.

Thank you all for sharing your insights.

Gassho,

Hans

[Rev R]

Re: Self-Defense

Why wait for the cushion Hans?

Have a good weekend and a Happy Mother's Day the lot of you!

[anista]

Re: Self-Defense

This is getting complicated to follow what with all the quotes and all, so I just say a bare minimum (edit: which I just noticed was quite wordy!)!

Not at all, The Sravakayana, is the path where enlightenment is restricted to those on the path to Becoming Buddhas, by way of becoming monks Stream entry through arhatship etc... Laymen are left to make merit by supporting the monks... This is how it has been historically. This is why it is called the small or lesser vehicle. Or at least this is what I have heard...

It is called small by mahayanists who came to see hinayana teachings as lesser, because they misunderstood what hinayanists really meant. In Theravada, you can only achieve nirvana for yourself, and usually it is monks (almost exclusively, yes) who achieve nirvana. The merit-making lay follower who benefit from the teachings from the monks, could achieve rebirth as a monk, thus completing the training him- and herself. No one is thus left out, as long as you don't see this one lifetime as the only one, because then I could see your point. This path doesn't make it any lesser, or small; instead, it's an alternative route.

I can not imagine how the differences between the schools could be taught like that, that seems so strange to me. Many of the Mahayana sutras The Lotus and Mahaperinirvana off the top of my head, seem to make it clear that the Sravakayana sutras are not to be relied upon.

Yes they do, because of the polemical context in which they were composed. But, if you look for example at the Everyday zen website, they say: "Although the Pali Canon has been handed down by the Theravadin school of Buddhism, its texts represent teachings from the time before the Buddhist community divided into different schools, and are thus a source of the common heritage of the entire Buddhist tradition. They cover a wide range of topics, addressing both monastic and lay concerns and clarify many fundamental Buddhist doctrines including compassion, ethical conduct, the path of spiritual development and transformation, and liberation of the mind. For Everyday Zen, these texts are foundational, and we return to them again and again "

Jundo has pointed to articles about the pali suttas, for example when we discussed the precepts (refrain from taking lives, I believe).

My guess is therefore that the pali canon at least hold some bearing on our practice. But you are right, whenever a mahayana sutra and a pali sutta were in disagreement, we should follow the sutra. That doesn't mean that there isn't a point in studying the suttas, or that they have nothing to teach us. Many of the mahayana sutras are based on facts that can be found in the canon, such as the four truths of the noble ones, the eightfold path, dependent origination, rebirth ... I see this as definitely valid, but you are correct in that there are parts that perhaps isn't valid, such as arhatship preferred over bodhisattvahood. I'll give you that . In my previous example, in the devadatta sutta, I don't feel that this information is disagreed upon in any mahayana sutra.

Again, because the sutra you were using is from the sravakayana, it is still not valid, however if you had gone for the next few verses after what I quoted in the Mahaperinirvana sutra, you could have totally shot me down... not that it changes my view on the original argument at all....

You don't realize that you have already been shot down?

(I kid!)

Ah, so are you saying that for you ultimate reality occupies a fixed position? We should definitely start another thread for that one if you do, caus that I want to hear about...

Well, it depends on what you mean by fixed position, of course. I believe that ultimate reality is always ultimate reality, which can be found. The ultimate reality does not change depending on your or my view. It doesn't change depending on what we think is right or wrong.

Back to the original point, and I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am...

It is my view, that we should not use the precepts as a measure for anyone's practice but our own.

Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your answer from your own reason and not from a textbook.

I neither agree nor disagree, and at the same time I both agree and disagree. No, we shouldn't judge other people's practice, but we must also not let the precepts turn into anything goes, because in that case, we would be obliged to speak out concerning that practice, which may be harmful and adharmic. In that case, we must use the precepts as a measure on another's practice. Erroneous views originating from faulty precepts could indeed be unskillful. As stated earlier, there is a difference depending on what level we are talking about: the relative or the absolute.

[Heisoku]

Re: Self-Defense

Just an interesting background on martial arts and Buddhism.

http://globalmartialarts.blogspot.com/2006/03/kung-fu-and-karate-originated-in-india.html

I practise Tai Chi and Aikido and I have never needed to use any of these skills, neither have any of my fellow practitioners or teachers. I guess we do not go looking for trouble and realise the ease with which harm can be done.
The benefits are in learning to harmonise, blend, be mindful in body-mind, as well as in the exercise.

The wisdom is to find skillful alternatives to using violence, including avoiding trisky situations, and to know you have the skills to immobilise if necessary. As the UK has fewer firearms this aspect does not enter into the mindset here, although we did have an aikido v gun session from a consultant who had worked in Iraq. He is now dealing with those experiences through non martial activities....I guess if you live by the sword you die by the sword, in the sense that 'dying' can happen emotionally and mentally.

As the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra says;

No gain – thus Boddhisattvas live this Prajna Paramita
With no hindrance of mind –
No hindrance therefore no fear.
Far beyond all delusion, Nirvana is already here.

For me this says it all. Gassho to all.

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

Christopher, I agree with your last post wholeheartedly.

Rich, It sounds like you are on the verge of Buddha-hood, just remember, the light at the end of the tunnel might just be you!

Hans, Keep on keeping on!

Rev R, Happy mothers day weekend to you as well.

ANISTA,

This is getting complicated to follow what with all the quotes and all, so I just say a bare minimum (edit: which I just noticed was quite wordy!)!

Yes indeed.

Not at all, The Sravakayana, is the path where enlightenment is restricted to those on the path to Becoming Buddhas, by way of becoming monks Stream entry through arhatship etc... Laymen are left to make merit by supporting the monks... This is how it has been historically. This is why it is called the small or lesser vehicle. Or at least this is what I have heard...

It is called small by mahayanists who came to see hinayana teachings as lesser, because they misunderstood what hinayanists really meant. In Theravada, you can only achieve nirvana for yourself, and usually it is monks (almost exclusively, yes) who achieve nirvana. The merit-making lay follower who benefit from the teachings from the monks, could achieve rebirth as a monk, thus completing the training him- and herself. No one is thus left out, as long as you don't see this one lifetime as the only one, because then I could see your point. This path doesn't make it any lesser, or small; instead, it's an alternative route.

This is not my experiance at all. The view I expressed comes from me working along side of Thais and Cambodians and is a reflection of how they expressed their view.

I understand that academia and reality do not always agree, but I tend to favor reality.

I can not imagine how the differences between the schools could be taught like that, that seems so strange to me. Many of the Mahayana sutras The Lotus and Mahaperinirvana off the top of my head, seem to make it clear that the Sravakayana sutras are not to be relied upon.

Yes they do, because of the polemical context in which they were composed. But, if you look for example at the Everyday zen website, they say: "Although the Pali Canon has been handed down by the Theravadin school of Buddhism, its texts represent teachings from the time before the Buddhist community divided into different schools, and are thus a source of the common heritage of the entire Buddhist tradition. They cover a wide range of topics, addressing both monastic and lay concerns and clarify many fundamental Buddhist doctrines including compassion, ethical conduct, the path of spiritual development and transformation, and liberation of the mind. For Everyday Zen, these texts are foundational, and we return to them again and again "

Jundo has pointed to articles about the pali suttas, for example when we discussed the precepts (refrain from taking lives, I believe).

My guess is therefore that the pali canon at least hold some bearing on our practice. But you are right, whenever a mahayana sutra and a pali sutta were in disagreement, we should follow the sutra. That doesn't mean that there isn't a point in studying the suttas, or that they have nothing to teach us. Many of the mahayana sutras are based on facts that can be found in the canon, such as the four truths of the noble ones, the eightfold path, dependent origination, rebirth ... I see this as definitely valid, but you are correct in that there are parts that perhaps isn't valid, such as arhatship preferred over bodhisattvahood. I'll give you that . In my previous example, in the devadatta sutta, I don't feel that this information is disagreed upon in any mahayana sutra.

Again, because the sutra you were using is from the sravakayana, it is still not valid, however if you had gone for the next few verses after what I quoted in the Mahaperinirvana sutra, you could have totally shot me down... not that it changes my view on the original argument at all....

You don't realize that you have already been shot down?

(I kid!)

Clearly you have not even winged me sir!

, so are you saying that for you ultimate reality occupies a fixed position? We should definitely start another thread for that one if you do, caus that I want to hear about...

Well, it depends on what you mean by fixed position, of course. I believe that ultimate reality is always ultimate reality, which can be found. The ultimate reality does not change depending on your or my view. It doesn't change depending on what we think is right or wrong.

Back to the original point, and I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am...

It is my view, that we should not use the precepts as a measure for anyone's practice but our own.

Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your answer from your own reason and not from a textbook.

I neither agree nor disagree, and at the same time I both agree and disagree. No, we shouldn't judge other people's practice, but we must also not let the precepts turn into anything goes, because in that case, we would be obliged to speak out concerning that practice, which may be harmful and adharmic. In that case, we must use the precepts as a measure on another's practice. Erroneous views originating from faulty precepts could indeed be unskillful. As stated earlier, there is a difference depending on what level we are talking about: the relative or the absolute.

I am not sure what you are saying here, you seem to want to have it both ways, and I understand where you are coming from. Believe me I could make an argument for either opinion, but mostly I think that the precepts we take as individuals today are different from rules for living in the community which are not (and this may be the key) voluntary but compulsory. Again, I see the precepts as a tool for studying the self, not for regulating a community. For regulation of the community there are other rules which get enforced through various means both by the laity and law enforcement.

Heisoku, Indeed, I would even say “?” (for those without Sanskrit fonts loaded that is the first character of the sanskrit alphabet, it is also the “Shortest Sutra that contains the entire buddha dharma”) says it all as well.

[Ekai]

Re: Self-Defense

I am having trouble following the conversation like Rich since I have not studied much of the suttas or sutras either.

I would still use self-defense to get out of a very dangerous situation. However, attackers usually prey on a woman they feel can be controlled easily without a fight. They want control and dominance so they can do want they want whether it is rape, killing or other torture. Martial arts teaches awareness, mindfulness of the environment and walking with confidence to project a strong presence to help deter attackers. There other self-defense tips that are emphasized as well but that is a long list.

If none of these stop an attack and if I am ever faced in this type of situation, my intention would be to do enough to get me the heck out of there. And who knows what that "enough" would be? If that "enough" is simply a compliance technique or an Aikido throw, then great. If that "enough" means causing severe bodily harm to save my life, prevent a brutal rape or save a loved one's life, then I would have to reflect on my actions deeply. I definitely wouldn't be partying in the streets and/or bragging about it. But I would share the experience with other women so they can learn how to live their lives safely.

[Fuken]

Re: Self-Defense

I am having trouble following the conversation like Rich since I have not studied much of the suttas or sutras either.

I would still use self-defense to get out of a very dangerous situation. However, attackers usually prey on a woman they feel can be controlled easily without a fight. They want control and dominance so they can do want they want whether it is rape, killing or other torture. Martial arts teaches awareness, mindfulness of the environment and walking with confidence to project a strong presence to help deter attackers. There other self-defense tips that are emphasized as well but that is a long list.

If none of these stop an attack and if I am ever faced in this type of situation, my intention would be to do enough to get me the heck out of there. And who knows what that "enough" would be? If that "enough" is simply a compliance technique or an Aikido throw, then great. If that "enough" means causing severe bodily harm to save my life, prevent a brutal rape or save a loved one's life, then I would have to reflect on my actions deeply. I definitely wouldn't be partying in the streets and/or bragging about it. But I would share the experience with other women so they can learn how to live their lives safely.

Jodi, I think you are doing just fine, please ignore the psudointelectual ramblings above, the only way a suta or sutra would help you out in the situation you are talking about would be as an improvised weapon.

[Rich]

Re: Self-Defense

From Dogen's Maka-Hannya-Haramitsu:
Subhuti says, "Kausika! When good sons and good daughters abide in the profound prajna-paramita as thus preached, they are just guarding it. When good sons and good daughters abide in the profound prajna-paramita as thus preached, they never stray. Remember, even if all human and nonhuman beings were looking for an opportunity to harm them, in the end it would be impossible. Kausika! If you want to guard the bodhisattvas who abide in the profound praja-paramita as thus preached, it is no different from wanting to guard space.

In Gudo's commentary he says "The right decision comes from the right state of body and mind, and the right state of body and mind comes when our body and mind are balanced and harmonized. And Zazen is the practice by which our body and mind enter the state of balance and harmony. Maha-prajna-paramita, then is the essence of Zazen."

This prajna wisdom sounds like a pretty good deal and I have no doubt it would be helpful in a self defense situation.

Rich, It sounds like you are on the verge of Buddha-hood, just remember, the light at the end of the tunnel might just be you!

Sorry but I'm really not into that
And I do respect your knowledge of suttas, sutras and Buddhism.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Self-Defense

Hello Christopher,

just another two novice cents that you are all free to take with a pinch of salt and ignore as you see fit.

As far as I can tell, nobody here stated that "the finger was the moon". IMHO different positions are being exchanged regarding points that are by no means "finer points" but instead fundamental points - the topic of this thread is Self-Defense and this led to a very important meta-discussion about where we get our understanding from of what would be an appropriate "Buddhist" response to a real life dilemma.

This discussion can help us all to question our own positions, see where they might be coming from and how we can drop them all on the cushion.

As I mentioned earlier, everyone of us has a different cut-off point and definition-preference as to what constitutes Buddhadharma and how this flows into/interacts and informs our day to day practice.

On a purely personal level I am all for modern day re-interpretations in many cases, but once it comes to a point where one might just as well sit like a frog or alternatively like a follower of the Advaita Vedanta path, the question arises, why one practises the Zen-Buddhist path and not another one? For some the answer is faith in particular parts of doctrine, for others meditation experiences, or aesthetics, for others again it is an underlying idea of a Philosophia Perennis to be found in different religions all doing more or less exactly the same, for others it really doesn't matter and for others they just practise because causal relationships have somehow brought them here.

It's good to be able to see/read all these different perspectives based on individual life experience.

Thank you all for sharing your insights.

Gassho,

Hans

Guten Tag mein freund,

I never get a chance to speak German anymore (probably forgot most of it by now). Anyway, I will admit that I have difficulty expressing what I am trying to say, so let me try again with a little help. What I have seen in this thread is a lot of discussion over suttas, sutras, and different points of doctrine. This definitely has its place in our practice, these ancient words can help us to see our Buddha nature, and are some of the sign posts our ancestors used while walking the Path. What I am saying is that they should not be used as points of practice, in that at their core, they are meant to help us to realize our self nature, not to be held up as...well....as scripture.

I'll ask Bodhidharma to expound a bit on what I was trying to say, by way of a few excerpts from his Bloodstream Sermon.

"If you don't see your nature, invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory, keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings - but no Buddha."

"A Buddha doesn't observe precepts. A Buddha doesn't do good or evil."

Is Bodhidharma saying that since Shakyamuni's life is the guide of our lives that we should abandon the Precepts and forget the sutras? No, not at all, but he is saying that the sutras point towards our essential Buddha nature, helpers to realization. Beyond that, as Bodhidharma later says, sutras become so much prose.

This sutra, that sutra, Mahayana, Theravada, what does it all matter if you don't see your own true nature? The nature that sees that there are no sutras, no Mahayana, no Theravada, no Buddha beyond the Buddha that is everyone and everything.

[Hoyu]

Re: Self-Defense

Fuken wrote:
Jodi, I think you are doing just fine, please ignore the psudointelectual ramblings above, the only way a suta or sutra would help you out in the situation you are talking about would be as an improvised weapon.

What a great response to tie all this back to the original question of this post!

Gassho,
John