Thoughts about Adyashantis teachings

[Taikyo]

If Buddism has ineffable truth, this truth is primary: true 3000yrs ago, 1000yrs ago and true now. There may be secondary values that are held and change in relation to time and place, but they will be to ensure an awareness, an understanding an experience of the primary. This is Dharma.

I do not know about rebirth. I prefer to agree with the Zen Teacher, whom when asked by his Emperor and Patron, "What happens after death', replied, "I don't know", The Emperor retorted " Why don't you know!"The Teacher answered "Because I have not yet died".

This does not mean that we cannot experience transmigration after all the dharma teaches impermanence and we experience this everyday in all things. All I know is that from practice I am aware of unity, of oneness, of the interdependence of all things and emptiness That this experience is beyond birth and death but contains birth and death. It is not grasped and ungraspable.: without this how can we understand karma, without understanding karma how can we make the Bodhisattva vows, vows we take everyday. In this we just sit.
Homage to the Buddha
Homage to the Dharma
Homage to the Sangha

Deep Bows

David

[Jinyo]

Thank you David



Willow

[Neo]

I will end this thread now that came to be about things that wasn't the original meaning. I think you misunderstood me at some points, I do like buddhism alot. But just as Jesus used the word god and heaven to explain to the Judes about 'emptiness', "the kingdom of heaven is within your self". The buddha used karma and rebirth to explain to the religious hindus about the state of nirvana. In that manner, I think some concepts, manners, etc from the strict japan 1000 years ago will put som splinters in peoples minds today in the western world. Personally I enjoy japaneese/kineese culture very much, and zen seem to me to be the most secular tradition there is. It's about the core in buddhist teachings, just sitting, realzing the truth. I'm sorry if you thought I wanted to be rude in some day, that was not my intention at all.

My main point was that Adyashanti does come through to alot of people that really need spiritual guidence, as do Eckhart Tolle.

Thank you for a good post Heishu.

[Kokuu]

Neo, why end the thread when it is an interesting discussion?

The idea that the Buddha used karma and rebirth to teach 'Hindus' (Hinduism per se did not exist in 500 BCE) is a controversial one. It has been pointed out that Shakyamuni did not endear himself to Brahmins by going against the principle of atman so why would he not challenge them on rebirth if he did not agree with it? See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...f_rebirth.htmlfor example. Likewise, I think that Christians would challenge your (re)interpretation of their scripture. We have to be careful not to interpret religions as saying what we would like them to say rather than what they do actually present.

Adya and Eckhart do indeed speak to a lot of people and that is a very good thing. If you have sat along to the latest Zazenkai here you will see that Jundo (as he often does) speaks against the notion that we have to live or dress as Japanese people from today or the past in order to practice effectively. Sure, we have to read Dogen and earlier Buddhist teachings through the lens of the culture at the time but likewise we have to be careful not to squeeze teachings from the past into the present culture and lose some of their meaning on the way.

Thank you for stimulating an interesting discussion, Neo.

Gassho
Andy

[Neo]

Yes I know it's controversial, and it's a big topic about rebirth in the buddhist communities right now for what I've come to understand. The interesting thing though is that it doesnt matter to our practice if it exists or not. I even think buddha stated this, something like: "You are doing best in following my teachings even though rebrith exists or not". And alot of zen masters seemed to not care that much about the afterlife. I even would say that rebirth can be seen as a methaphor for 'dying in every second', 'rebirth exists in every moment of time' and maybe the buddha used it just as this, to explain the philosophy of impermancence.

[pinoybuddhist]

Whenever the topic rebirth comes up sooner or later somebody will mention the old Zen joke about the Zen master who was asked about such things and replied "I dunno, I'm not a dead Zen master."

[Kokuu]

Neo, I think it is only controversial in western Buddhist circles. Traditional Tibetan and Theravadin communities don't seem to have a problem with it.

The idea of rebirth being a metaphor tends only to be used by those who don't like the traditional presentation. There is no evidence the Buddha himself ever used it in this way. I have no problem with anyone believing what they like, and have a 'don't know mind' stance on rebirth myself, but I have seen evidence of Buddhist modernism twisting the Pali canon to suit their own viewpoint which is something to be wary of.

Gassho
Andy

[Neo]

Neo, I think it is only controversial in western Buddhist circles. Traditional Tibetan and Theravadin communities don't seem to have a problem with it.

The idea of rebirth being a metaphor tends only to be used by those who don't like the traditional presentation. There is no evidence the Buddha himself ever used it in this way. I have no problem with anyone believing what they like, and have a 'don't know mind' stance on rebirth myself, but I have seen evidence of Buddhist modernism twisting the Pali canon to suit their own viewpoint which is something to be wary of.

Gassho
Andy

I'm not sure if all the zen masters believed/cared about rebirth in the literally sense, but im very aware of that the most buddhist tradition does. But if you've read something by Stephen Batchelor you know what I mean. It's a very intreresting subject to me this one. And I'm sure we never can know for sure what really was buddhas core teachings and what just followed as the common world view from that time.

[pinoybuddhist]

Just to move the discussion back a bit:

http://secularbuddhism.org/faq/

If you don't understand what I mean by secular buddhism, here u go bro.

Thanks for the link. I assume you were responding to my previous post. Here's a section of the FAQ that seems most relevant to this thread:

"Why do we need Secular Buddhism when we already have many different Buddhist traditions?

Like all traditions, Buddhism evolves to suit the culture in which it finds itself. Our contemporary Western culture is inclined to more secular views; the growth of Secular Buddhism is an inevitable manifestation of these attitudes. It is also a wonderful opportunity, as having a practice which does not in any way rely on adherence to a particular religious doctrine (one not in evidence) opens up that practice to people of all faiths, and no faith. It clearly makes Secular Buddhism much more accessible to all people, not just those willing to accept a cultural or religious tradition not their own.

Do the practices of Secular Buddhism differ from other Buddhist practices?

Secular Buddhism recognizes the diversity of individual preferences when it comes to contemplative practice. The forms one uses are entirely based upon what is demonstrably effective, there are no requirements or proscriptions. One person may chant and light incense as being helpful to them in setting the tone of their meditation, for example, while another person finds those to be ineffective in their own practice."

As Jundo pointed out we are usually seen as TOO secular. How many sanghas do you know that are 100% online - that is, that hold their classes, discussions, dokusan, and religious services via the Internet? Shukke Tokudo or home-leaving here takes on a different dimension from the Shukke Tokudo of a temple like Antaiji. So do Zazenkai and Ango. Zen is evolving to suit the Internet culture of Treeleaf. We are not, as you said in your earlier post, "trying to live like Dogen". At the same time, you could say we are trying to live like Dogen - if Dogen lived in the twenty-first century.

At the same time, this is still a Zen sangha. And although yes, some things have changed some things necessarily have to remain the same. Otherwise why call it Zen? You can only remove so much. Here we practice shikantaza zazen. Telling our teachers "but this is 2013, secular buddhism is okay" is like going to the Aikido dojo and telling the instructor "but this is 2013, MMA is okay!" It is okay and there is a bit of overlap in the sense that we are not, again, trying to live like it was thirteenth century Japan - but here we don't mix and match though the teachers do not forbid us to look into other practices on our own. And as far as I can understand Taigu and Jundo, that's the only point they want to get across. (Okay, they also have their opinions on Adyashanti which may or may not jive with yours. I don't necessarily agree with them either, but I don't know Adyashanti so I can't really say anything worthwhile about it.)

Apologies for bringing it back to this point. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I feel it's important to repeat this point.


Rafael

[pinoybuddhist]

Yes I know it's controversial, and it's a big topic about rebirth in the buddhist communities right now for what I've come to understand. The interesting thing though is that it doesnt matter to our practice if it exists or not. I even think buddha stated this, something like: "You are doing best in following my teachings even though rebrith exists or not". And alot of zen masters seemed to not care that much about the afterlife. I even would say that rebirth can be seen as a methaphor for 'dying in every second', 'rebirth exists in every moment of time' and maybe the buddha used it just as this, to explain the philosophy of impermancence.

If there is rebirth, chop wood and carry water.
If there is no rebirth, chop wood and carry water.

Thank you for this thread.


Rafael

[Neo]

Just to move the discussion back a bit:



Thanks for the link. I assume you were responding to my previous post. Here's a section of the FAQ that seems most relevant to this thread:

"Why do we need Secular Buddhism when we already have many different Buddhist traditions?

Like all traditions, Buddhism evolves to suit the culture in which it finds itself. Our contemporary Western culture is inclined to more secular views; the growth of Secular Buddhism is an inevitable manifestation of these attitudes. It is also a wonderful opportunity, as having a practice which does not in any way rely on adherence to a particular religious doctrine (one not in evidence) opens up that practice to people of all faiths, and no faith. It clearly makes Secular Buddhism much more accessible to all people, not just those willing to accept a cultural or religious tradition not their own.

Do the practices of Secular Buddhism differ from other Buddhist practices?

Secular Buddhism recognizes the diversity of individual preferences when it comes to contemplative practice. The forms one uses are entirely based upon what is demonstrably effective, there are no requirements or proscriptions. One person may chant and light incense as being helpful to them in setting the tone of their meditation, for example, while another person finds those to be ineffective in their own practice."

As Jundo pointed out we are usually seen as TOO secular. How many sanghas do you know that are 100% online - that is, that hold their classes, discussions, dokusan, and religious services via the Internet? Shukke Tokudo or home-leaving here takes on a different dimension from the Shukke Tokudo of a temple like Antaiji. So do Zazenkai and Ango. Zen is evolving to suit the Internet culture of Treeleaf. We are not, as you said in your earlier post, "trying to live like Dogen". At the same time, you could say we are trying to live like Dogen - if Dogen lived in the twenty-first century.

At the same time, this is still a Zen sangha. And although yes, some things have changed some things necessarily have to remain the same. Otherwise why call it Zen? You can only remove so much. Here we practice shikantaza zazen. Telling our teachers "but this is 2013, secular buddhism is okay" is like going to the Aikido dojo and telling the instructor "but this is 2013, MMA is okay!" It is okay and there is a bit of overlap in the sense that we are not, again, trying to live like it was thirteenth century Japan - but here we don't mix and match though the teachers do not forbid us to look into other practices on our own. And as far as I can understand Taigu and Jundo, that's the only point they want to get across. (Okay, they also have their opinions on Adyashanti which may or may not jive with yours. I don't necessarily agree with them either, but I don't know Adyashanti so I can't really say anything worthwhile about it.)

Apologies for bringing it back to this point. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I feel it's important to repeat this point.


Rafael

To who is is important to repeat? ;-)

[pinoybuddhist]

Touche


Rafael