Bruce

Right now, I'm practicing 40min to 1hr a day, sometimes over 2 sessions (having a bit of lower back issue at the moment). If I have the time I may sit more sessions, but right now I'm not feeling the need for it. My last Zen teacher actually told me to chill a bit when I told him I was sitting 3 or 4 40 minute sessions.

I should add that what I am feeling the need for is more movement, and so I'm starting to incorporate some basic gigong. This morning I did some moving reps of Tai Chi postures, that I remember from when I practiced it. I felt a lot more energetic during my sitting practice for it!

While this is always an interesting discussion, often leading to a lot of arguing

one could take an alternate tact.

If you are Buddhist, live by the precepts as best you can and practice diligently. You've then done all you can do. The next life, if there is one, will take care of itself, whether you understand the minutia of detail or not.

Interesting discussion! I like the way the original question was posed: how do they relate, rather than what's the difference. That's how I've approached my study of Taoism and Hinduism in relation to Buddhism: how are they similar. The scholars and secular religionists can find all the differences. I'm more interested in the message, and to me there's a very similar thread, if you look beyond the semantics. When I read the Tao Te Ching, I always feel as if I could be reading an ancient Ch'an master. In fact, the message seems to be more clearly expressed in the Tao. My impression of the old yogis in India is that they weren't wrapping themselves up in the religion of Hinduism. They were just practicing. I believe it's the same case with the old sages of Buddhism and Taoism. They just practiced and lived what they practiced. To me, that's a very similar thread.

Well, I got through exactly 1 min of the video before turning it off.

Meditation certainly can dredge up feelings, and this one seems to be quite common. You can take the positive view and look upon this as progress. It sounds to me like you are handling it well, as you say you can watch it rise and fall. That's great! Just sit with that, or stand with that in your case. Eventually, you may drill back to a root cause, or not. I think the key is to watch the emotion impassionately. It rises and falls, like you said, just like any other thought. When you can see that the anger really has no substance, then you can begin to understand it.

Cheers,

Bruce

It strikes me that the flame analogy still implies distinction. A self if you will. How much "selfness" is transferred by one flame to another may be modified relative to an all-out "I have this many past lives, this is what I did" view but the root problem, the notion of "me", is still conveyed.

 

Then it struck me that to say we do not have a self is to say that we do not possess individual karma. I have been thinking that karma defines the self and the release from karma reveals the true Self. if this is not the case and we are not little packets of karma jumping from body to body, perhaps it is a more general process. Perhaps we all simply manifest, return to the source, then bring the karma that we wish (the Self's karma, the karma we all share since we are the same at the High Self level) with us to resolve while in human bodies. This seems closer to the truth than the "self" mentality (although my brain is still dealing with the rearranging of concepts that this implies), and it's already providing me with a greater sense of humility but why then do we not ALL resolve karma together as a uniform group? Ultimately, we are all the same thing manifesting in different bodies, but why different karma? To have some people be cruel and others enlightened seems bizarre to me.

 

Feel free to chip in whatever. There's not a lot of coherency to my thoughts right now, so anything helps. Thanks

I don't have a lot of thought coherency now either. Gettin' kinda late over here in the UK. I probably didn't phrase the candle analogy well, and like most examples on this topic, it too can leave one scratching their head.

Technically, and in my tired state I shouldn't be trying to be technical, karma stands apart from the aggragates, but somewhat like our environment, upbringing, etc it "conditions" us into patterns of behaviour. The aggragates cease, but karma doesn't. Karma doesn't technically make the ego so it doesn't cease, and thus it migrates.

If you want to get really confusing, there are Zen masters who say that what is inherited is not only our previous karma, but also random karma from "out there somewhere". Now, I can't find reference to that anywhere else. Other Zen teachers deny the idea of rebirth altogether, or treat it in an agnostic way. It's just one of those things that there isn't any concrete evidence of that everyone can agree on. Personally, I've fallen into the agnostic category.

Welcome Bruce, I hope you enjoy it here

Cheers WhiteRabbit! I appreciate it.

Well this makes sense to me, but I guess I'm still not totally getting it as well as I thought. For example, lets assume that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion. Using the flame metaphor (which I think was the most clarifying thing I've heard so far), he's not really the Buddha of Compassion in a different form. He is another flame that the Buddha of Compassion's flame touched (plus all the other Dalai Lama's in between). Right? So why give him any special recognition if he's not the same being as the Buddha of Compassion? I know I'm being very specific to Tibetan Buddhism when I use him as an example, but it's the best that I have. Thanks.

Yep. That's always been a question for me. Like most, I started out with general Buddhism study, pretty much Theravadan literature and a bit of Zen. My study took me into Tibetan Buddhism eventually, and I actually ended up being ordained for awhile in the Nyingma tradition. Don't take that to mean that I know anything. I wasn't a very good monk, lol.

Anyway, that's where things started getting pretty confusing to me. Contradictory, actually. The Tibetans study the Abhidamma as well. For all intents and purposes, they teach the same principle of rebirth as the Theravadans - except, it seems to me, when it comes to tulkus (which the Dalai Llama essentially is). Then it gets political, just like any other religion, IMO, and that's where things start to fall apart, again just my opinion.

I decided to just go back to the source, or what most in Buddhism accept to be the source, for this sort of thing and that's the Abhidamma. Do I really believe this stuff? I don't know.

I quipped in my intro that I'm working on dropping labels because they always end up ruining my practice. For instance, do I adhere to the Zen "belief" or the Tibetan "beliefs", and if so which faction? Somehow my little brain wants to identify with something, and religion being what it is, I always seem to find a contradiction, or just some political BS that ruins if for me. So now I'm dropping it all. I'm not even calling myself Buddhist anymore. I just practice.

That's a bit more than you asked. Sorry.

Oh - the poster above me alludes to the answer the Tibetans would give. That is, the Dalai Llama being a realized being "chooses" to return. It's not a dependent origination, particularly. I think that's right, lol.

I do believe there's a certain energy in the mountains. I've always felt it, anyway. When I lived in California, I would head up into the Sierras whenever I felt low (no pun intended). Being in the mountains never failed to rejuvinate me, to some extent. Likely, the reason is simply because I would relax and change my thinking.

Now I live in England, out in the countryside amongst the rolling hills of Cornwall. There is a woodland just a short walk from the house. I go there to rejuvinate now, but I almost always climb the highest hill there and just sit. Usually, I have to make myself get up and go home. It's not the mountains, but it's the best I have right now.

I tend to see prayer as less about an omnipotent being helping or intervening in people's lives and more about an energetic change in the way the person who is praying relates to the issue at hand. A prayer takes it out of the person's hands. The prayer says "[insert higher power here], this is too big for me to handle. Do you think you might provide me the guidance, strength, wisdom, etc. to facilitate a better outcome?" Which to me takes the person's ego out of the equation. It says I can't do this on my own. It opens the person praying up to the interconnectedness in the world. And that is something I think more people could stand to contemplate more often.

That's exactly how I now view prayer, and probably said much better than I could have!

When I lost a place to practice I threw out my couch, chairs and totally cleared out my living room. Of course I am single...

That's brilliant! I could never get away with it.

How long have you done tai chi? Welcome to da Bums.

Hi Darin,

I practiced the Yang long form twice a day for about a year. Then some life struck, lol, and I just stopped. Inexplicable really. I haven't practiced for several years, and now don't even have the indoor space. It is something I want to get back to as it was likely the healthiest, both mentally and physically, time of my 52 years.

Currently, I'm just practicing meditation (Shikantaza) and doing a bit of yoga. I'm particularly interested in incorporating some chi kung into my practice. I learned some basic chi kung, back when, but I'm a little reluctant to take it too far without a teacher.

Thank you for the welcome. Much appreciated!

Bruce

Hello all,

Just registered and wish to introduce myself. I'm a seeker, and suppose I always have been. My background is probably more Buddhist than Taoist, although I've done some study and have been a practitioner of Tai Chi. I'm here to learn. Btw, I live in the UK.

Bruce