Here's the link to the post:
At first I thought it was funny but over time it's clear the dog is visibly distressed at the guy pointing and yelling at him. The guy's only joking around but the dog won't realise that.
They just seem to be making a joke at the expense of the dog here, and I found it difficult to watch. I'm sure they're great owners but in this instance they seem to be letting the desire to make a funny video take priority over love and compassion. Anyone else perceive it this way ?submitted by IdunHo1
[link] [1 comment]
My roommate and I (22, F) had a huge falling out in September so I had to move. I had sunken into depression in a weak moment and now I've come through the other side. After I had moved out and back into my father's house, I pulled through my depression I started looking for all my books and papers, come to find out my father who is super anti religious, sexist, homophobic, conservative, threw them all out.
I feel so lost in starting over again and getting back on the path again. I ask for help/guidance, thank you all. ?submitted by Mini_noodle
[link] [7 comments]
I've been meditating some time now from a secular approach, and I have reached quite a lot of insights with different meditations, starting with what could be called annapana, to vipassana, and on to even somewhat developing my own variations of insight meditations that I felt were an addition to my personal condition in every moment.
Although I do not intend to actually convert to Buddhis, (but... who knows right?) I have now come to a point where I am starting to feel more and more inclined to get more familiar with actual Buddhist teaching and theory. Because I do realize that a lot of the meditation techniques and insights I have gained, have their origin in Buddhism. And from what I've heard of him, I think Siddharta Gautama was simply one of the most interesting human beings who have ever lived. So I'd like to get more familiar with him on a more 'personal' level.
Because I am very familiar with meditation in general, I have of course picked up some information here and there. For example I am familiar with the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path and the general difference between the 2(or3) major schools, and I know what a Sutra is. All basically picked up from books and talks I have taken in over the last few years: Secondary knowledge.
What I would like to start doing however, is instead of listing to or reading from people who talk or write about Buddhist writings, to go to the actual source and read them myself. The thing is, I have absolutely no idea where to start.
Could you point me out to some sources and maybe some advice on recommended order of reading of some of these sources?
EDIT: I just thought about it some more, and what I feel like I am particularly interested in at this time would be direct teachings about Metta, Impermanence, and Anatta, because these are concept I am quite familiar with on an experiental level through meditation. If someone could point me to sutra's that discuss these concepts in detail I would be really thankful.submitted by Tyanuh
[link] [8 comments]
I was reading over Red Pine's version of the Diamond Sutra for quite some time, and some of it still did not click with me. I understand that much of it is often confused as supporting concepts of impermanence when it really is a discourse on emptiness of things.
However, in the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha spoke in this manner to Subhuti:
"The Buddha: Is it possible to speak of B? Subhuti: No, there is no B to speak of. Therefore we call it B."
and as a specific example:
"Bhagavan, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist. But whenever the Tathagata speaks of attachment to an entity, the Tathagata speaks of it as no attachment. Thus is it called 'attachment to an entity.'"
I've touched and meditated upon emptiness, but for this sutra, I am confused of the wording and real meaning behind these words. Thank you! Much love!submitted by InfiniteWaters108
[link] [5 comments]
I'm about day 16 into my 30 day Anapanasati project. I've been noticing great results, although in the past few days I've been slightly confused.
I'm still working on the first tetrad of Anapanasati, but I'm confused as to whether I should keep The Progress of Insight maps in mind, as written by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw and Daniel Ingram, M.D.
Did the Buddha teach the latter? Is the latter something that arises in its own time through practice of the former?
Here's The Progress of Insight: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch2
And the Anapanasati Sutta is easy to find.submitted by Pathos315
[link] [3 comments]
Hello. A friend who uses Reddit suggested I ask for guidance here. She is not Buddhist, but explained that this forum would probably give me the best advice.
First and foremost, I am not seeking debate or confrontation. From what I am reading elsewhere, this can be an incredibly touchy subject, but I am new and naive, thus I seek guidance.
I know nothing. I come from a predominately Christian household. Buddhism characteristics are what I'd like to attain, as compassion and wisdom are traits I greatly attempt in my every day life. I enjoy what I read in various blogs. However, I don't understand books I've picked up about Buddhism. Even the beginner books are confusing to me. So I started looking for a temple, or even just a study group, and stumbled upon the Kadampa meditation center. It is literally fifteen minutes from my house, and the only Buddhist place within a hundred miles of me...or more.
I've read the stories and understand that this might not be the best of ideas, but I have no where else to go. I can read books all day long, but I'm a woman of doing; I don't understand unless I do. Many texts and words are confusing to me as it is all very different from how I've grown up, and just having a single person help me understand everything would be very helpful.
If I studied there, will it be true Buddhist studies? The controversy seems to stem from sex allegations, going against the Dalai Lama, being cultish, and worshipping Shugden (sp?), though I have yet to look up the controversy about the last part. If it isn't too much to ask and won't cause a stir, would anyone mind telling me about this Shugden? If it will cause a stir, then please forget I asked!
Above all, I want to learn. I'm not looking to become ordained or anything; I just want to start somewhere with teachings that are meaningful and presented in a way I can understand. I'm not a very good book learner; all my talents arised from doing and speaking with someone who knows what they are doing.
Any suggestions, comments, concerns? I appreciate any and all of them.submitted by SmileKidDontCry
[link] [7 comments]
I took a plunge and listened to Jack Kornfield's amazing podcast "Heart Wisdom" this evening, and the topic of the episode was Mudita, the happiness we experience within ourselves and also for those around us.
When wrapping up, he read aloud american poet Jack Gilbert's poem "A Brief for the Defense", which brings up the need to maintain inner happiness in times of distress and not feel guilty for feeling positive despite the horrors of the world.
It really struck a chord with me, especially today in regards to the news surrounding the recent tragedy in France.
Apologies if this post isn't relevant to the topics discussed here. Feel free to remove it if that is the case.
Sorrow everywhere. Slaughter everywhere. If babies are not starving someplace, they are starving somewhere else. With flies in their nostrils. But we enjoy our lives because that's what God wants. Otherwise the mornings before summer dawn would not be made so fine. The Bengal tiger would not be fashioned so miraculously well.
The poor women at the fountain are laughing together between the suffering they have known and the awfulness in their future, smiling and laughing while somebody in the village is very sick. There is laughter every day in the terrible streets of Calcutta, and the women laugh in the cages of Bombay. If we deny our happiness, resist our satisfaction, we lessen the importance of their deprivation. We must risk delight. We can do without pleasure, but not delight. Not enjoyment.
We must have the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless furnace of this world. To make injustice the only measure of our attention is to praise the Devil. If the locomotive of the Lord runs us down, we should give thanks that the end had magnitude. We must admit there will be music despite everything.
We stand at the prow again of a small ship anchored late at night in the tiny port looking over to the sleeping island: the waterfront is three shuttered cafés and one naked light burning. To hear the faint sound of oars in the silence as a rowboat comes slowly out and then goes back is truly worth all the years of sorrow that are to come.submitted by Wndwrt
[link] [1 comment]
In this stirring discourse the Buddha underscores the vital urgency of keeping one's attention firmly rooted in the present moment. After all, the past is gone, the future isn't here; this present moment is all we have.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks replied.
The Blessed One said:You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. Ardently doing what should be done today, for — who knows? — tomorrow death. There is no bargaining with Mortality & his mighty horde. Whoever lives thus ardently, relentlessly both day & night, has truly had an auspicious day: so says the Peaceful Sage.
"And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.
"And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called not chasing after the past.
"And how does one place expectations on the future? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called placing expectations on the future.
"And how does one not place expectations on the future? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called not placing expectations on the future.
"And how is one taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who has not seen the noble ones, is not versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is not trained in the teachings of the noble ones, sees form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
"He/she sees feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
"He/she sees perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.
"He/she sees thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.
"He/she sees consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called being taken in with regard to present qualities.
"And how is one not taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones who has seen the noble ones, is versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is well-trained in the teachings of the noble ones, does not see form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
"He/she does not see feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
"He/she does not see perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.
"He/she does not see thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.
"He/she does not see consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called not being taken in with regard to present qualities.numbersev
[link] [4 comments]
I think I have some idea of what Secular Buddhism is about. For example, we see a general tendency that pro-secular-Buddhists usually reject the doctrine of Rebirth, Karma, and any supernatural and mythical stuff. It's not my interest to argue for or against it in this post. But It seems that Secular Buddhists really do not have a clear idea of what they are really going to do. Take a look at an article by Dana Nourie, What is a Secular Buddhist, and What Do They Believe?. If we take what is said in the article literally, secular Buddhism seems to be nearly everything or nearly nothing.
And here are a few of samples which I found on /r/Buddhism to be problematic definitions or characterizations of Secular Buddhism.
(1) A "secular" or materialist interpretation of Buddhism involves taking what is unempirical, unverified claims of karma, reincarnation and nirvana and making them verified and more wise beliefs about Phenomenology.
==> Empirical evidence and verification? But who empirically have ever proved that the 4 noble truths and the eight-fold path are effective for getting awakened? Is there any peer-reviewed scientific paper of which conclusion is based on a well-designed scientific experiment ?
Most of Secular Buddhists seem to agree that the core teachings of Buddhism include the 4 noble truths, eight-fold paths, and the three marks of existence, dependent arising... which of them is an empirically verifiable claim?
(2) I guess I'd say that secular Buddhism is about having faith, but not blind, dogmatic faith, in the Buddha and the Dharma. Also, it's free from the influence of folk religions as is common in many Buddhist sects.
==> Free from dogmatic faith? Which traditional sect/school of Buddhism claim to be a dogmatic faith based Buddhism? This kind of "our school is better than any other else" attitude is in fact - unfortunately - a very commonly seen attitude in many traditional Buddhist sects (maybe... virtually all?).
==> free from the influence of folk religions?
being free from the influence of folk religions is really anything new? For example, Zen Buddhism is (at least, arguably) one of traditional Buddhist schools in which hardly any trace of folk religion is not found (if any). Then what makes Secular Buddhism clearly distinctive from Zen Buddhism?
(3) Secular Buddhism is a modern movement in which any aspect of Buddhism which cannot be verified by modern scientific techniques is taken out of consideration.
==> then throw away the 4 noble truths, eight-fold paths, and the three marks of existence, dependent arising. None of them is verifiable by modern empirical scientific techniques.
(4) I see secular buddhism as simply being evidenced-based, not faith-based.
==> I have to repeat what I said earlier. where are empirical scientific evidences for any of the 4 noble truths, eight-fold paths, and the three marks of existence, dependent arising?
In fact, I feel sympathetic with Secular Buddhists more or less, and While I'm not one of them, I'd like to regard Secular Buddhism as one of legitimate sects of Buddhism. But the self-conception of Secular Buddhism is full of non-senses, self-contradictions so much that I simply can not overlook it.
submitted by fripsidelover9110
[link] [61 comments]