04-01-05 4:01 pm

Hey everyone, i am looking for the monk hats that look like a mowhawk. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-Carl


Why would you possibly want one? They are ritual implements, and deserve care and respect.

-Barnaby


Oh great, now I want one.

They are just hats.

In the hands of a monk they are significant to him for his ritual uses and he gives them respect and care.

But they are still just hats.


Some of the Buddhists on this Tribe might find it disturbing that core images of our tradition are bought and sold with no respect to how they are viewed by serious practitioners.

-Barnaby

I just can't see a serious practitioner of buddhism actually being bothered by something like that.

As you say there is nothing intrinsic to the item itself. It is the sacred activity of the practitioner which is of value. For all we know those hats were the baseball caps of their day.

Personally I see it as all good. The shallow and aquisitive have a chance to get curious about buddhism and the up-tight get to have their chains yanked. Win-win all the way around.


A practicing Tibetan Buddhist may see this differently than you.

-Celestial

Then they would need more practice.


I wouldn't take what Swarm says seriously. He enjoys telling others that they are wrong or otherwise ignorant. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, he just really enjoys making you feel like less than himself.

-George


Hey, I like swarm!

I have not found this to be true. I usually find his comments to be meaningful.

-Harriet


If you're a person reading this and not understanding why this is a sensitive issue, best is to ask a Tibetan in your real-life travels and hear it from a refugee standing in front of you.

-Celestial


I don't feel the need to seek out a refugee and ask his opinion. I agree with swarm, that placing too much import on these physical items bespeaks an attachment that it is my impression most Buddhists struggle to escape.

I guess I just don't believe in sacrilege. I don't believe humans are capable of diminishing the divine. Let the people have the hats.

It's inappropriate to try to hoard sacred iconography.

-Harriet


The notion of sacred objects is inherently anti-buddhist. All objects are inherently impermanent, subject to decay and without innate merit.

What is sacred is not any particular object or ritual set of actions.

Equanimity, being at peace, seeing clearly, understanding completely, doing right, not doing wrong, residing in the moment unperturbed by the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, being loving and kind, living a full life and dying a full death, these are what is sacred and holy.

I can understand it being a sensitive issue for a Tibetan, but not for a Tibetan buddhist.

Any buddhist who gets excited about the fate of a hat is in serious need of more practice.


Swarm, this is simply false. There are many Buddhist schools which venerate sacred objects in various fashions.

-Barnaby

There are many foolish notions in the world. Simply because many buddhist schools adopt some of them doesn't make them less foolish.

However I suspect that if you examine those practices closely you will see that in most cases it is not the object which is venerated, but the wisdom which happens to momentarily reside as writing on the object or the memories which are associated with an object.

It is the Prajnaparamita Sutras, not the paper and ink, which are venerated. But even that veneration is ultimately a hinderence. It is the dust and ashes of someone long dead.

Being your own living and breathing Prajnaparamita Sutras - that is something sacred.

My tantric friend would be the first person to laugh at the notion of a sacred hat. He can cultivate sacred veneration but there is no "with" to it. If he is using a baseball cap, that is sacred. If he mimes a hat, that is sacred. If you take his hat, its just a hat. The sacred is in the cultivation, not the hat.

As for traditions: religions collect traditions like a hound collects ticks and they are both equally useful.

Reason, not tradition, is the path of buddhism.


So who is to say which is the 'real' Buddhism? The rational Buddhism which attracts persons like you and I is a small part of the whole story.

When you start holy rolling about what the real Dharma is, as you often do, it does chafe me, because I keep thinking of the 98% of the Buddhists that you do not include. And for me, this is aggravated by the swagger with which you assert that these other positions are not legitimate and refer to them with great disrespect. I believe that you would be deeply served by a more open mind and some genuine humility.

- Barnaby


B:There is a lot about you I admire, like your even keel. You've given me a genuine reply, which I appreciate.

Thank you. I am likewise impressed with your own grasp of the subject.

B: I don't see myself attributing...

Then I accept it was unintentional.

B: You are, of course, free to say that...

You then go on to attribute things to me which I not only wouldn't say but actually disagree with such as: "centuries of Indian Mahayana practices and 1500 years of Tibetan Buddhist practices are not 'real' Buddhism."

You then attack the position that you have assigned me saying: "such a perspective is an extremely narrow, rigid, and fundamentalist interpretation of Buddhism, and one that I find an anathema."

This is of course the classic use of a strawman argument.

My actual position is that when buddhism fragmented under the strain of its success about 1500 years ago each school landed on a specific set of aspects which resonated with their particular school's views.

The schools which didn't have sufficient fragments to get the job done died out and what we have left is two somewhat distinct approaches each of which over-emphasizes certain aspects of the original but is still close enough to get the job done.

As for "real buddhism" everything which leads to a buddha is real buddhism. Anything which leaves one just a buddhist isn't "real buddhism" yet.

Now if you happen to be suggesting that everything in every mahayana and tibetean school of buddhism in all of their years of existence is absolutly perfect, we have such vastly divergent understandings I'm not sure where to begin.

But if you are willing to concede that there is chaff amongst the wheat, then our only disagreements concern trivialities such as its nature and degree.

B: A quick survey of the history of Buddhism shows that tradition and devotional practice form a deep core of Buddhist religious praxis through the millenia.

A not-so-quick survey shows that the religious praxis is a graft to appease the surrounding non-buddhists and lay people who expect religion and priests to look and behave certain ways.

This is why the religious aspects differ so widely and have obvious roots in the original practices of the local people (such as Bon). (two points for use of "praxis")

The buddhist aspects of buddhism do not vary nearly as much and form a core practice which gives all buddhism a characteristic and recognizable nature.

It is true I don't consider extreme deviations from that core to still be buddhism.

While the religious trappings of buddhism historically served a purpose I find those trappings are at best distractions which have outlived their utility.

B: the vast majority of practices carried out by the vast majority of people who call themselves Buddhist over the centuries have been devotional practices, which have little or no resemblance to the rational Buddhism of the monastic elites.

Exactly.

B: So who is to say which is the 'real' Buddhism?

Well, the buddha for one. He taught his way to what became the monastics and they have done as best they could to preserve and expand upon that teaching. He did not teach a religion or empty devotion and seems to have had a low opinion of the superstitious masses, their blind faith and their chances for enlightenment.

As my sweety says: Real Buddhism™ is not the point. The point is what works.

B: The rational Buddhism which attracts persons like you and I is a small part of the whole story.

A water lilly is a small part of the whole swamp but I still rather find one than find a water moccasan. Nor do I feel the need to pretend they are the same because they both have parts which are white.

B: it does chafe me

Good. That is exactly the level I'm looking for: Socrates' gadfly.

Chafing you means I'm saying something you need to hear and saying it loud enough to get your attention but I'm not such a jerk that you can dismiss me out of hand. Its a tough line to walk. Thanks for the feedback.

B: I keep thinking of the 98% of the Buddhists that you do not include.

I do not include or exclude any one.

Those 98% percent of buddhists will go about their merry ways none the worse for any examination on my part.

B: And for me, this is aggrevated by the swagger with which you assert that these other positions are not legitimate and refer to them with great disrespect. I believe that you would be deeply served by a more open mind and some genuine humility.

I tried humility and found it a most insidious and pretentious affectation.

I strive for what you said in the beginning of this reply - to be genuine - just as I am, neither more nor less, swagger and all.

For some reason the thread was deleted. We reposted, and Barnaby said this:

The fact is strenuous debate has an integral place in Buddhist history, and the idea that "Buddhists should just get along and see eye to eye" is fatuous, and does not lead to truth.

Those who don't have the stomach for it, who exactly do you think is being hurt? You will notice that Swarm and I are continuing to speak to one-another respectfully. I for one have learned a great deal from this discussion, and his latest reply fills me with delight and excitement.




03-24-05 10:10 am

My daughter just announced she is Pagan

Ok, my daughter just made this big announcement that she is Pagan. But we are a Baptist family and it's pretty surprising because she has always been so involved in our church.

Now she's hanging around with some "dark" friends and acting different. How would you handle this? She's 16 by the way.

Any advice is welcomed.

Mark



M: my daughter just made this big announcement

Congratulations, your daughter has just announced she is an adult and will be making her own decisions concerning her life.

That she told you speaks well of your relationship. How you handle what she said will determine how much of her life she trusts you with in the future.

I would strongly suggest treating her as a peer and fellow adult so she can learn how to handle her new role in a safe environment.

Ask more, tell less.

Be interested in her decision and participate in learning more about it with her. Take her seriously.

Also let her know she is still welcome to participate in the church activites she still enjoys.

Take the time to get to know her friends. Goths come in the same spectrum of good and ill as all people, even baptists.

If you take the time to get to know them as people first then if there are still concerns you can raise them and not have it seem like prejudice.

Best wishes!





03-21-05 7:07 pm

Biblically speaking, I have found that:

The presence of more than one god goes uncontested for most of the Old Testament. The Hebrew god Yahweh is seen as contending with other gods for the faith of his chosen people of Israel.

From the persepective of the historical Christian church, that verse has been used to develop and then support he idea of a triune god.

The nature of this "trinity" is still without consensus - The debates I have seen pop up reflect the same debates that occured during the first Nicean Council and on.

-MC
I hate to say it MC but this triune stuff seemed like a load of the brown stuff even back when I was interested in xtianity.

The first schism was between Peter's (and JC's) church and Paul's Church over authority and the target audience. Peter/JC were targeting Jews and wanted gentiles to convert. Paul basically said F- Peter and the jews, I'm da man.

The Pauline Cath./Orthadox split was about power mainly. The bishop of Rome desided he was da man and the orthadox churches said F- off.

And don't forget the gnostics and coptics.

Peter and JC's church pretty much died out in the beginning which basically means there are no actual Christians. There are only Paulians who call themselves christians.



03-22-05 7:07 pm

MC:...not a seperate religious organization...

I think that is an important and much glossed over point. Jesus was a jew and was interested in jews as the messia of the jews. Peter "the rock" seems to have been pretty admant about the fundimental jewish nature of the faith.

I personally would have great trouble reconciling the pivital none jewish character that Paul, aka Saul "the persecuter" imparted on the religion. He never met Jesus and didn't like the original christians who knew Jesus and had his teachings direct.

I think this is a pretty clear cut case of a conservitive fundimentalist take over which has in fact become a completely seperate and distinct religion have nothing to do with JC except the misappropriation of his name and stories.

MC: I dunno if I could go as far to say that Paul's missions ended up in a completely separate religion in terms of Christology.

You are a paulian in a paulian seminary with 2000 years of cover up wispering sweet lies in your ear.

The more you look at the actual teachings of JC, his context, the apocrypha on other very early writings (as well as gnostic and coptic writings) and early church history and archeology, the less what gets called xtianity makes any sense what so ever.


03-23-05 7:07 pm

MC: With my Christian bias, I obviously do not regard the Apocrypha or Pseudopigripha or Intertestamental writing as primary sources for my doctrines (though quite important for critical approach).

That's called "cherry picking."

The current bible was put together to promote a specific view point and consolidate power for those who held it at the expense of the truth.

Anything which failed to support that position was rewritten, supressed or declared heretical.

This has never struck me as a valid means of finding the truth and the actions of xtians throughout the ages and today reinforces this opinion.

Sure there are poeple such as yourself who are at least willing to consider that there may be unanswered problamatic questions, but I think that is far more about who you are than what xtianity is about.



03-24-05 7:07 pm

MC: Well...what could we say here that would end up in consensus or not start another endless thread in regards?

I'm not expecting consensus. I only want you to consider why you reguard jewish myths differently than you regard Greek myths or Norse myths.

S: That's called "cherry picking."

MC: I am sorry to hear you think that.

Its a classic example of this fault. Can you say why all the other Apostles and people who were there in the early church were wrong?

MC: Well...I believe you have arrived at your perspectives thoughtfully and respect thoughtfully

Then consider what I said and see if you can verify or deny it.

Any religion which fears examination and truth is a false religion.

If you believe god created the universe, then the universe itself is the most direct glimpse of god's mind. No book will ever match the truth itself.

MC: and that they represent truth to you.

No. Truth is indifferent to my opinion of it. Some thing is truth because it is. My representations are how I understand it, but there is a "there" there which I am understanding and which is there for any one who cares to look.

But you have to look.




03-23-05 10:01 pm

as of yesterday i have lost hope and faith in love - my husband told me yesterday that he has fallen out of love with me - and give it a month to figure out a few things and maybe he will fall back - i think this is a joke - true love is what i had for him - and now that i know he can just let it go and not even tell me this is happening before it is too late - well what do I have to believe in any more...so sad- wish my future didn't just go black, and the light of me heart wasn't just spit on...

This is hard, but if he really doesn't love you it is better to let him go.

That said it is also possible that he is having a crisis of faith.

I would strongly suggest getting a neutral third party to help who you both agree you can talk to. This could be a mutual friend, counselor or religious leader, but it needs to be some one who won't be seen as being biased towards one or the other of you. There is indutably a communication problem and a neutral third party can help open things back up.

Love is something people do together. It is a way of sharing self and accepting another and that pivots on effective communication of things which are difficult to communicate such as desires, passions, dreams and emotions.

If you both want to go back that direction then you can by practicing the things you love about and with each other. Court each other. Pay attention to each other. Be kind and receive each other's kindness.

But you both have to want it.

One of those dead zen guys once said something that I find very useful: this too shall pass.

If you break up it will hurt but the pain will pass and love will find you again.

If you find each other again you will both know that love is as fragile as it is strong and must be cherished every day for the blessing it is.

Best wishes.