superstitions
July 10, 2007
i’ve been listening to alot of this guy ajan brahm’s lectures on youtube for a while.
He’s pretty thorough in his explanations, which i like. i heard his talk on superstitions tonight.
He’s under the standpoint that Christianity is a superstition.
He made the statement that a lot of superstition is just believing without actually checking it out. From my understanding, he said superstition=blind faith. i agree. The only way for Christianity not to be a superstition would be if it’s an experiential religion. From my understanding, Christianity is meant to be an experiential religion Granted, to have this deposit of the Holy Spirit, someone must believe; likewise though, when ajan speaks of seeing the mind, one must meditate. He speaks of the possibility of even seeing a past life you’ve lived. i like what he said when he explained how he’d experienced an early life memory, then encouraged the listeners to find out for themselves and not to take his word for it. i do agree that superstition exists in Christianity just as he acknowledged that it exists in buddhism.
For instance, ajahn mentioned how the student went to him and some other monks to have them chant over her so she’d do well on her examn. i once was talking to a muslim man who was turned off by Christianity because (if i remember correctly) of people he’d encountered who mentioned they needed some spare change to put in the offereing plate, so they’d get their blessing. And how many athletes have you seen who wear a gold cross necklace which many consider to be their good luck charm. Maybe there are those who wear it as a statement of faith, but i don’t know that clothing/jewelry can really make a faith statement if it’s not backed up by something inward.
Forgiveness
What right has that person to forgive you? The only thing they can do is to urge you to forgive yourself…
you say:
‘to have this deposit of the Holy Spirit, someone must believe; likewise though, when ajan speaks of seeing the mind, one must meditate.’
I can’t speak to the rest of the post, perhaps you might find a way to address the ‘Christianity Is Superstition’ you seem to think Ajahn Brahm spoke of more directly to him.
But this sentence seems to equalize Mind and Holy Spirit and to equalize Belief and Meditation as the same thing.
Is this what you meant to say?
Belief and meditation are not the same thing, unless you mean to say they are somehow similar as processes or means. I think even at that level, they just aren’t the same.
It is a very good dharma talk.
The’re a book called
bruchko
http://www.harborlightentertainment.com/
about a Christian missionary who was explaining to a man from an indigenous tribe what it means to believe in Jesus. He compared it to trusting in a hammock to hold you up.
Granted, the hammock can be seen, but according to the story, it made sense to the tribesman and he became a Christian. If i remember correctly, the tribeman noticed there was something different about the missionary (besides his pale skin and blonde hair), so perhaps that opened the door for his belief in Jesus.
i don’t like speaking from personal experience, but in this case, i think it helps to get my point across. As for myself, it was meditating/reflecting on Romans 8 of the bible which led me to an experience which gave me reason to believe that i am made pure by Christ. (i hope that applies to belief and meditation as being one in the same).
So, yes i am equalizing belief and meditation as the same thing in that they are similar as a process.
Perhaps you could elaborate more on how even at that level, they just aren’t the same? i do value feedback.
i’m hoping to address more of what ajahn brings up in this talk, as many points are brought up which spark my interest. So, i hope you’ll keep posted. i’d be happy to know what you think.
I’m pretty certain that meditation has little to do with belief. Meditation is more of a process and a training. Just as in Buddhism we don’t see the mind as a thing but as process – - there is no fixed and unchanging thing that is the mind.
I would wager that when Ajahn Brahm states that, ” in order to see the mind we must meditate” — he is simply referring to what the direct experience of meditation is.
As a Buddhist I don’t meditate in order to come to shape beliefs or even acquire understanding, its more about the act itself. Zazen – - is the simple act of truly being what we are. As Master Dogen stated in the 14th Century, “Zazen is enlightenment itself” i.e. — It is a means unto itself, a true and natural state.
I’m sure you both have some understanding of this fact through your own experience of meditation.
Thanks for that explanation. i suppose i was making a bit of a stretch in that comparison. You mention that in buddhism the mind is not a thing but a process–that there is no fixed and unchanging thing that is the mind.
i’m curious. Doesn’t buddhism teach about something called the mind of pure light? is that the aim in buddhism? (aside from truly being who we are)
If the mind is not a constant, is that a bad thing?
Is there anything which is constant and unchanging?
Gregor pretty much covered it. Sorry I’ve been otherwise occupied in not getting back more quickly.
Everything changes. Everything depends on something else. Nothing is permanent and unchanging; It might last for a very long time in human reckoning, but it too passes. All the bad karma eventually runs out. All the good karma eventually runs out. Unless this process is transcended, it incarnates. That can be endless, but it always changes. Even the ‘mind of pure light’ is subject to this chain of causes, to arising and falling.
Consciousness depends on Name and Form, and Name and Form depend on Consciousness.
This at this point is an intellectual understanding. It needs to be experienced, and then it hopefully is no longer such a sticky point of discourse. Hopefully once it’s experienced it no longer becomes such an annoying and distracting pursuit, and one can just get on with it.
Trying to understand with words is pointless. It requires no belief. It just is.
Is that constant and unchanging?
good karma eventually runs out in the sense that i do something good and i reap the benefits which that good act brings to me right?
But can it be said that there is a source of good karma?
and speaking of transcendence, that’s becoming one with something right?
what if i said there is a source of good karma, and to transcend karma, to enter nirvana (that’s what it’s called right?) is to become one with the source of good karma? Would you say that’s an accurate description of buddhist teachings?
“… karma eventually runs out in the sense that i do something … and i reap the benefits which that … act brings to me right?”
This isn’t necessarily about you.
”… can it be said that there is a source of good karma?”
Karma is action and the chain of causes. There is no first cause.
”and speaking of transcendence, that’s becoming one with something right?”
Nope.
”what if i said there is a source of good karma, and to transcend karma, to enter nirvana (that’s what it’s called right?) is to become one with the source of good karma? Would you say that’s an accurate description of buddhist teachings?”
Nope. It is a Christian description.
I’m a little confused by some of your questions.
I don’t mean to say that they are not valid questions ,its just that they don’t seem to be representative of what the Dharma is really about.
To understand Buddhism I think it is best to look into the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path, and the idea of Sunyata.
Karma, Nirvana, reincarnation, and the like are sort of loaded with a lot complicated and confusing baggage — they are hold overs from the Brahmic religions of ancient India — personally as a Soto Zen practitioner I don’t worry to much about them.
The “mind of pure light” is a term I’ve heard discussed only in Tibetan Buddhism – - and it is a rather skillful example used to represent the true nature of the mind – - but even this can most accurately be described as a dynamic process and not an objective or fixed location that we can earn our way into through Karma or meditation.
dougrogers,
“This (actions which reap good/bad karma?) isn’t necessarily about you.”
i see.
What did you mean by that good and bad karma “eventually run out”?
and just for clarity:
“Karma is action and the chain of causes. There is no first cause.”
if Karma is self existent, what is the purpose of transcending Karma? i mean, wouldn’t the self-existent thing be all there is?
”what if i said there is a source of good karma, and to transcend karma, to enter nirvana (that’s what it’s called right?) is to become one with the source of good karma? Would you say that’s an accurate description of buddhist teachings?”
“Nope. It is a Christian description.”
“>In this book:
in ch. 9, regarding subservience to universals, nakamura writes:
” For Indians, the acts of individuals are not of great importance; they tend to emphasize the power of the universal Being which transcends individuals.”
i’m sure you are aware that the founder of buddhism was born in india. So what specifically was Christian about my question? (Regarding the existence of a source of good karma)
Sorry that these questions may seem to be going off on a rabbit trail, but i am always looking for similarities between Christianity and buddhism, and the existence of a universal Being which transcends individuals one element i always assumed these two religions had in common.
Gregor
These questions may seem to be irrelavent, but i am always looking for similarities between Christianity and buddhism. My questions have more to do with that pursuit. i’m glad for the reminder to actually practice meditation to gain a better understand it though.
i just want to understand what the aim is in meditation, and to be able to convey that in words.
You say:
“What did you mean by that good and bad karma “eventually run out”? and just for clarity: [regarding] “Karma is action and the chain of causes. There is no first cause.” … if Karma is self existent, what is the purpose of transcending Karma? i mean, wouldn’t the self-existent thing be all there is?”
Karma is not self-existant. Everything is connected to everything else. Everything is dependant on causes and conditions. Nothing exists outside the chain of cause and effect, nothing exists that is not dependant on, made from something else, or conceived from other parts. When the causes and conditions aren’t there, things do not arise.
You say:
“in ch. 9, regarding subservience to universals, nakamura writes: ” For Indians, the acts of individuals are not of great importance; they tend to emphasize the power of the universal Being which transcends individuals.” I’m sure you are aware that the founder of buddhism was born in India. … and the existence of a universal Being which transcends individuals one element i always assumed these two religions had in common.”
And this is where Buddhism breaks with the Hindu and Brahmanic – and Christian tradition. There is no Greater Power, no Universal Being, no Creator God, no First Cause. There is no Immortal Soul. There is nothing that lasts forever. There is no point or place or time or space where anything and everything begins, or ends, there is nothing of us as individuals which lasts forever.
If there is anything to be “subservient” to it is that we are all only human beings who suffer, and to treat every sentient being with compassion.
you are so faithful (faithful in the sense of consistent) at responding! Thanks. Some people around the bible belt (where i’m from) would say that’s very “Christian” of you.
“Karma is not self-existant. Everything is connected to everything else. Everything is dependant on causes and conditions. Nothing exists outside the chain of cause and effect, nothing exists that is not dependant on, made from something else, or conceived from other parts. When the causes and conditions aren’t there, things do not arise.”
you also said: “Karma is action and the chain of causes. There is no first cause.”
in other words, karma is the chain of cause and effect. right?
Nothing exists outside of the chain of cause and effect.
Nothing exists outside of karma.
How are you not implying that karma is self existent?
Maybe you assumed i was trying to suggest that Karma=God?
If Karma is our actions, how can it exist without us?
From what i’ve read thus far of buddhist philolophy,
“What we call the person is simply a process, a chain of causes and effects, driven by the engine of karma…. (does that make karma separate from the chain of causes and effects or just part of the same “vehicle”?)
…To put an end to suffering, it is necessary to percieve an absence, to see that the self that seems so real was never there in the first place.”
the story of buddhism p.26
you said: “If Karma is our actions, how can it exist without us?”
If we ourselves are a chain driven by karma, how can “us” or “i” exist without karma?
maybe this is a sketchy metaphor, but,
is a car a car without an engine?
i’m sort of laughing b/c i don’t know where this conversation is going or why it matters if karma is indeed self existent. But i suppose something has to be self existent.
“I just want to understand what the aim is in meditation, and to be able to convey that in words.”
Well, this is a hard thing to do because what it is is impossible to convey in words. But, I’ll try.
Meditation is simply seeing reality as it is. Its an attempt to end the malstorm of thoughts, wrong views, and conditioning that we normally think is real. It goes down to realize that the past,present, and future cannot be seperated that they flow into each other, and the only thing that is real is the present, and our thoughts and views about what is real is only just a story — not reality.
The most honest description that I can give you is the Buddhism is pure realism. Not, Idealism. This is why I’m a little warry about people trying to understand Buddhism through ideals like Karma or reincarnation. The truth is that neither are universal beliefs to all Buddhist schools they are not Buddhism.
What all Buddhism has in common is the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. To understand Buddhism it best to look here. . .because these are the universal teachings of the Buddha. The other stuff is window dressing.
“If Karma is our actions, how can it exist without us?”
Exactly.
“If we ourselves are a chain driven by karma, how can “us” or “i” exist without karma?”
Exactly
“maybe this is a sketchy metaphor, but, is a car a car without an engine?”
Do you have a body without a mind? Do you have a mind without a body? Search your body for your mind. Search your mind for your body. Does your body begin or end anywhere? Does your mind end or begin anywhere?