Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

The best thing to do is not go around discussing religion at all unless asked to, or participating in a discussion about religion.

[silverskull39]

Another semi related quote that is humerous; "Religion is like an erection. You have every right to have one, but don't go waving it around in public, and for the love of all that is sacred don't try to shove it down my children's throats."

Keep in mind this goes the other way too.  A lot of people, especially on the internet, will tell others not to shove religion down their throats, while simultaneously and with no sense of irony shoving their lack of religion down the throat of the person they're talking to.

How so? just because I don't want to hear about your religion doesn't mean that I am lacking one.
Then again, keep in mind it's just a quote that's meant to be humorous.

[Akigagak]

Another semi related quote that is humerous; "Religion is like an erection. You have every right to have one, but don't go waving it around in public, and for the love of all that is sacred don't try to shove it down my children's throats."

Keep in mind this goes the other way too.  A lot of people, especially on the internet, will tell others not to shove religion down their throats, while simultaneously and with no sense of irony shoving their lack of religion down the throat of the person they're talking to.

How so? just because I don't want to hear about your religion doesn't mean that I am lacking one.
Then again, keep in mind it's just a quote that's meant to be humorous.

He wasn't saying that, just that the quote should be "[an opinion on] Religion is like an erection. You have every right to have one, but don't go waving it around in public, and for the love of all that is sacred don't try to shove it down my children's throats," for maximum QFT-ness.

[Retro]

Kael: I'm sure I'm going to come off as naive, but I'm just too curious not to ask: Seeing as the depiction of monks in popular media (predominantly film/TV and literature) is these impossibly wise, all-knowing figures who can solve any internal dilemma or life issue of another with a simple proverb or aphorism or relevant-yet-just-obscure-enough analogy, I'd like to know if you've gotten any such stereotypical 'magic advice' from another monk at the temple, and if so what it was?

[KaelGotDwarves]

Did you at least learn how to woop ass with a quarter staff and your bare hands? Thats the only reason I can think of to be a monk.

Nope, Aqizzar asked a similar question about our Buddhist Order's relationship to Shaolin earlier.

How much of what you teach people who come to you is practical, and how much is spiritual/philosophical/what have you?

Everything that I teach is practical. If you can't use it in practice, what use is it? I don't think it is useful to take part in what I used to call... "mind-masturbation". Don't get me wrong, philosophy, idle speculation, and knowledge are great, but it doesn't help us by itself. You must be able to apply it; applied knowledge is wisdom. It's a knowledge of what to do, what you're able to do with knowledge that is important.

Sometimes people press me about questions about God(s), heaven/hell, reincarnation, kamma/karma, specifics - and I try to answer as the Buddha did. I am concerned with suffering and addressing suffering; Happiness, that's it. Giving insight in other topics is like giving drinking water to a man who is slowly drowning in a rising ocean tide without realising it.

If you know you're about to leave monkhood in a few months, aren't you thinking of your life-after-monkhood already right now? If you do, do you have to stop yourself from doing it?

The whole mindfulness and "living in the now" thing doesn't come easy, when there's so much past and future to think (read: worry) about (in my personal experience).

I will admit that I am already. However, this is not something that I have to stop. My preceptor, the head-monk that ordained me, is well known amongst the Thais and has been a monk since he became a novice monk at the age of 12. He is now 64. I will share a bit of what he shared with me the night before I became a monk. I am translating and paraphrasing from Thai so I apologise since some meaning will be lost.

Most people believe that the day you become a monk is the most important day of their life. However, if you enter the monkhood knowing that you will leave one day, the most important day is the day you disrobe. There are practical reasons for this; you must have a plan when you leave: an occupation, basic shelter, necessities, rebuilding your life as a 'normal person' - but there is a deeper reason. The reason is thus -in the temple- you are sheltered, there are few temptations, it is quiet, and you may study and practice in peace. Whenever you leave the temple, you leave facing the world with only yourself and the mental tools you have honed while in the temple. You must be able to apply what you have learned here in the world outside that will not make it easy for you or care that it is too hard for you.

The past is gone. You learn from it and carry on. The future is uncertain and yet to come. All I know is this moment, the present. In this moment I have choices, and to better enhance my future, I have continued to devote my present to practice, to strengthening my abilities, not because of the ego of the self, but so that I may be better prepared to continue the practice and help others once I leave the monasteries. So I take a deep breath, and concentrating on being mindful of the consequences of my actions, I act.

I asked some questions in a PM. Getting some answers(, BY PM), would be nice.

I will get to it, you asked for a long answer and I have much work.

I don't think discussing religion by itself inherently is bad, it's just that people tend to be strict objectivists and combative over their ideologies - belief systems. It doesn't matter if it's religion, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc.

That's the funny thing, if you look at the 'Study of Truth' - Ontology, then all the people arguing are usually Objectivists. That is, they view Truth through Epistemological (Study of how you know what you know) lenses as... What I know is True, what I do not know is False. They view the world in terms of black and white.

So Theists and Atheists are at each others throats, capitalists and communists, Republicans and Democrats, no one actually tries to look at things in a different manner.

No one is a strict Subjectivist, unless you're crazy. Everything would be grey area, there would be no way of knowing anything.

But I believe there is a different route, one in the middle, of Constructivism -that is- we create these concepts and through the sense media interpret them through other concepts, such as language. Societies then become conglomerates of constructed viewpoints and institutions we have built up.

Buddhism doesn't adhere to any strict scientific ideology and isn't dogmatic. However, much of it is rooted in chaos theory and Phenomenology (Dependent origination).

I'd like to know if you've gotten any such stereotypical 'magic advice' from another monk at the temple, and if so what it was?

This was in Thai-

I had a senior caucasian monk from Canada (monk for over 40 years) give me a simple teaching, "When I think (focus on) about myself, I get depressed."
So I countered, "When I think about the state of the world, I also get depressed."
And then he added, "When I think about the fundamental relationships between myself and the whole of the universe, I am infinitely happy".

There's so much more, do you want any based on a certain subject?

[Knight of Fools]

I have a couple of questions, though I feel that some of the answers are obvious.

You mentioned that you teach people of other religions, and that Buddhism has different sects and such.  Say that a person of a different religion (Christian, Atheist, Anything) that didn't disagree with Buddhism or its teachings wanted to become a monk, or at least pretend without having all of the responsibilities (Giving blessings comes to mind).  Would that be allowed?  What if someone from a different sect of Buddhism came along and wanted to join your order - Would they be able to join, and, if so, would they be able to bear all of the responsibilities?

You also mentioned "temptations".  What is considered a temptation in the Buddhist religion?  Is there a solid concept of sin and wickedness?  Is it different from the idea of sin in other beliefs?  Is a repentence process required?

I know relatively little of other religions, so I apologize for all my questions.  I've wanted to learn more, but since Christianity is so prevelent where I live, it's hard to get the opportunity to talk with non-Christian sects or philosophies.  Thanks for doing this, I've enjoyed it.

[Retro]

I'd like to know if you've gotten any such stereotypical 'magic advice' from another monk at the temple, and if so what it was?

This was in Thai-

I had a senior caucasian monk from Canada (monk for over 40 years) give me a simple teaching, "When I think (focus on) about myself, I get depressed."
So I countered, "When I think about the state of the world, I also get depressed."
And then he added, "When I think about the fundamental relationships between myself and the whole of the universe, I am infinitely happy".

There's so much more, do you want any based on a certain subject?

Heh, that's pretty interesting... Yeah, I'd certainly like to hear whatever loose bits of awesome monk wisdom you have handy; can't think of anything in particular I'd like to ask about so I guess I'm not particular subject-wise. Whatever comes to mind.

[alway]

You also mentioned "temptations".  What is considered a temptation in the Buddhist religion?  Is there a solid concept of sin and wickedness?  Is it different from the idea of sin in other beliefs?  Is a repentence process required?

From what admittedly little I've read about it, there really is not any sort of dogmatic sin/wickedness, but rather a lack of living up to one's own potential. It seems to be more about letting yourself down than letting down some external expectation of you. Temptations would, I would think, be doing things which bring temporary happiness at the cost of long term satisfaction. Like eating a bad donut which, while it tastes good at first, leaves the insides of your mouth covered with an icky, waxy coating which makes you wish you had never eaten it.

[Siquo]

[Good answer]

Thanks, I can work with that I hadn't thought of that the consequences of your actions now are also a part of now.

No one is a strict Subjectivist, unless you're crazy. Everything would be grey area, there would be no way of knowing anything.

It's bleak, but one can recover.
Although the crazy never leaves, as I'm told again and again in the atheist thread.

I'm also enjoying your answers to the other questions. Based on your job description, it seems that you're actually 'working' here

[MC Dirty]

<deleted>

[Virex]

I don't think discussing religion by itself inherently is bad, it's just that people tend to be strict objectivists and combative over their ideologies - belief systems. It doesn't matter if it's religion, science, politics, economics, philosophy, etc.

Dude, science isn't a belief system. It's a system all right, but there's no "belief" needed. Scientific terms are simply abstract definitions. The central term is "theory" as a falsifiable assertion, a conclusion that helps you to predict/calculate what's going to happen in a specific situation based on empirical, physical evidence (definition might be a bit inaccurate, but that's basically the gist of it). This evidence is collected in experiments that produce the same results under the same circumstances. Even theories that people have failed to falsify for centuries are not "true" (whatever your definition may be) since there are countless factors that may make the evidence imprecise, but they are true enough to be used as reference points. Anyone who thinks of any scientific theory as "true" is a fool and most likely wrong. Also,

Erm, what did Kael just say about being combative about one's believes?[/quote]

[MC Dirty]

<deleted>

[Siquo]

I'm not being combative about my believes. I'm not even saying that I believe in anything. I probably do believe in something, but I'm not sure what it is and even if I was sure I knew better than to demonstrate that belief on the internet. I'm just saying that science as an abstract concept is not a belief or a belief system in the slightest.

Or are you talking about the "is a fool" part? What I meant with that is that thinking of a scientific theory as true is believing that it's true and bringing belief into a system that doesn't have anything to do with belief (like science) doesn't make sense and contradicts that system.

Although I agree 100% with what you said*, still, if people run towards one guy and say "You're our new Jesus!" and the guy says "No, I'm not", and they still believe he's Jesus, shouldn't be called fools. Respect, etc

*Although I agree 100% with what you said, I'm still going to argue, cause that's how I (t)roll.

[Willfor]

To be honest, I think he meant it more along the lines of SCIENCE rather than science. ie: The belief that human learning can solve every problem in the world; that we simply haven't learned how to bend the rules enough to accomplish FTL travel methods; that Stephen Hawking's hands can cure all manner of diseases. These are probably examples that make no sense, but I am tired and need to go to bed

[Tellemurius]

whoa a spiritual brother, its been a while since i met another monk for 3 years.

used to be a monk for a couple of Months in a Lao temple in Virginia when i was 11, i did it when my grandfather died, cleared my head for a bit and i loved it.

My Question is, will you go back?