Buddhism

[dardex]

Anyone know of some good buddhist texts to check out? I'm interested in learning more about zen and its philosophy.

Zen Mind, Beginners Mind is an excellent book.

[Pellaz]

The Three Pillars of Zen is also a good one

[TIO]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Just be careful...Zen is a denomination of buddhism, not buddhism itself. And it's a fairly radical denomination at that.

[Moonduck]

I like the "Bhagavad Gita", but I can't really suggest which translation to head for. It is not a Buddhist text, actually, but it does have some excellent reading on various form of Yogic meditation, including the Yoga of action.

For Zen Buddhist texts, I trust "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" and "Gateless Gate". Both are quite good, though ZFZB has excerpts from GG.

Barnes and Nobles locally has "A Buddhist Handbook" on the bargain rack. It's a tolerably good basic intro to Buddhism mostly from the perspective of India. It does include info on Chan and Zen, but goes more into Mahayana and the various native sects of Buddhism.

You would also do well to check out "Siddharta Gautama" by Hesse. It is a classic novel presenting a version of the story of the Buddha. It is a relatively quick read, and I found it very engaging. It presents an accurate enough portrayal of his life and times, and is an excellent doorway into the founder of the movement.

[oldman2003]

Originally posted by Moonduck

You would also do well to check out "Siddharta Gautama" by Hesse. It is a classic novel presenting a version of the story of the Buddha. It is a relatively quick read, and I found it very engaging. It presents an accurate enough portrayal of his life and times, and is an excellent doorway into the founder of the movement.

I agree!

[Meaty Urologist]

Just be careful...Zen is a denomination of buddhism, not buddhism itself. And it's a fairly radical denomination at that.

I'm not sure why you would say that. First of all, Zen most certainly IS Buddhism, not just a denomination. I've been studying Buddhism for several years now, and have come to Zen Buddhism as the form that made the most intuitive sense to me. Nothing at all is radical about it. It is just a different path to get to the same goal. Specifically Zen concentrates on reaching enlightenment through meditation and koans. One of the most famous koans being, "what is the sound of one hand clapping", just as an example. There are several schools of Buddhism, originating from various different areas of the world, all with the same goals, but some differences in methods. There is absolutely nothing radical about Zen Buddhism, unless you think that Buddhism is radical to begin with.
Anyway, now that I've got that off my chest... I have to second the recommendation for the book "Three pillars of Zen" by Kapleau. This is the book that finally made me feel like I was a step closer to practicing all this nonsense. I've shared this book with several friends, all who have told me that they really were able to get something from it. I can't recommend it enough.

[The_Dude]

bhagavat geetha is actually the hindu holy book, but hindu's consider buddhism to be a part of hinduism, as buddha himself is considered an avatar of vishnu.

[TIO]

Originally posted by The_Dude
bhagavat geetha is actually the hindu holy book, but hindu's consider buddhism to be a part of hinduism, as buddha himself is considered an avatar of vishnu.

This viewpoint is not necessarily shared by most buddists.

[Lebell]

Ditto on "Siddhartha".

[Moonduck]

Uh, The_Dude, you'll note that I said that Bhagavad Gita was "not a Buddhist text".

As to Zen not being a denomination of Buddhism but Buddhism en toto, I'm not sure how you can make that call. There are many different sects/denominations of Buddhism, of which Zen, oh Ch'an, is only one. And calling it not radical is a pretty strange leap too. Zen teaches a very stripped down version of Buddhism that has much less veneration of actual Buddhas, and a lot less meta-physics.

I agree that it is, in essence, a more "pure" form, if you will, but it is nonetheless radical, and it is not the totality of Buddhism. Zen arose from Ch'an Buddhism in China, which arose from either Mahayana or Mahahulpa (sp?) Buddhist missionaries from India travelling in China. It is tough to be the whole of Buddhism when it is only a branch on the tree.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by TIO
This viewpoint is not necessarily shared by most buddists.

yeah, i've noticed that.

-------------

and moonduck, i wasnt saying you were wrong. i just wanted to expand on that.

[Meaty Urologist]

it is nonetheless radical, and it is not the totality of Buddhism.

I still disagree with both statements. Any Buddhist would tell you that Buddhism is not its methods, it's the practice. If the goal is the same, it IS the totality of Buddhism. And I've never spoken to any Buddhist that would consider Zen to be in any way radical. Unless you yourself are Buddhist, in which case, you are the first.

Originally posted by Meaty Urologist
I still disagree with both statements. Any Buddhist would tell you that Buddhism is not its methods, it's the practice. If the goal is the same, it IS the totality of Buddhism. And I've never spoken to any Buddhist that would consider Zen to be in any way radical. Unless you yourself are Buddhist, in which case, you are the first.

I found the statemnet odd also. I was just too lazy to post until....now.

All respectable religions are trying to get to a higher level of conciousness through spirituality. Buddhism and Zen specifically practice getting to the highest state of conciousness, or a non-dual stage.

At least that is mine and I am sure a few others opinions.

Different method, same thing. I can tell why you would call Zen radical, I just see no point.

Same thing.

[Moonduck]

Gotcha, The_Dude. Understood.
---

M U, I'm not a Buddhist. I've never been trained to be a Buddhist. I am not good enough or strong enough of a person to be a Buddhist. It's a tough path and I am too caught up in Maya. I like my family too much.

I do, however, have friends that are Buddhists. Some of my professors were Buddhists. Hell, I have degree in the overall topic. I'm pretty sure that, even if I am not a Buddhist, my ideas aren't all that crazy.

Read up on Buddhism in India. It's very Zen to go into "practice not method" but there is a lot more to Buddhism than one sect. Buddhism encompasses the whole teachings of the Buddha, not just the practice of meditation. The Zen Buddhists have hit upon an awesome idea, and their aesthetic is truly inspiring, but I think you blind yourself by saying that Zen is all.

As to Zen being radical, again, refer to any text about Buddhism the way it is and was practiced in India. You will see that Zen Buddhism is pretty different. Heck, all you have to do is look at the artwork. Check out the Mahayan Wheel of Life paintings, they are quite easily accessible. Then compare them to the minimalist Zen art on the same subject. The Mahayanas speak of the Three Passions, the Eight trials, etc. A Zen artist simply paints a circle and calls it complete. Indian Buddhism, and there are a heck of a lot more Buddhists in India I would guess, have long and complex dissertations on various aspects of the Buddha's teaching. Zen has Koans.

I would be a Buddhist if I felt that I could be a good Buddhist. I am far too aware that I am mired in the illusory world. I am tied to my mortal trappings and will be until my kids are out of the house. Maybe I'll go through the process of becoming a proper Buddhist then. Until such time, the training I have and the learning I've gained are more than enough to keep my on the Path. Diksha weighs on me but doesn't rule me, and the Noble Truths are ever in my life.

You seem fired up about Zen, and I can dig that. If you take the steps to really do it right, it could be a wonderful thing. I have studied Zen extensively, written koans to expand my own awareness, and had papers passed aroudn and debated over by some of the most knowledgable scholars on the subject in my neck of the woods. I know enough to know how little I know, and I know enough to realize that I want to know more but am not ready yet. If you feel like Zen is your path, more power to you, but realize that there are centuries of Buddhism that existed before Ch'an became a reality in China, and quite a span of time after that before Zen was a reality in Japan.

[Moonduck]

Mepitans, given your argument, nothing here has a point. In the Buddhist mindset, it does have a point though. Historically speaking, classical Buddhism has always encouraged debate amongst its' adherents. Such debate is an accepted method by which both the teachings are spread and the teachings are refined.

Zen is radical in the sense that it took the Buddha's teachings and ideas and applied them to the religion itself. Zen cuts away the centuries of politics that crept into Buddhism and seeks to return to the true Dharma of the Buddha. There is an amazing amount of backbiting and intolerance in the Buddhist 'church' historically. The results of that backbiting are similar to the 'karmic accretion' the Jains talk about, except in this case it is scriptural accretion. Zen tries to sweep away scriptural and dogmatic waste inherent to a religion's progress through the centuries, and regain the kernel of truth within the teachings.

It is somewhat akin to the Protestant Reformation that the Christians went through, excepting that it was far more peaceful and did not end so poorly.

I do tend to agree with your basic premise of religions functioning as doorways into higher order consciousness. It is an excellent way of looking at things.

[Moonduck]

Foorgot to look at the 'Buddha as avatar of Vishnu' line of argument.

It depends on what side you're on. If you are a strict Buddhist, the Buddha was a man, a very enlightened man, but a man nonetheless. If you are Hindi and a believer in the overal Hindi faith, Buddha was but a mask on the face of Brahaman, much like Christ, Muhammed, Vishnu, Krisna, Kali, etc, etc.

Most non-Hindi Buddhists would thoroughly disagree with 'Buddha as Vishnu', and many Hindi Buddhists disagree, but it is a valid point to mention as it is a very prevalent take on Buddha/Vishnu in the land where Buddhism was born.

Originally posted by Moonduck
Mepitans, given your argument, nothing here has a point. In the Buddhist mindset, it does have a point though. Historically speaking, classical Buddhism has always encouraged debate amongst its' adherents. Such debate is an accepted method by which both the teachings are spread and the teachings are refined.

I am not always against arguement. It just depends on what happens to come out of my mouth, or keyboard in this case, at the time. I still stand by my point that all respectable religions strive for the same thing. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their differences.

On a side note: Do you know if debate is still encouraged at higher levels on Buddhism? Just wondering it would support a theory I had that I think might work out.

[Moonduck]

From what I have read, it is, at least in Chinese tradition. I have also seen evidence that it is in Japanese tradition as well. India works things a bit differently at the higher levels, with conferences and the like.

Disclaimer: I am basing this off of historical/classical Buddhist writings, not modern writings. The Buddhist 'church' of today may be as dogmatic as any other. As I said earlier, I am not a Buddhist, I am a student of Buddhist history, thought, and teachings (among other religions).

[sipsake]

If your in to looking more towards the vajrayana school of Tibetan buddhism, a good start might be The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche. There are also numerous books published and easily available by the Dalai Lama.

Another wonderful Buddhist author is Thich Naht Hahn. Very good books on meditation and mindfullness. And if you're coming from a Christian background, I'd highly recommend his book Living Buddha, Living Christ

[skinbag]

I think sipsake was onto something with a general inquiry into your background, dardex. The Buddhadharma is wide and vast, your entry point depends largely upon your current frame of reference and your disposition. My favorite translator is Thomas Cleary. Anything with his name attached is likely to avoid the "eastern-cult" of imitation, appearance-based zen.

[MaverickMattC]

Buddhism for Dummies

sorry.

[virus]

Originally posted by mepitans
Zen Mind, Beginners Mind is an excellent book.

zen mind, beginners mind is is often mentioned in the snow leopard, which is a absolutely amazing. peter matthiessen writes about his travels around nepal, but largely discusses his spiritual journey. it's a beautiful, beatiful work of art.

this book's better for getting the feeling of a buddhist rather than learning about buddhism technically. though since matthiessen recommends zen mind i'm certain it's worth while.