Anyone got questions about Buddhism?

[Hastrman]

I have a question…

My hair salon is run by I think Thai or Vietnamese and they have an alter (?) and on it is I believe a Buddha and they have placed a small cup of tea and incense also maybe some bamboo…What do you think all of that means

It’s an offering. Tea is especially an offering for Buddhist altars because observant Buddhists aren’t supposed to consume alcohol, so monks drink tea.

Oddly enough the offering for the native gods of most Buddhist countries is water, usually (occasionally wine).

 

[water]

I was wondering what time the monks get up in the morning for praying? I remember somebody said it was 3:00am.

Also, how do you know all this? do you study it *

Thanks!*

 

[Hastrman]

I was wondering what time the monks get up in the morning for praying? I remember somebody said it was 3:00am.

I seem to recall hearing something about 3 am prayers/meditations, but it varies from sect to sect and monastery to monastery. Itinerant/mendicant monks, still a not-unusual sight in Japan, generally don’t have a strict schedule.

Also, how do you know all this? do you study it **

Yes, I do. I prefer, if I can, to read Buddhist writers in translation; Westerners, especially Westerners who claim to be Buddhist, don’t seem to understand it. A lot of the time, they use their own private interpretation of the sutras (Buddhist scriptures)–but that’s not Buddhism, that’s Sola Scriptura applied to a different religion.

A lot of what I know I’ve learned from books on the martial arts, like Yagyuu Munenori’s 17th century swordfighting text, “The Life-Giving Sword,” which has the best explanation of Zen I’ve ever read. Kung fu (which was created by Zen monks) and Japanese swordfighting are deeply influenced by Zen; ninjutsu, the martial art of the ninjas, is based in Shingon Buddhist ideas.

 

[Gnosis]

Well, I don’t know what he’s talking about, because Buddhists don’t want Heaven per se–they want Nirvana, which is the Sanskrit word for “extinction”. Basically, Buddhists believe the universe is fundamentally not worth the trouble, and that realizing that fact will allow you to escape it.

I would be careful in regarding Buddhism as a nihilistic religion, this was the error of comparative religious scholars in the 19th century.

While nirvana means extinction, I do believe more literally it is in regards to the word “extinguish” as in a candle flame. At this time in India it was believed that the candle flame, when extinguished, did not become “nothing”.

Buddha taught the Middle Way, the Way between the extremes of being and non-being, so to label him as a nihilist is not quite accurate. What nirvana actually is in experience is evasive, but it is not extinction, nor is it permanent being.

 

[thistle]

That was a productive comment.

What questions are there worth asking? Buddhists do not believe in God. Therefore they are atheists so why would anyone want to find out more?

 

[Gnosis]

Buddhist’s are not neccessarily atheists. In fact significant numbers of Buddhists still pray to gods to ask them to intercede and aid them.

The Buddha himself, was more or less agnostic. He believed in gods, just not an “ultimate God who oversees and directs everything and who is capable of saving you” to use more Christian language.

Buddhism, even if one is Catholic, is a very interesting religion to study. It is a deeply spiritual practice with alot of practical advice. You don’t have to be a Buddhist to garner something from it.

 

[Montalban]

It’s an offering. Tea is especially an offering for Buddhist altars because observant Buddhists aren’t supposed to consume alcohol, so monks drink tea.

Oddly enough the offering for the native gods of most Buddhist countries is water, usually (occasionally wine).

If Buddha’s in Nirvana (not the band) what’s he want with burnt offerings?

 

[Penny_Plain]

Do you know anything about Mongolian Buddhism?

 

[blackrobe]

A) None of your business
but
B) because I already know nearly everything about the Catholic faith,

Say goodbye to your intellectual andf moral credibility. Because I love you I have to say you confess astounding ignorance with that claim.

JSA

 

[Sam88]

I would be careful in regarding Buddhism as a nihilistic religion, this was the error of comparative religious scholars in the 19th century.

While nirvana means extinction, I do believe more literally it is in regards to the word “extinguish” as in a candle flame. At this time in India it was believed that the candle flame, when extinguished, did not become “nothing”.

Buddha taught the Middle Way, the Way between the extremes of being and non-being, so to label him as a nihilist is not quite accurate. What nirvana actually is in experience is evasive, but it is not extinction, nor is it permanent being.

Please continue, as your meaning is not very clear to me.

The concept of a middle-way seems to have some validity, certainly it is human experience that a person on a path of virtue can fail by falling either to the right or to the left. On the other hand, their seems to be areas of life where perfection is extreme, not moderate. Perfect truth is not moderately valid but completely so; Perfect love is not a moderate attraction but total self giving, etc.

More importantly however, I don’t see where you are going with a non-nihilist nirvana. I can’t quite see a intermediate state between being and non-being. The closest I can come to that concept at the moment is the idea of a diminishment of “self” so that I become a part of a greater entity, in which my self is extinguished in one sense, but my existence continues in another.

 

[mikew262]

What questions are there worth asking? Buddhists do not believe in God. Therefore they are atheists so why would anyone want to find out more?

You don’t speak for everybody here. Other folks here obviously have an interest in Buddhism. Note the name of this forum: Non-catholic religions. Buddhism is not catholic, but it is a religion.

 

[water]

If we don’t ask, then how would we know what others think so that we can evangelize. To help others know God is to know what they are believing. Buddists have some good that we all should learn as well:

For example:

• the monks get up very early in the morning to pray. How do we apply that to our Christian life? How often do we get up early to go to the Church?
• the monks are fasting for all their lives. How often do we fast in our faith?

 

[Contarini]

B) because I already know nearly everything about the Catholic faith.

LOL! That has to be one of the more ridiculously hubristic statements I’ve ever seen.

Are you seriously telling me that you have read the complete writings of the Fathers, the medieval scholastics, all the Councils, all the reams of Catholic scholarship out there, all the lives of the saints, all the texts of the mystics. . . .

And that’s just the kind of knowledge that can be gained from reading.

I think it’s fine that you are studying Buddhism–I think it’s important for us to try to understand other religions. But the fact that you can claim that you know nearly everything about Catholicism doesn’t give me much confidence that you have the humility requisite for understanding any religion, your own or another.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What questions are there worth asking? Buddhists do not believe in God. Therefore they are atheists so why would anyone want to find out more?

One could for instance find out that Buddhist “atheism” is completely different from what we in the West usually mean by atheism–so different that the term is really misleading.

Furthermore, why on earth do you think that there is nothing worth learning about atheists? God believes in atheists even though atheists don’t believe in God (if He didn’t they would stop existing). And anything that God believes in–that is, anything that exists–is worth studying.

Edwin

 

[Hastrman]

More importantly however, I don’t see where you are going with a non-nihilist nirvana. I can’t quite see a intermediate state between being and non-being. The closest I can come to that concept at the moment is the idea of a diminishment of “self” so that I become a part of a greater entity, in which my self is extinguished in one sense, but my existence continues in another.

Got it in one–that’s what Nirvana is, as much as it can be described.

It’s sort of like the parable, where the Zen master asks his pupil, “Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

Now this was in China, so the pupil could have answered, “it does,” 有you (lit “it has”), or 不有buyou, “it does not have.”

But he answered, 無wu, meaning “there is not.”

Or in other words, “there is no Buddha-nature for a dog to have.” Or “there is no dog to have Buddha-nature.”

In the same way, you neither become existent or non-existent in Nirvana–there is no longer any “you” to be either.

 

[Hastrman]

LOL! That has to be one of the more ridiculously hubristic statements I’ve ever seen.

Are you seriously telling me that you have read the complete writings of the Fathers, the medieval scholastics, all the Councils, all the reams of Catholic scholarship out there, all the lives of the saints, all the texts of the mystics. . . .

And that’s just the kind of knowledge that can be gained from reading.

I think it’s fine that you are studying Buddhism–I think it’s important for us to try to understand other religions. But the fact that you can claim that you know nearly everything about Catholicism doesn’t give me much confidence that you have the humility requisite for understanding any religion, your own or another.

Edwin

Well, I was exaggerating–my point was more that I already had a firm grasp on the Faith, and therefore was in no danger from studying another.

But hey, thanks for divining the content of my soul, like you know a damn thing about me.

 

[b_justb]

Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?

and

If you had been there, could you have saved the cat?

 

[Contarini]

Well, I was exaggerating–my point was more that I already had a firm grasp on the Faith, and therefore was in no danger from studying another.

But hey, thanks for divining the content of my soul, like you know a damn thing about me.

If you do not want to be thought arrogant, don’t say arrogant things. Precisely because we can’t divine the contents of your soul, we have only your words to go on. I am glad to know that you meant something quite different than your words led me to think, and I am sorry for offending you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, I don’t know what he’s talking about, because Buddhists don’t want Heaven per se–they want Nirvana, which is the Sanskrit word for “extinction”.

Some Buddhist writers speak of Nirvana in rather different terms, arguing that our egotistical desires are extinguished, but that Nirvana is ineffable and cannot simply be described as nonexistence–indeed, it could be described as pure bliss.

Furthermore, Pure Land Buddhists do seek heaven–that’s what the “Pure Land” essentially is. Granted, this is penultimate (the final goal is still nirvana), but if I’m not mistaken many Pure Land Buddhists believe that nirvana is not a possible goal in this age of the decay of Buddha’s teachings.

Basically, Buddhists believe the universe is fundamentally not worth the trouble, and that realizing that fact will allow you to escape it.

Again, I’m not sure this is the best way to describe it.

There is, however, a duty of “compassion,” so they’re obligated to help others try and escape too (that last is the interpretation in Pure Land, Zen, and Shingon Buddhism; Indian Buddhism doesn’t really emphasize that aspect as much).

Do you mean ancient Indian Buddhism as known from texts? Theravada Buddhism isn’t any more Indian than Mahayana, is it? (Unless you count Ceylon as India.)

Not meaning to quibble or anything. I’m teaching world religions this semester and don’t really know a great deal about the subject, so I’m open for all the help I can get!

Edwin

 

[Hastrman]

If you do not want to be thought arrogant, don’t say arrogant things. Precisely because we can’t divine the contents of your soul, we have only your words to go on. I am glad to know that you meant something quite different than your words led me to think, and I am sorry for offending you.

Edwin

I agree, it was stupid to say that. Would it help to know that what I originally wrote, in response to puzzleannie’s (rather rude) quesiton about why I bothered to learn about another religion, was that I was certain I knew more about the faith than her? The current version was backing off from what was, basically, just an insult.

Suddenly “I already know everything about the faith” doesn’t seem so bad, does it? When I say less-than-intelligent things, it’s usually as a result of backing off from the really nasty things that are my first impulse.

Or in other words, yeah, I’m a sinner. Now that you’ve had that shocking revelation, I vote we get back to discussing Buddhism.