Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Monks teach maleness to Thai 'ladyboys'

By Janesara Fugal (AFP) – 8 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtidB8oq-otugyBvmRQ0cPpL3tzg?docId=CNG.85dd3468c38ddd2a33b111209b8647f1.521 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtidB8oq-otugyBvmRQ0cPpL3tzg?docId=CNG.85dd3468c38ddd2a33b111209b8647f1.521)

CHIANG KHONG, Thailand — The 15-year-old aspiring "ladyboy" delicately applied a puff of talcum powder to his nose -- an act of rebellion at the Thai Buddhist temple where he is learning to "be a man".

"They have rules here that novice monks cannot use powder, make-up, or perfume, cannot run around and be girlish," said Pipop Thanajindawong, who was sent to Wat Kreung Tai Wittaya, in Chiang Khong on the Thai-Laos border, to tame his more feminine traits.

Ugh, they sound like my mom.

Kia Ora.
Here's an insight into the five precepts[rules of personal conduct] set down by the Buddha for "lay" Buddhist to follow...

The Precepts
The precepts are a condensed form of Buddhist ethical practice. They are often compared with the ten commandments of Christianity, however, the precepts are different in two respects: First, they are to be taken as recommendations, not commandments. This means the individual is encouraged to use his/her own intelligence to apply these rules in the best possible way. Second, it is the spirit of the precepts -not the text- that counts, hence, the guidelines for ethical conduct must be seen in the larger context of the Eightfold Path.

The first five precepts are mandatory for every Buddhist, although the fifth precept is often not observed, because it bans the consumption of alcohol. Precepts no. six to ten are laid out for those in preparation for monastic life and for devoted lay people unattached to families. The eight precepts put together number eight and nine and omit the tenth. Lay people may observe the eight precepts on Buddhist festival days. Ordained Theravada monks undertake no less than 227 precepts, which are not listed here.

I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from ...

1.   ...harming living beings.
2.   ...taking things not freely given.
3.   ...sexual misconduct.
4.   ...false speech.
5.   ...intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness.
6.   ...taking untimely meals.
7.   ...dancing, singing, music and watching grotesque mime.
8.   ...use of garlands, perfumes and personal adornment.
9.   ...use of high seats.
10.   ...accepting gold or silver.
(adapted from The Word of the Buddha, Niyamatolika, The Buddhist Publication Society, 1971, p xii)

The above phrasing of the precepts is very concise and leaves much open to interpretation. One might ask, for example, what exactly constitutes false speech, what are untimely meals, what constitutes sexual misconduct, or whether a glass of wine causes heedlessness. And, the grotesque mime watching of the seventh precept sounds perhaps a bit outdated. The Buddhist master Thich Nath Hanh has formulated The Five Mindfulness Trainings, which are an adaptation of the first five Buddhist precepts. These are practised by Buddhists of the Lam Te Dhyana school. By virtue of their sensible phrasing and their relevance to modern lifestyle, these "trainings" provide a valuable foundation of ethics for all of humanity.

The Five Mindfulness Trainings
(according to Thich Nath Hanh, www.plumvillage.org (http://www.plumvillage.org))

-First Training-
Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life.

-Second Training-
Aware of the suffering caused by exploitation, social injustice, stealing, and oppression, I am committed to cultivate loving kindness and learn ways to work for the well-being of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am committed to practice generosity by sharing my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in real need. I am determined not to steal and not to possess anything that should belong to others. I will respect the property of others, but I will prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

-Third Training-
Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

-Fourth Training-
Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, I am committed to cultivate loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am committed to learn to speak truthfully, with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope. I am determined not to spread news that I do not know to be certain and not to criticise or condemn things of which I am not sure. I will refrain from uttering words that can cause division or discord, or that can cause the family or the community to break. I will make all efforts to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

-Fifth Training-
Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I am committed to cultivate good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family, and my society by practising mindful eating, drinking, and consuming. I am committed to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society. I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations. I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations. I will work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practising a diet for myself and for society. I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.


The bottom line is that there's really no black or white answer... Some Buddhists are more or less accepting of trans-people, but there is no single across-the-board answer[cultural background/upbringing can and does play a part]. But overall, Buddhism [because of the five precepts] is more accepting of gay and transgender people than most of the other religions.

Metta Zenda :)

The problem with Bhudism like every other faith/belief system is that there is a set code of rules/ethics/mores that are preordained by anouther.
Morality comes from outside. Not inside.
Only by developing our own morality can we find enlightenment. No code of conduct or laws can make a person moral. Only by being true to self and fulfilling the role that you have chosen for your self can you be true to self. The opinions of others should be of low priority to anyone.
That which is profane for one person must of course be holy for anouther. There is no universal morality.

(imho)

Like Zenda says, "cultural background/upbringing can and does play a part". A problem that has happened with Buddhism is that it tends to assimilate mores of the cultures it grows in - so for example in a homophobic culture (such as Tibet), Buddhism becomes institutionally a little homophobic. And so on.

The fundamental principle of Buddhism is non-harm, which means that in principle whatever brings about happiness (something different from pleasure) and freedom is ethical, and whatever brings about suffering is unethical. So Buddhism sees sex itself as being ethically neutral (regardless of gender or orientation, so long as it is truly consensual) - it is the attachment it tends to create that causes suffering (you know what that's like if you've ever been hurt in love, or been jealous, or...). Gender and sexual orientation are not ethical issues.

And then you get the countries that Buddhism took root in, who have their own set of moralities around gender and sexual orientation, and that gets glued on top of the real stuff, and people suffer as a consequence, which is a damn shame.

but gender variance is not sexual conduct! There is nothing "sexual" about it! the ->-bleeped-<- is this!? Bending of rules?

Sorry, guys, I think I agree with Muffin on this one. 

Gender (at least how I see it) isn't a sexual thing.  There's a huge difference between sex (whether it be talking about chromosomes, or the action of) and gender.   :-\

Kia Ora,

::) Sadly Muffin, some[but by no means all] Buddhists tend to view homosexuality as "sexual misconduct "[it would seem it's a cultural upbringing thing] ... And in Thailand the term  "Kathoey" [ladyboys] can stand for either transgender[women] or very effeminate "gay" males...Some trans-women prior to transitioning are very feminine in their behaviour, mannerism and speech, but their bodies are not very feminine, [just like very "effeminate" gay males-especially those who like dressing in drag] this can make it quite hard to actually tell the difference between the two...In this sense the West is no different...

::) But you're right some Buddhists will bend these "precepts" to suit their own prejudices...The five precepts are open to interpretation and it's up to the individual to find out what is skilful/wholesome acts and what is not...There's no right or wrong or good or bad just "skilful and unskilful" actions...

Kia Ora Cynthialee,

The precepts are only guide lines for those of us who choose to journey along the Eight Fold Path...

The Buddha said, "My teaching is like the finger pointing to the moon. You should be skillful. You look in the direction of my finger, and you can see the moon. If you take my finger to be the moon, you will never see the moon !"  The Buddhadharma is not the truth it's only an instrument for one to get to the truth...

I hope this give you a bit more "insight" into what Buddhism is about...Part of which [a big part] is exploring what we perceive as the "self "...

Metta Zenda  :)

the article doesn't mention anything about sexual acts or sexual orientation? Just gender expression? I only skimmed through it could of missed that bit.

You have a point, Muffin. (The following was a thinking-out-loud early in the morning kind of deal...)

As an ordained Buddhist, I have mostly experienced support from my fellow Buddhists (of whatever gender) - but the few who are uncomfortable with me transitioning tend to hide their own discomfort behind Buddhist "principles" to do with contentment in general, not sexual issues. That is, they say "you should practise being content with what you are." To which I reply, "I have been, this is why I'm making changes in order to better be 'what I am' instead of continuing to try to 'pass' as male, which is deceitful." This is all just game-playing, of course - I know these people are just masking prejudices. I'm glad there are so few of them, but that's what seems to be going on in Thailand.

Oh, it just occurs to me that what's also an issue for monks/nuns is that they don't just practise the five precepts, they have monastic precepts which include such things as not wearing makeup/perfume - I think the idea is that it's assumed you're dolling yourself up in order to attract others (which makes it harder for them to be content) and to get attention (which is shoring up your ego). It's a weird business - there is clearly a mix of genuine ethical concerns and cultural judgements in the application of these principles as "rules". Something I'm still learning is that the point of having training principles (which is what the Buddhist precepts are), instead of commandments/rules, is that you are forced to be aware enough to have to figure out how they apply in different circumstances, instead of falling back on "it says this and it always means this."

There's more: in a culture such as Thailand where the monks/nuns are supported financially by the lay people, there is always going to be pressure (spoken or unspoken) to conform with what the social norm is, out of fear of losing that support. So I imagine part of the impetus for the Wat trying to de-trans their monks is because the local laity are not comfortable with trans people (if it's not simply a case of prejudice on the part of the monk running the Wat). This is a problem that's endemic to monastic communities that can't support themselves - the need for approval from the laity means it's harder to challenge prejudice and local beliefs.

And finally... in culturally Buddhist countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka, there's a general thing of boys becoming monks for a year or two as part of their upbringing (it's like a gap year before college) - so the boys and young men becoming monks are not necessarily there out of a personal desire for the monastic lifestyle; they may just be there because it's expected of them. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning this, it's just that it's part of the picture.

Still the entire idea of the precepts says that Bhudda knows the way to enlightenment and not the individual.

No two paths are the same. The idea that there anyone can assist anouther on the way to enlightenment is a serious exercise in ego. IHMO

Kia Ora Cynthialee,

::) I have no wish to reinvent the wheel so............................................

Quote:

The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas[aggregates], loosely translated as bundles, or heaps. [ 1 Form – 2 Sensation- 3 Perception- 4 Mental Formation- 5 Consciousness]
If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form.

After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception.

The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept [mental formation]. The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling –(sensation) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself.

End of Quote...

How a person chooses to see things is up to them...And if they find comfort and contentment through their beliefs, then I'm truly happy for them..If not then I can only wish them all the best on their journey of "self" discovery...After all it's an "individual" thing ! 

Happy Mindfulness

Metta Zenda :)

That some religion seems 'cool' or 'hip' at the moment doesn't change that it's a religion, and just like all religions it's about control.

Quote from: tekla on July 18, 2011, 04:26:50 PM
That some religion seems 'cool' or 'hip' at the moment doesn't change that it's a religion, and just like all religions it's about control.

Quote from: Padma on July 18, 2011, 02:13:40 AM
As an ordained Buddhist, I have mostly experienced support from my fellow Buddhists (of whatever gender) - but the few who are uncomfortable with me transitioning tend to hide their own discomfort behind Buddhist "principles" to do with contentment in general, not sexual issues. That is, they say "you should practise being content with what you are." To which I reply, "I have been, this is why I'm making changes in order to better be 'what I am' instead of continuing to try to 'pass' as male, which is deceitful."

Padma nails the issue; your gender is in your head not in your genitals. We know now this to be a medical fact. It never cease to amaze me that my genders is located in a piece of my brain the size of small grain of rice.


I found that all religion have denominations that seem to be more "evolve" and "enlightend" than other.So it seems that whether you are Jewish, Christian, Budhist, or Muslim, the ignorant and bigot always make their point by interpreting their "commandments" to fit their self-righteous views. I wander what is the situation in mostly atheist China?

Kate D

Kia Ora Tekla & Cynthialee,

::) "How a person chooses to see things is up to them...And if they find comfort and contentment through their beliefs, then I'm truly happy for them..If not then I can only wish them all the best on their journey of "self" discovery...After all it's an "individual" thing !" 

Happy Mindfulness :)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: kate durcal on July 18, 2011, 05:28:56 PM
I wonder what is the situation in mostly atheist China?

Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

Quote :

China may be surpassing the U.S. in its tolerance and acceptance of transgender people, TransGriot author Monica Roberts reports for Racialicious.  With an estimated transgender community of 400,000, the Chinese government has adopted policies that grant transgender citizens civil rights under the law, allow them to change their identification cards, and legally recognize their marriages after sex reassignment surgery.  Roberts cites popular Chinese transsexual public figures like Jin Xing and Chen Lili as helping to open up public attitudes.  Jin is a former colonel in the Chinese army who is now an internationally acclaimed ballet dancer, while Chen was the first transgender contestant to win the Miss China Universe pageant in 2004 before being banned from participating in the international competition.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Politics/Chinas-Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Transgender-Community.aspx#ixzz1SWzJiWEn (http://www.utne.com/Politics/Chinas-Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Transgender-Community.aspx#ixzz1SWzJiWEn)

Metta Zenda :)

I have realised lately that I have always been sick of old men (well, it's nearly always old men) telling the rest of society what to do.  It is really starting to irritate me now.

Karen.

After all it's an "individual" thing !" 

I'm sure glad you used quotes there, because that let's your readers know your really not telling the truth.  Which in this case is that religion, far from being individualistic is the totally collective, there are no individualistic religions, by definition religion is about a group belief.

Religion may be a group mindset, but it is interpreted individually.   No two people believe exactly the same way.  Because belief is founded inside the individual (whether it be influenced by outsiders or not) it is an individual spiritual experience.

You can do the motions and 'pretend' to believe anything you want, but no one, I repeat, NO ONE can tell you how to believe in your own heart.  No matter what anyone says or does to you, you are in control of that, because belief is internal, not external.

Quote from: tekla on July 18, 2011, 04:26:50 PM
That some religion seems 'cool' or 'hip' at the moment doesn't change that it's a religion, and just like all religions it's about control.

I've looked at quite a few different religious diciplines, though in every case it was for their sociological significance, rather than the details of the faith.

But none are about control.

The problem is, when we take examples as being the norm. More impotantly, when we take examples and assume they are the whole.

If we look at the RCs, the Southern Baptists and others we would be forgiven for assuming that Christian doctrine was all about enforcing some ultra conservative, western lifestyle. Islam appears to be about killing people and destroying, Judaism appears to be about bleating in self pity to excuse behaving like a bunch of thugs.

Budhism can indeed appear to be a restrictive, rigid form of militaristic spiritualism. The reality is, Budhism is about extreme self dicipline and aestheticism. More importantly, most of the example we tend to see are monks. The nature of all of the Indian religious diciplines draws a dramatic distinction between the higher clergy and the layety.

Inparticular, the practice in Thailand is quite different from other areas. That isn't due to denominational differences, in the way, for example, the RCs and the SBU differ. Rather it is a local interpertation of the same ideologies.

Vary rarely will any human admit to not living according to their own choice. Few of us want to admit we need guidelines or that we conform to conventions and norms without personally deciding to do so.

The reality is, as individuals, we all look for norms and rules. The free wheeling lifestyle, as attactive as it may appear to be to think of ourselves as following it, is a myth. We each lack the insight, concentration, self confidence and intelegence.

The current vogue, in western society for apparently rejecting religious leadership is an illusion. Western society remains the same, we have just chosen to reject leaders. Which strangely, is a very Christian precept.

Quote from: tekla on July 19, 2011, 09:07:37 AM
After all it's an "individual" thing !" 

I'm sure glad you used quotes there, because that let's your readers know your really not telling the truth.  Which in this case is that religion, far from being individualistic is the totally collective, there are no individualistic religions, by definition religion is about a group belief.

Kia Ora Tekla,

Full Quote : "Then I can only wish them all the best on their journey of "self" discovery...After all it's an "individual" thing !"


My apologies, for using the term "religion" when describing Buddhism Tekla...On a personal level I've never viewed Buddhism as a religion, but most Western minds can only grasp Buddhism  as a religion, hence why at times I use this term...

Now as far as the "individual" thing goes, it's somewhat paradoxical in Buddhism because the journey of "self" discovery begins with the "individual"  but when one finally discovers that there is no separate "self" that's when it  becomes more of a  "collective" [holistic]  experience...

Happy Mindfulness

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on July 20, 2011, 01:44:16 PM
Kia Ora Tekla,

My apologies, for using the term "religion" when describing Buddhism Tekla...On a personal level I've never viewed Buddhism as a religion, but most Western minds can only grasp Buddhism  as a religion, hence why at times I use this term...

Metta Zenda :)

I remember the Dalail Lama having a "cow" a couple of years aog because the "PopenFuhrer" declared that Bhudism is not a religion.

What is the supreme end goal of Bhudism?

Quote from: Zenda on July 18, 2011, 03:10:08 PM
Kia Ora Cynthialee,

::) I have no wish to reinvent the wheel so............................................

Quote:

The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas[aggregates], loosely translated as bundles, or heaps. [ 1 Form – 2 Sensation- 3 Perception- 4 Mental Formation- 5 Consciousness]
If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form.

After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception.

The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept [mental formation]. The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling –(sensation) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself.

End of Quote...

How a person chooses to see things is up to them...And if they find comfort and contentment through their beliefs, then I'm truly happy for them..If not then I can only wish them all the best on their journey of "self" discovery...After all it's an "individual" thing ! 

Happy Mindfulness

Metta Zenda :)

Don't these monks use form to apply this maleness they say they are teaching? They must have some real ego's to think they know what male sensation is! Maybe it is their color percetion that is formed from their colorful robes they wear. This mental formation gives them the conscienceness of knowing something about another that they may be totally confused about HUH ? confushus says he who smells tail gets bent neck  ;D

Quote from: Zenda on July 19, 2011, 01:45:49 AM
Kia Ora Kate,

Quote :

China may be surpassing the U.S. in its tolerance and acceptance of transgender people, TransGriot author Monica Roberts reports for Racialicious.  With an estimated transgender community of 400,000, the Chinese government has adopted policies that grant transgender citizens civil rights under the law, allow them to change their identification cards, and legally recognize their marriages after sex reassignment surgery.  Roberts cites popular Chinese transsexual public figures like Jin Xing and Chen Lili as helping to open up public attitudes.  Jin is a former colonel in the Chinese army who is now an internationally acclaimed ballet dancer, while Chen was the first transgender contestant to win the Miss China Universe pageant in 2004 before being banned from participating in the international competition.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Politics/Chinas-Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Transgender-Community.aspx#ixzz1SWzJiWEn (http://www.utne.com/Politics/Chinas-Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Transgender-Community.aspx#ixzz1SWzJiWEn)

Metta Zenda :)

Wow Zenda, I am on your debt for educating me. It seems that atheism is more compassionate and open minded that any religious contries.

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 20, 2011, 07:51:47 PM
Wow Zenda, I am on your debt for educating me. It seems that atheism is more compassionate and open minded that any religious contries.

Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

Quote "I wonder what the situation is like in mostly atheist "CHINA" !"

::) Well you did actually ask the question Kate............

Metta Zenda :)

PS Are the fundamental teachings of the Buddha, atheistic, non theistic or theistic ?

::) And in China just because the government is communist doesn't mean the entire population tows the party line Kate...Taoism, Buddhism, Confucius's teaching are still common in China... 

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: M2MtF2FtM on July 20, 2011, 07:38:44 PM
Don't these monks use form to apply this maleness they say they are teaching? They must have some real ego's to think they know what male sensation is! Maybe it is their color percetion that is formed from their colorful robes they wear. This mental formation gives them the conscienceness of knowing something about another that they may be totally confused about HUH ? confushus says he who smells tail gets bent neck  ;D

Kia Ora M2M,

::) I'm afraid I can't help you... You would have to take this up with the "individual" monks.......... ;) "It's an "individual" thing !"  ;)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: kate durcal on July 20, 2011, 07:51:47 PM
Wow Zenda, I am on your debt for educating me. It seems that atheism is more compassionate and open minded that any religious contries.

Kate D

Kia Ora,

::) Kate just from that little snippet of news item you have come to this conclusion...WOW I'm the one who should be impressed  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

I understand that the reason the pope, (popenfurer, nice one), claimed Buddhism isn't a religion is because it places little or no emphasis upon a supreme being or an after life.

Now I really don't want to come into any conflict with the lovely Zenda, whose posts I, like so many, do so enjoy, but I fear both she and the popenfurer have misunderstood the nature of religion.

There is absolutely no reason for a religion to include any regard for or even respect of the concept of a supreme being or an after life.

Most political systems are religions.

But it should also be pointed out that while Buddihsm doesn't seem to emphasise supreme beings, as such, or obscess with the nature of an afterlife, that is a different matter from denial. Buddism is, essentially, a philosophical dicipline emphaisising what is here and now.

I recall reading a number of letters and journals, written in the 17th and 18th century, where Europeans would discuss their impressions of India, either in expectation or while there. Many said they expected the religion to be primitive, such as is found in Africa and were surprised and frustrated to discover they didn't understand any of it at all.

But such was the consequence of the Europeans and others, misunderstanding India.

Some groups in India, for example, say that India is the hub of the universe. This was dismissed as a piece of primitive thinking at the time. But while I can't claim to have any indepth understanding of Indian philosophical tradition, having barely scratched the surface, like so many notions coming out of India, I have to confess, that there do appear to be some strong arguments for that view. But only once you can begin to comprehend some of the incredable complexities and beauty of Indian thought.

Quote from: spacial on July 21, 2011, 08:22:34 AM
I understand that the reason the pope, (popenfurer, nice one), claimed Buddhism isn't a religion is because it places little or no emphasis upon a supreme being or an after life.

Now I really don't want to come into any conflict with the lovely Zenda, whose posts I, like so many, do so enjoy, but I fear both she and the popenfurer have misunderstood the nature of religion.

There is absolutely no reason for a religion to include any regard for or even respect of the concept of a supreme being or an after life.

Most political systems are religions.

But it should also be pointed out that while Buddihsm doesn't seem to emphasise supreme beings, as such, or obscess with the nature of an afterlife, that is a different matter from denial. Buddism is, essentially, a philosophical dicipline emphaisising what is here and now.

I recall reading a number of letters and journals, written in the 17th and 18th century, where Europeans would discuss their impressions of India, either in expectation or while there. Many said they expected the religion to be primitive, such as is found in Africa and were surprised and frustrated to discover they didn't understand any of it at all.

But such was the consequence of the Europeans and others, misunderstanding India.

Some groups in India, for example, say that India is the hub of the universe. This was dismissed as a piece of primitive thinking at the time. But while I can't claim to have any indepth understanding of Indian philosophical tradition, having barely scratched the surface, like so many notions coming out of India, I have to confess, that there do appear to be some strong arguments for that view. But only once you can begin to comprehend some of the incredable complexities and beauty of Indian thought.

Kia Ora Spacial,

::) I've no conflict with your opinions[ what you write], in fact I agree with much of what you have expressed...

Just my personal observations.........................

Religion for most Westerners does however tend to be tethered to a god or gods concept...Buddhism became a religion [in the Westerners eyes] when they had to find a way to match it to what they already knew, and seeing images of Buddhas and what looked like his followers/practitioners  "worshiping" these images, does explain why religion came to their minds...

However these images are there for people to reflex upon[remind us of] the skillful/beneficial qualities that each of us have[a Buddha nature], but have yet to fully put into practice/experience...For the most part what the Westerner sees as religion many Easterners see as a way of life... a philosophy ...

And as always I would like to thank you Spacial for your well thought out comments when responding to this thread....       

Metta Zenda :)

Well if it isn't a religion then it would be ok to discriminate on the grounds it is not a religion...?

You might wanna keep that religous designation here in the states, it will cover your ass.

Quote from: kate durcal on July 20, 2011, 07:24:03 PM
I remember the Dalail Lama having a "cow" a couple of years aog because the "PopenFuhrer" declared that Bhudism is not a religion.

What is the supreme end goal of Bhudism?

Kia Ora Kate,
::) The supreme end goal  ::) ::)  ::) In a nutshell.....Nirvana = To transcend the cycle of "becoming" [Samsara]...

::) The Dalai Lama Kate has every right to call Buddhism a religion and the Pope also has every right to say it's not a religion, and on a personal level I have to agree with the Pope in this respect...

Mind you I would find it hard to imagine the Dalai Lama getting into a tiff over such a trivial thing...  ::) After all "What's in a name!"  ;)

Metta Zenda :)

Just realised that monks who are sworn to chastity, poverty and passivity in the face of aggression are going to teach teenagers from a klong how to "Man Up"?
Think I missed something there. :laugh:

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on July 22, 2011, 03:35:14 AM
Just realised that monks who are sworn to chastity, poverty and passivity in the face of aggression are going to teach teenagers from a klong how to "Man Up"?
Think I missed something there. :laugh:

Karen.

LMAO (for real!)

Quote from: justmeinoz on July 22, 2011, 03:35:14 AM
Just realised that monks who are sworn to chastity, poverty and passivity in the face of aggression are going to teach teenagers from a klong how to "Man Up"?
Think I missed something there. :laugh:

Karen.

Can't be certain, but those principals may not apply to these monks.

I know that many practice forms of martial arts for example. I seem to recall, the main moral principal is humility.

Quote from: Zenda on July 22, 2011, 12:41:14 AM
Kia Ora Kate,
::) The supreme end goal  ::) ::)  ::) In a nutshell.....Nirvana = To transcend the cycle of "becoming" [Samsara]...

::) The Dalai Lama Kate has every right to call Buddhism a religion and the Pope also has every right to say it's not a religion, and on a personal level I have to agree with the Pope in this respect...

Mind you I would find it hard to imagine the Dalai Lama getting into a tiff over such a trivial thing...  ::) After all "What's in a name!"  ;)

Metta Zenda :)

This Nirvana bussiness reminds me of Spok's brother, who goes around taking everybody "pain" from them. Well, I am with Kirk on this one, keep your Nirvana, I need my pain and my thirst and my dreams, is what makes me push forward, be human.

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 22, 2011, 05:22:11 PM

This Nirvana bussiness reminds me of Spok's brother, who goes around taking everybody "pain" from them. Well, I am with Kirk on this one, keep your Nirvana, I need my pain and my thirst and my dreams, is what makes me push forward, be human.

Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

::) Remind me on how a scientist's mind works again...Trained to think logically and lots of research  ;) ...Have you read up on the "Four Noble Truths" Kate ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on July 22, 2011, 06:38:36 PM
Kia Ora Kate,

::) Remind me on how a scientist's mind works again...Trained to think logically and lots of research  ;) ...Have you read up on the "Four Noble Truths" Kate ?

Metta Zenda :)

It is all about be consciousness about suffering and then following a path to eliminate the causes of suffering. My point -and I repeat myself- is that I do not want to end my suffering; it is my suffering that forces me to continue the fight, it it the suffering that makes me human.

Let me see if I can convey what I have been trying to tell you in all the threads were we have been debating. "Different stroke for different folks" I am glad your Buddhisms works for you and other, I respect that, like I respect Jesus is the Savior for others, but it is not for me.

You express you opinion in a way that lives no room for the beliefs of people who disagree with you. I have only find such a tactics in the radical Christians. You may not even be aware of it.

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 22, 2011, 11:30:34 PM
It is all about be consciousness about suffering and then following a path to eliminate the causes of suffering. My point -and I repeat myself- is that I do not want to end my suffering; it is my suffering that forces me to continue the fight, it it the suffering that makes me human.

Let me see if I can convey what I have been trying to tell you in all the threads were we have been debating. "Different stroke for different folks" I am glad your Buddhisms works for you and other, I respect that, like I respect Jesus is the Savior for others, but it is not for me.

You express you opinion in a way that lives no room for the beliefs of people who disagree with you. I have only find such a tactics in the radical Christians. You may not even be aware of it.

Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

::) Now I'm really at a loss...
Kate I can't get angry with you,[even if you wanted me to] I can only have compassion towards you for whatever it is you are going through...And I mean this....... 

Metta Zenda :)

With respect, I'm sorry to say that you are both enguaged in a completely different conversation about a completely different topic.

Kate. The purpose of the notion of Nirvania is a perspective upon the cycle of death and rebirth.

Buddihsm is rooted in Indian philosophy which essentially takes the life force as being eternal. (To put it crudely for brevity). The entire philosophy is based upon that singular notion. Most of the principal traditions see the individual life forces as eminating from a singular. Thatb the objective is to break the cycle and not to be reborn. (Most Eastern philosophers will shudder at that summary. But it is, essentially accurate).

ME philosophy takes the individual as being eternaly individual. That each individual is personally culpable. That individual retribution and reward is the consequence of existance.

Traditional, pre-modern European philosophical tradition, (if we take the modern European philosophical era as starting around the time of the revolution of the 10th century, which introduced Roman Christianity and feudalism), takes the physical form as being an obstacal to the spiritual, which is etrnal. In this life, we individually struggle to establish and cement our reputations. Each of us has a path, in some traditions we select it, in others it is allocated. Once we trancend beyond the physical we will exist for all time with the reputation we had at death.

Can you see a pattern here?


Zenda.

Kate is a little stuck in a contemporary intellectual dichotomy, created by the conflicting claims of a small number of essentially politically motivated scientists who preach scientific absolutism.

The principal of scientific absolutism is its assumption that everything can be explained, absolutely, through science. That includes behaviour, feelings, emotions, even those experiences which we all have and which none of us, as humans, have the intellectual capacity to explain in words. That we don't have the answers is because we haven't found them yet, not that they don't exist.

It also works, strictly, with a principal of acedemic tradition. I can suggest an explaination, but unless I can demonstrate a sequence of intellectual steps, each made with regard for what came before, citing each as an acedemic, peer reviewed work, then my explaination is at best, a notion, at worst, a guess.

In itself, it is a good idea.

Scientific absolutism rejects, for example, aestheticism. Beauty, every aspect, can be explained by science. Unless it has, what there is is nothing more than a guess or a notion. The intuitive feelings of the artist or the designer can be demonstrated to have been accurate. But intuition is just an intelegent guess, or perhaps, a notion.

Scientific absolutism rejects as distractions, any such notions. That which is not known exists. But until it has been scientifically documented, even thinking about it, is a distraction

Now people like Kate and many others, actually find the implications of scientific absolutism a tab horrifying. But equally, they are reluctant to reject. So, they tend to reject what they feel safe to.

It's a sort of cultural fence sitting. And if you think about it, it probably the most sensible approach of all.

.

Bleesed are the peace makers for they shall see G-d

Thanks Spacial!  I can see Zenda's points but i think is better I do not respond to her post as she does not get my side.

Kate D

Who decided the Nobel Truths are that?
The good prince himself, or was it the monks who came after him that capitolized on the charisma he had, to perptuate a system that provides monks with an easy living?

What makes them nobel? What makes them true? Can you deonstrate the truth or nobility?

Kia Ora,
Sorry this is quite long but I guess it's important if one really wants to "understand" the "Four Noble Truth" ...According to "Buddhism"....

DISCLAIMER : THIS IS "NOT" A RECRUITMENT DRIVE FOR BUDDHISM !  Questions were asked and this hopefully will answer these questions.....[ Well at lease shed some light on the subject-"fingers" crossed XX XX]

The word dukkha is significant in Buddhism because of its association with the First Noble Truth1 -- that life is dukkha. To understand what the Buddha meant, it's important to understand what dukkha means. The word usually is translated into English as "suffering." But it also means temporary, limited, imperfect and unsatisfactory. In the Buddhist sense, it refers to anything that is conditioned. Something that is conditioned is not absolute or independent of other things. Thus, something beautiful and pleasant is dukkha, because it will end. For example, a new sports car is dukkha, because eventually it will be a rust bucket. Anything formed of the five aggregates [the Five Skandhas =Form-Sensation-Perception-Mental Formation-Consciousness] is dukkha. When the Buddha said that "life is dukkha," he didn't mean that life contains dukkha. He meant exactly that life is dukkha. Life is conditioned. Life is temporary and imperfect.

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means Dukkha
To live means to live with imperfections, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of Dukkha is attachment.
The origin of dukkha is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of dukkha is attainable.
The cessation of dukkha can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of dukkha.
There is a path to the end of dukkha - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

The Eightfold Path

1. Right View [Wisdom]
Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention [Wisdom]

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: [1]. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, [2]. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and [3]. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech [Ethical Conduct]

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: [1]. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, [2]. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, [3]. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and [4]. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

4. Right Action [Ethical Conduct]
The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means [1]. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, [2]. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and [3]. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood [Ethical Conduct]
Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: [1]. dealing in weapons, [2]. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), [3]. working in meat production and butchery, and [4]. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort [Mental Development]
Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: [1]. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, [2]. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, [3]. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and [4]. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness [Mental Development]
Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualise sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualisation in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: [1]. contemplation of the body, [2]. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), [3]. contemplation of the state of mind, and [4]. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration [Mental Development]
The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon's location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger !"

What happens in philosophy and in spiritual belief systems again and again is the intense debate about the pointers.[Fingers]

To analyse the pointer is.....pointless....

For those who actually read this I would like to thank you for your "patience"...

And please sign on the dotted line.....................................................If you wish to "become" a Buddhist  ;)  :D :icon_yikes: I was only "JOKING" folks... ;)

BTW Thank you Spacial for your most welcome insight....l

Metta Zenda :)

Close but no cigar; thanks but no thanks!

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 23, 2011, 09:59:53 PM
Close but no cigar; thanks but no thanks!

Kate D

Kia Ora,

::) But free fries come with this offer too Kate and all you can drink  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on July 23, 2011, 10:18:21 PM
Kia Ora,

::) But free fries come with this offer too Kate and all you can drink  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

No junk food for me, I am watching my figure, but what kind of drinks are you offering?

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 23, 2011, 10:25:18 PM
No junk food for me, I am watching my figure, but what kind of drinks are you offering?

Kate D

Kia Ora,

::) Only fruit juice ! But it is BYOG = Bring Your Own "God"[Just in case you thought the "G" stood for Grog =alcohol] ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm not trying to recruit anyone. But, from what I've read, which is mostly about Zen style Buddhism so it may be a little different, Buddha never claimed that he found a one-size fits all path to salvation/enlightenment nor did he tell people how to live. In fact, he largely acknowledged that there are many paths to salvation/enlightenment. What I always found fascinating is that Zen Buddhist monks don't argue with other religions and claim that they are the only ones who are right. They agree that there are many paths to salvation/enlightenment and they claim that if someone can achieve it through a western religion or atheism, for example, then that's great. Also, there are Zen koans (kongans)--which are basically just little stories that either have a point or no point at all, which is then just meant to make you think--which warn that even living too strictly by the precepts may bring only pain and suffering. Basically, the "moral" of the story, if you want to call it that, is that the person who becomes too attached to the precepts may end up with pain and suffering because of their attachment to the precepts. Zen Buddhism is really the only "religion" I've ever respected precisely because it's not really a religion. Think of it this way, if someone expresses that they have a problem, we oftentimes offer them help to try to solve their problem out of concern and compassion--not unlike this very forum. But any advice we give is usually not intended as rigid rules they MUST follow to solve their problem, it's just friendly advice that they can take or leave. From my understanding, that's pretty much what Zen Buddhism is. I'll reiterate this one more time, I'm not a Buddhist so I'm not trying to recruit anyone. The point is to help clarify the distinction between Buddhism and western religions, which many a scholar has done.

Quote from: valyn_faer on July 23, 2011, 11:51:04 PM
I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm not trying to recruit anyone. But, from what I've read, which is mostly about Zen style Buddhism so it may be a little different, Buddha never claimed that he found a one-size fits all path to salvation/enlightenment nor did he tell people how to live. In fact, he largely acknowledged that there are many paths to salvation/enlightenment. What I always found fascinating is that Zen Buddhist monks don't argue with other religions and claim that they are the only ones who are right. They agree that there are many paths to salvation/enlightenment and they claim that if someone can achieve it through a western religion or atheism, for example, then that's great. Also, there are Zen koans (kongans)--which are basically just little stories that either have a point or no point at all, which is then just meant to make you think--which warn that even living too strictly by the precepts may bring only pain and suffering. Basically, the "moral" of the story, if you want to call it that, is that the person who becomes too attached to the precepts may end up with pain and suffering because of their attachment to the precepts. Zen Buddhism is really the only "religion" I've ever respected precisely because it's not really a religion. Think of it this way, if someone expresses that they have a problem, we oftentimes offer them help to try to solve their problem out of concern and compassion--not unlike this very forum. But any advice we give is usually not intended as rigid rules they MUST follow to solve their problem, it's just friendly advice that they can take or leave. From my understanding, that's pretty much what Zen Buddhism is. I'll reiterate this one more time, I'm not a Buddhist so I'm not trying to recruit anyone. The point is to help clarify the distinction between Buddhism and western religions, which many a scholar has done.

Kia Ora Valyn_Faer,

::) Thanks for your informative insight into a different approaches to Buddhism [The Buddha taught 84 thousand ways-Zen seems to be a combination of Taoism and Buddhism]...

::) Tis said Zen practitioners ride the "bullet train" to enlightenment, while others take the slow boat ! Either way we all get there in the end ;)

Metta Zenda :)

84,000 lesson plans?

Why do I get the feeling that allot of things atributed to the good Prince were actually done by others?

Quote from: cynthialee on July 24, 2011, 03:40:04 PM
84,000 lesson plans?

Why do I get the feeling that allot of things atributed to the good Prince were actually done by others?

Cynthia [so has not to offend I've left out "Kia Ora" because I know how much you dislike it]

::) Because you don't know much about Buddhism ?

Metta Zenda :)

I haven't read every post in this thread, but just wanted to mention that the Buddha said that a sex change is OK as long as the MTF is treated as a nun and does not have more than two sex changes, ie., the person can change back to their born sex, but not change again after that. 

You might be surprsed what I know...

I think it is a more matter of what I know of human nature than what I know of Buddhism .

Quote from: cynthialee on July 24, 2011, 05:05:09 PM
You might be surprsed what I know...

I think it is a more matter of what I know of human nature than what I know of Buddhism .

::) Surprise me Cynthialee...I'm all ears.....

Metta Zenda :)

It is simple really. Often Herculean tasks are atributed to a historic figure that others did or took the work of many. Or books atributed to authors that never wrote them. The false byline given to lend credence to the work. To lend more authority to the historic figure.

Why would the people of India be any diferant than the rest of the world?

Quote from: cynthialee on July 24, 2011, 05:29:37 PM
It is simple really. Often Herculean tasks are atributed to a historic figure that others did or took the work of many. Or books atributed to authors that never wrote them. The false byline given to lend credence to the work. To lend more authority to the historic figure.

Why would the people of India be any diferant than the rest of the world? I don't think they are Cynthialee...

Cynthialee,

::) It would seem you are focusing too much upon the singer and not the song...Buddhism itself is a work in "progress"...

The Buddha didn't write the text but all that we know of him today comes from his teaching that were orally past down over the generations...If you care to study the thousands upon thousands of verses attributed to the Buddha's teachings [like many of the Buddhist teachers from the different school have spent many years doing] ,you will find that the foundations of the his teachings the "Four Noble Truths" even though approached slightly differently by different schools "remains" the same...

However Cynthialee, I'm no expert on Buddhism, I'm just a humble practitioner who has greatly benefited from the Buddha and those Buddhist teachers who have "interpreted" his teachings as best as they could...And the proof so they say "Is in the pudding !"

A wise old Zen monk once said "Great Faith and Great Doubt are two ends of a spiritual walking stick. We grip one end with the grasp given to us by our Great Determination. We poke into the underbrush in the dark on our spiritual journey. This act is real spiritual practice -- gripping the Faith end and poking ahead with the Doubt end of the stick. If we have no Faith, we have no Doubt. If we have no Determination, we never pick up the stick in the first place !"

I wish you all the best on your journey of self discovery...[I have to have a shower and get ready for  work now]

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on July 24, 2011, 03:33:09 PM
Kia Ora Valyn_Faer,

::) Thanks for your informative insight into a different approaches to Buddhism [The Buddha taught 84 thousand ways-Zen seems to be a combination of Taoism and Buddhism]...

::) Tis said Zen practitioners ride the "bullet train" to enlightenment, while others take the slow boat ! Either way we all get there in the end ;)

Metta Zenda :)

I've read that Zen is a combination of Taoism and Buddhism, and it makes sense. I've never heard it called the "bullet train" to enlightenment, though. Haha. I always thought it seemed far more complicated, but I guess the analogy does make sense.

Not to interrupt or anything, but is it okay if I ask a (what might be a stupid) question?

Zenda, what do "Kia Ora" and "Metta Zenda" mean?  I've been following this topic for awhile and am curious.  I hope that's okay. 

Thank you.   ;D

Quote from: Sage on July 28, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Not to interrupt or anything, but is it okay if I ask a (what might be a stupid) question?

Zenda, what do "Kia Ora" and "Metta Zenda" mean?  I've been following this topic for awhile and am curious.  I hope that's okay. 

Thank you.   ;D

Kia Ora Sage,

::) My apologies for not answering you sooner...

"Kia Ora" means "Hi" in the Maori language[indigenous people of Aotearoa "NZ"]  and "Metta" is Pali[language spoken at the time of the Buddha] for "Loving Kindness"...

You can find more info on the above words here https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zythyra on July 16, 2011, 07:37:00 AM
Monks teach maleness to Thai 'ladyboys'

By Janesara Fugal (AFP) – 8 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtidB8oq-otugyBvmRQ0cPpL3tzg?docId=CNG.85dd3468c38ddd2a33b111209b8647f1.521 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtidB8oq-otugyBvmRQ0cPpL3tzg?docId=CNG.85dd3468c38ddd2a33b111209b8647f1.521)

CHIANG KHONG, Thailand — The 15-year-old aspiring "ladyboy" delicately applied a puff of talcum powder to his nose -- an act of rebellion at the Thai Buddhist temple where he is learning to "be a man".

"They have rules here that novice monks cannot use powder, make-up, or perfume, cannot run around and be girlish," said Pipop Thanajindawong, who was sent to Wat Kreung Tai Wittaya, in Chiang Khong on the Thai-Laos border, to tame his more feminine traits.

I bet you some of this sadistic monks are pedophiles, just like some of those chastolic priest

Metta Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on July 29, 2011, 07:43:08 PM
I bet you some of this sadistic monks are pedophiles, just like some of those chastolic priest

Metta Kate D

Kia Ora Kate,

::) We humans can be peculiar and very complex creatures, I don't think there would be any spiritual belief system free of bad apples...Hinduism-Buddhism-Taoism-Judaism-Islam-Christianity-Paganism...Or for that matter these bad apples can be found in any profession Teachers-doctors-lawyers-scientists, the list goes on and on...

Take your pick Kate, human are involve in all of them and with humans comes their flaws...

::) I've heard about bad boy Tibetan Buddhist Lamas who act like kids in a candy store when confronted with Western women who are eager to please...Rabbis, Imams, priests  who moonlight as sexual predators...

Metta Zenda :)   

Quote from: Zenda on July 29, 2011, 07:34:49 PM
Kia Ora Sage,

::) My apologies for not answering you sooner...

"Kia Ora" means "Hi" in the Maori language[indigenous people of Aotearoa "NZ"]  and "Metta" is Pali[language spoken at the time of the Buddha] for "Loving Kindness"...

You can find more info on the above words here https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,102771.0.html)
Oh, so they're from two different languages?   :P  That's cool.  Thanks so much for taking the time to enlighten me on this.   ;D  Sage learned something new today.~~   :D
Metta Zenda :)

Hi all!

I do apologise for bumping this old thread... and coming from a brand new user, I suppose that it's a bad way to start! But please bear with me for a moment...

When browsing Susan's website for information, I've noticed that "Buddhism" didn't deserve a section of its own. So I came to this thread, trying to understand why not. However, what apparently seems to be the case here is that the discussion is more of a religious/philosophical note, and not how Buddhist techniques can be put into practice to deal with the urges, anxiety, and frustration of crossdressing and/or ->-bleeped-<-.

My own teachers tell me that there is little point in discussing/arguing philosophy; Buddhist methods are to be put into practice — that's truly all that matters. Of course, it's important to find a qualified teacher who is able to figure out what method works best for a particular student.

Cynthia Lee raises a good point, which is often baffling to followers of a specific religion/philosophy/self-help method. With all of those you're supposed to have a one-size-fits-all method to achieve whatever vision is proclaimed to be the "truth", and you either have faith and follow that method, or you give up trying.

Buddhism looks at things from a more realistic angle. We all are different human beings — we just share some fundamental aspects (i.e. we have a body, we have a mind, we look for happiness, we try to avoid unhappiness), but each of us reacts in different ways to different things. That's just how things are. So it's a bit naive to claim that "My method is best, so it should work for you". It might work, if that person has similar ideas, similar feelings, similar ways of looking at life. But with 7 billion humans on this planet, it's more than obvious that there will be far more differences than similarities!

So Siddhartha is claimed to have explained a lot of different methods, for completely different people — from beggars to kings. These methods are often (externally) opposite to each other! Again, this makes it all be much more confusing. To make matters even worse, what Siddhartha taught was not a "revelation written in stone" — i.e. "only what Siddhartha says is valid, all else is invented". Even Siddhartha himself proclaimed, quite clearly, "Don't take my advice just because the people say I'm Buddha" (i.e. enlightened). However, the methods he taught allowed others to follow them and get some results. Once they reached those, they often adapted some methods for their own students: after all, those students would be different from Siddhartha's own students, and, as such, might not be able to use the same methods. This goes on to this very day; attaining Siddhartha's vision is not "a thing of the past", hidden by mysticism, fantasy and folklore in an age where written communication was shaky at best. Instead, it happens every day; people attain that vision on this very century, and although we cannot read people's minds, we can see some physical manifestations. And these days we have cameras and medical instruments to record those manifestations, so we know it's possible 8)

Let me take an example of differing methods. Buddhism started to spread in nothern India, which has a mild-to-hot climate. Monks thus just required a simple cloth to wear. When Buddhism crossed the Himalaya into a much harsher climate, it was obvious that wearing just a linen cloth would mean that most serious practitioners would freeze to death. So the rules were changed to allow monks to wear something warmer. Purists might claim that this is perverting the "rules", but it's not: methods applied to a specific society and country might require a few changes. Another example: India is mostly a vegetarian country, so naturally monks would be encouraged to be vegetarian (meat being reserved as a "luxury dish" for most of the population). The same happened throughout China, Korea, or Japan, for pretty much the same reason. In Thailand, however, meat was more widespread — so monks begging for food are required to eat whatever they're given. By contrast, the highlands of Tibet are too bare for vegetables to be grown efficiently, and almost all the population has to survive on a meat diet. While these days, thanks to more efficient agriculture, and a contamination of thoughts from other Buddhist groups, many Tibetans moved to a vegetarian diet, not all did so. The Dalai Lama, due to health issues, cannot be a pure vegetarian — he attempted that twice, but became terribly ill — so he still occasionally consumes some meat. One would certainly not question the Dalai Lama's seriousness in terms of Buddhist practice :)

While these are very external issues, they illustrate my point well: the methods are not the same for everyone.

If this still seems to be confusing, or somehow tends to make people think that those methods were all made up, consider our Western example: Western medicine is also not a one-size-fits-all science, specially in areas like psychology and psychiatry. We recognize that there are no universal methods that will work for everyone. It takes a doctor to do a correct diagnosis and prescribe the appropriate treatment, and they are certainly aware that not everybody will respond to the same treatments. In psychology, for example, there are completely different schools of thought, often opposing each other, and some give better results than others, depending on the patient being treated. But, again, it takes a qualified psychologist to know which method is best.

Buddhism is sometimes described as a "science of the mind" (even if it's simultaneously more than that and less than that; there is a purpose in studying how the mind works — namely, to use it to our advantage) because it encourages critical thinking and precise methods to attain certain results, which are reproductible. There are no dogmas in Buddhism (even saying "there are no dogmas" is subject to questioning :) ). But for certain kinds of people there are methods which will work better than others, and a qualified teacher will know which one to apply for a particular student. It's also not unusual for students to learn more than one method or technique — because we also change over time, we get moody, we have "good and bad days", and sometimes it's useful to have different methods to suit our mood. And, of course, if we're in the position to help someone, it's good to know a few different methods to point them into the right direction.

Saying that, it's important to explain that all these methods and techniques can be traced back to Siddhartha himself, even if sometimes it seems hard to "believe" that. However, Siddhartha left us a relatively simple method to validate if a certain method or technique is "Buddhism" or not — it's known as the Four Seals of Buddhadharma (http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1814). They're not easy to understand, but whatever method/technique includes those Four Seals is "Buddhism", even if they don't use that name. Anyway, "Buddhism", as a name, is a Western invention, when "Buddhism" was classified mostly as a religion or a philosophy derived from Siddhartha, also known as the Buddha. Siddhartha had no intention to create a religion; the name that Buddhist practitioners call themselves is simply "Dharma practitioners", or, in some cases, "people getting familiar with their own minds". So you can see that the focus is really on the practice itself and not on what Western thought has made of all the writings.

And because of that focus on practice, I thought that it might be more helpful to explain a bit how Buddhist methods in getting familiar with one's mind can help us crossdressers to deal with our urges, frustrations, anxiety, and so forth. Unlike Hinduism, or techniques mostly influenced by Hinduist philosophy, it's not about "suppressing" anything (a suppressed emotion or thought, as any Western psychologist will say, will just re-surface again). Unlike "positive thinking", popularized first in the West by many New Age followers, and which also trickled down to psychology, Buddhist methods are also not about fabricating anything — we already create our own masks, we don't need a fancy method to pretend we're something we're not. Because these two extremes are so popular (not only in the West!) — i.e. either suppressing things, or fabricating something in our minds to change our mindset somehow — Buddhism is hard to categorize, since it rejects both methods, pointing out the shortcomings of either approach, and explaining why they don't work.

I'm not a qualified teacher — in fact, I'm not a teacher at all. Nevertheless, even though there are a few transgender Buddhist groups (http://transgenderbuddhism.blog2blog.nl/), they are sadly not here discussing these issues with you — so I wrote an article giving some highlights on how Buddhist methods can be employed by crossdressers and other transgendered persons to deal with some of their issues. Anyone familiar with Buddhist methods of getting familiarized with one's mind should recognize them, but I tried to avoid technical or classical terms. This is hard to do without "watering down" the method, or somehow corrupting it beyond recognition. Taking that into account, my only motivation in writing it was to give potential interested people a taste of what it is like and encourage them to find a qualified teacher who can explain the method to anyone interested in learning it.

This is the link to it: http://feminina.info/2012/12/07/crossdressing-techniques-to-deal-with-urges-anxiety-and-disappointment/ (http://feminina.info/2012/12/07/crossdressing-techniques-to-deal-with-urges-anxiety-and-disappointment/)

Read it with a critical mind, but keep it also open enough to at least experiment the techniques. You don't need to "convert" to anything to apply those methods to your own life :) And if something isn't clear enough, it's all my fault, not the method's fault — you just need to find a qualified teacher to explain it clearly and unambiguously to you.

May the article be helpful to some of you.

Cheers,

   - Sandra