Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Way-Fun
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Way-Fun » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:08 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:44 am
The "Bodhisattva of Darkness" is the one who is afraid. How do you awaken in the midst of fear?
Seems to me you are making this up as you along...
Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17333
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Grigoris » Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm

Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:08 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:44 am
The "Bodhisattva of Darkness" is the one who is afraid. How do you awaken in the midst of fear?
Seems to me you are making this up as you along...
Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist source for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27989
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:03 pm

It's easier to move the thread to the lounge.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Way-Fun
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Way-Fun » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:19 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:08 pm
Seems to me you are making this up as you along...
Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist citation for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
It is an observation. You seemed to want some elaboration on the metaphor. If you feel that you are forced to delete it, then delete it.

There is something to be said for not explaining to much, I am told.

The feeling of knowing is none other than the mind's inclination to deceive itself, I have observed.


From The Gateless Gate, Case 42

Manjusri and the Young Woman in Samadhi
Once Manjusri went to a place where many Buddhas had assembled with the World-Honored One. When he arrived, all the buddhas had returned to their original dwelling place.
Only a young woman remained, seated in samadhi, near the Buddha’s seat.
Manjusri addressed the Buddha and asked, “How can the young woman get near the Buddha’s seat when I cannot?”
The Buddha replied to Manjusri, “Awaken this young woman from her samadhi and ask her yourself!” Manjusri walked around the young woman three times, snapped his fingers once, took her to the Brahma Heaven and exerted all his supernatural powers but he could not bring her out.
The World-Honored One said, “Even a hundred-thousand Manjusris cannot awaken her. Down below, past twelve hundred million lands, as innumberable as sands of the Ganges, lives the Bodhisattva of Delusive Wisdom. He will be able to bring her out of her samadhi.”
Instantly the Bodhisattva of Delusive Wisdom emerged from the earth and made bows before the World-Honored One who gave him his imperial order. Delusive Wisdom stepped before the young woman, snapped his fingers once and at this she came out of samadhi.

The Verse

One can bring her out, the other cannot;
both of them are free.
A god mask; a devil mask –
the failure is an elegant performance.

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:15 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:30 am
liuzg150181 wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:07 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:06 pm
Going back to the original topic, Jay Garfield is a co-author on the paper and it's available from his website here:

https://jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com ... ndself.pdf
Interesting paper,skimmed through the paper and had some questions in mind:

"Tibetan Buddhists from monasteries in Byalkuppe and
Mundgod, India; Lay Tibetans from Northern India; and Tibetan Buddhists from Bhutan."

"Indeed, this explanation actually fits with a traditional Buddhist distinction between innate self-grasping and philosophical self-grasping. The latter is the conviction in the reality of the self as a result of philosophical or religious doctrine, and it is regarded among
Buddhist philosophers as eliminable simply through philosophical reflection. The former,however, is regarded as immune to mere philosophical reflection, and it is argued that only prolonged meditation can dislodge it. None of the participants we studied were
long-term meditators (Tsongkhapa, 1991), and one important question for future research (S. Nichols et al. / Cognitive Science (2018)
17)will be whether highly experienced practitioners of meditation would in fact show reduced fear of self-annihilation."


I had googled Byalkuppe and Mundgod with regards to the Tibetan Buddhist schools that exists. It seems the Byalkuppe is a Gelug-dominated area(intersparsed with Drikung Kagyu and Nyingma),whereas Mundgod is only Gelug,so I can safely presume that the sample taken for monastic is biased towards Gelug school?

Afaik since Gelugpa approach is very academic,esp as opposed to practice school Nyingmapa and Kagyupa(and also Jonangpa i believe),this would jive with the point above regarding distinction between "innate self-grasping and philosophical self-grasping" and the sampled not being long-term meditators(though it is not stated whether that refers to sutric or tantric stuff).

Speaking of which:

Another limitation of our study is that we focused on a single Buddhist tradition, and
it will be important to see whether the findings hold for other traditions as well. Buddhist
traditions differ from one another in doctrinal detail, with respect to practice, with respect
to relations between lay and monastic communities, and in degree of piety. We have
examined only one of these traditions

the Tibetan tradition as it is represented in the
Indian exile community and in Bhutan.


Ironically,despite the mention of different Buddhist traditions,I didnt see any exposition of different Tibetan schools. Does Jay Garfield assume that all TB schools are of one mold and only differs in names and lineages?
My guess based on the little information given is that the selected sample of monastics were students from Sera and Drepung - but I can't be sure. I'm not convinced by the paper I must admit - there would seem to be so many factors that could have influenced the results that have not been addressed that I'm not sure the results are very meaningful. I'm also not sure about the discussion of the results and what they mean, for instance this sounds very dubious to me:
We propose that even for the monks and nuns, there remains a persistent and powerful sense of identity yielded by episodic memory and prospection within biological life.
The claim that episodic memory generates a sense of personal identity even among monastics is reinforced by looking at work within Tibetan Buddhism. Autobiographies are a primary genre in Tibetan literature. The autobiographies are by people who are held to be of high spiritual attainment (e.g., Gyatso, 1998, 103). It might seem incoherent for an enlightened Buddhist to write an autobiography — how can one affirm an autobiography while denying the self?
It is certainly clear that these texts make liberal use of the first person singular. The official rejoinder to this alleged incoherence is that these works treat the author as merely a “conventional” person, not an enduring ultimate self. It is possible to speak of persons in this merely conventional fashion, but Tibetan autobiographies suggest that this is not always consistently upheld. Often in these works, the author is reporting a past experience, and the recollections certainly do not seem to present the distanced perspective afforded by thinking that there really is no persisting self. Rather, they suggest a clear identification with the past experiencer. Consider, for instance, the most famous work in this tradition,The Life of Milarepa. We find the author describing a scene from years earlier in which he had returned to his ancestral home and found human bones among a heap of rags. He writes,

When I realized they were the bones of my mother, I was so overcome with grief that I could hardly stand it. I could not think, I could not speak, and an overwhelming sense of longing and sadness swept over me. (Quintman, 2010, p. 118; see also Shabkar, 1994, p. 32; Kongtrul, 2003; 172–3)

This passage is hardly a dispassionate report that a conventional person consisting of fleeting traits included a set of perceptions. Instead, it seems to be a recollection of a devastating personal experience. It is most plausible that Milarepa, in reflecting on this terrible event, could not suppress the sense that he had the experience of discovering his mother’s bones, even if, in a different register, he would deny that there is
any self in which he consists, or that he is now the same person who endured that experience.
It seems like they thought that someone who has conquered self-grasping (Milarepa) should be suffering from depersonalisation disorder. :shrug:
One would hope that Jay Garfield at least would know the differences between the approaches of the different TB schools.
"Ok,the whole pt of meditation is to turn yourself into a totally emotionless blockhead.",I believe that is their misconception of what TB meditation(or meditation in general) is about.
Had checked googled for Jay Garfield's background,it seems that he is mainly involved with Gelug stuff,which is quite standard for a philosophy major due to Gelug's intellectual approach. While one of his work mentioned abt Mipham Rinpoche, though I didnt read the work to discern whether he understands Nyingma perspective(not that I know well enough to do so too in the first place).

And it seems we are the only two right now who arent deviating from the topic. :applause:

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27989
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:28 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:30 am

Autobiographies are a primary genre in Tibetan literature. The autobiographies are by people who are held to be of high spiritual attainment (e.g., Gyatso, 1998, 103). It might seem incoherent for an enlightened Buddhist to write an autobiography — how can one affirm an autobiography while denying the self?
It is certainly clear that these texts make liberal use of the first person singular. The official rejoinder to this alleged incoherence is that these works treat the author as merely a “conventional” person, not an enduring ultimate self. It is possible to speak of persons in this merely conventional fashion, but Tibetan autobiographies suggest that this is not always consistently upheld. Often in these works, the author is reporting a past experience, and the recollections certainly do not seem to present the distanced perspective afforded by thinking that there really is no persisting self. Rather, they suggest a clear identification with the past experiencer. Consider, for instance, the most famous work in this tradition,The Life of Milarepa. We find the author describing a scene from years earlier in which he had returned to his ancestral home and found human bones among a heap of rags. He writes,

When I realized they were the bones of my mother, I was so overcome with grief that I could hardly stand it. I could not think, I could not speak, and an overwhelming sense of longing and sadness swept over me. (Quintman, 2010, p. 118; see also Shabkar, 1994, p. 32; Kongtrul, 2003; 172–3)

This passage is hardly a dispassionate report that a conventional person consisting of fleeting traits included a set of perceptions. Instead, it seems to be a recollection of a devastating personal experience. It is most plausible that Milarepa, in reflecting on this terrible event, could not suppress the sense that he had the experience of discovering his mother’s bones, even if, in a different register, he would deny that there is
any self in which he consists, or that he is now the same person who endured that experience.
It seems like they thought that someone who has conquered self-grasping (Milarepa) should be suffering from depersonalisation disorder. :shrug:
One would hope that Jay Garfield at least would know the differences between the approaches of the different TB schools.
The funny thing is that they are commenting on a passage of an event which never happened, apart from Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision." Why do we know this? Gampopa's bio reports that Mila was the son of a widower, not a widow. Much of the account in this "autobiography" is about real as Harry Potter.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:29 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:28 pm

The funny thing is that they are commenting on a passage of an event which never happened, apart from Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision." Why do we know this? Gampopa's bio reports that Mila was the son of a widower, not a widow. Much of the account in this "autobiography" is about real as Harry Potter.
So much what we assume to know abt Milarepa's life nowadays is nothing but Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision."? :jawdrop:

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9259
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by DGA » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:32 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:30 am
liuzg150181 wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:07 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:06 pm
Going back to the original topic, Jay Garfield is a co-author on the paper and it's available from his website here:

https://jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com ... ndself.pdf
Interesting paper,skimmed through the paper and had some questions in mind:

"Tibetan Buddhists from monasteries in Byalkuppe and
Mundgod, India; Lay Tibetans from Northern India; and Tibetan Buddhists from Bhutan."

"Indeed, this explanation actually fits with a traditional Buddhist distinction between innate self-grasping and philosophical self-grasping. The latter is the conviction in the reality of the self as a result of philosophical or religious doctrine, and it is regarded among
Buddhist philosophers as eliminable simply through philosophical reflection. The former,however, is regarded as immune to mere philosophical reflection, and it is argued that only prolonged meditation can dislodge it. None of the participants we studied were
long-term meditators (Tsongkhapa, 1991), and one important question for future research (S. Nichols et al. / Cognitive Science (2018)
17)will be whether highly experienced practitioners of meditation would in fact show reduced fear of self-annihilation."


I had googled Byalkuppe and Mundgod with regards to the Tibetan Buddhist schools that exists. It seems the Byalkuppe is a Gelug-dominated area(intersparsed with Drikung Kagyu and Nyingma),whereas Mundgod is only Gelug,so I can safely presume that the sample taken for monastic is biased towards Gelug school?

Afaik since Gelugpa approach is very academic,esp as opposed to practice school Nyingmapa and Kagyupa(and also Jonangpa i believe),this would jive with the point above regarding distinction between "innate self-grasping and philosophical self-grasping" and the sampled not being long-term meditators(though it is not stated whether that refers to sutric or tantric stuff).

Speaking of which:

Another limitation of our study is that we focused on a single Buddhist tradition, and
it will be important to see whether the findings hold for other traditions as well. Buddhist
traditions differ from one another in doctrinal detail, with respect to practice, with respect
to relations between lay and monastic communities, and in degree of piety. We have
examined only one of these traditions

the Tibetan tradition as it is represented in the
Indian exile community and in Bhutan.


Ironically,despite the mention of different Buddhist traditions,I didnt see any exposition of different Tibetan schools. Does Jay Garfield assume that all TB schools are of one mold and only differs in names and lineages?
My guess based on the little information given is that the selected sample of monastics were students from Sera and Drepung - but I can't be sure. I'm not convinced by the paper I must admit - there would seem to be so many factors that could have influenced the results that have not been addressed that I'm not sure the results are very meaningful. I'm also not sure about the discussion of the results and what they mean, for instance this sounds very dubious to me:
We propose that even for the monks and nuns, there remains a persistent and powerful sense of identity yielded by episodic memory and prospection within biological life.
The claim that episodic memory generates a sense of personal identity even among monastics is reinforced by looking at work within Tibetan Buddhism. Autobiographies are a primary genre in Tibetan literature. The autobiographies are by people who are held to be of high spiritual attainment (e.g., Gyatso, 1998, 103). It might seem incoherent for an enlightened Buddhist to write an autobiography — how can one affirm an autobiography while denying the self?
It is certainly clear that these texts make liberal use of the first person singular. The official rejoinder to this alleged incoherence is that these works treat the author as merely a “conventional” person, not an enduring ultimate self. It is possible to speak of persons in this merely conventional fashion, but Tibetan autobiographies suggest that this is not always consistently upheld. Often in these works, the author is reporting a past experience, and the recollections certainly do not seem to present the distanced perspective afforded by thinking that there really is no persisting self. Rather, they suggest a clear identification with the past experiencer. Consider, for instance, the most famous work in this tradition,The Life of Milarepa. We find the author describing a scene from years earlier in which he had returned to his ancestral home and found human bones among a heap of rags. He writes,

When I realized they were the bones of my mother, I was so overcome with grief that I could hardly stand it. I could not think, I could not speak, and an overwhelming sense of longing and sadness swept over me. (Quintman, 2010, p. 118; see also Shabkar, 1994, p. 32; Kongtrul, 2003; 172–3)

This passage is hardly a dispassionate report that a conventional person consisting of fleeting traits included a set of perceptions. Instead, it seems to be a recollection of a devastating personal experience. It is most plausible that Milarepa, in reflecting on this terrible event, could not suppress the sense that he had the experience of discovering his mother’s bones, even if, in a different register, he would deny that there is
any self in which he consists, or that he is now the same person who endured that experience.
It seems like they thought that someone who has conquered self-grasping (Milarepa) should be suffering from depersonalisation disorder. :shrug:
One would hope that Jay Garfield at least would know the differences between the approaches of the different TB schools.
Thank you both for actually taking the article to task with a critical eye. This isn't done often enough at DW, in my opinion. Instead, things tend to go the other direction. For example, consider this episode in which the ignorance of a man named Thubten of the Lotus Sutra is assumed to mean that there is no Tathagatagarbha teaching in any Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

viewtopic.php?p=421348#p421568

Come for the pearl clutching, but stay for the comma splices

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27989
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:36 pm

liuzg150181 wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:29 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:28 pm

The funny thing is that they are commenting on a passage of an event which never happened, apart from Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision." Why do we know this? Gampopa's bio reports that Mila was the son of a widower, not a widow. Much of the account in this "autobiography" is about real as Harry Potter.
So much what we assume to know abt Milarepa's life nowadays is nothing but Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision."? :jawdrop:
Yes. You need to read Peter Alan Roberts book on Rechungpa where he discusses at length the process by which Milarepa's biography is slowly altered over time, culminating in Tsang Nyon Heruka's fantasy novel. This, btw, does not mean that TNH's book is without literary merit -- quite the contrary. But we cannot rely on it for accurate information about Milarepa (or Marpa, etc.)
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

marting
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:37 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by marting » Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:24 pm

More thoughts after having read through it a little more carefully.

-The value of coping with one's death is questionable, considering that regardless of how one may answer now on a survey, on one's deathbed my prediction is that everyone will have a closer to equal sense of existential dread regardless of background. The morality question in a real scenario may also be equalized and probably more towards the selfish choice.

-Related to that, could the monastics have seen it as more humbling to express their fear of personal death and attachment to self-preservation? That is to say, saying one was less afraid of a loss of self and more willing to not want to use the medicine for themselves is indicitive of realization (which in a way is itself egotistical bragging)

-Related to that, could the Americans have answered the way they did because it is humbling in American culture to be generous and strong in faith even in the process of death?

-Small mention of innate self-grasping at the end of the article, but a largely ignored concept here I think

-Lay Tibetans and Bhutanese were similar in their responses, especially in showing more sense of self continuity and core self than the monastics

-Which leads me to think of the possibility that the monastics were answering as "good Buddhists ought to" on connectedness, core self, and coping with death, but when the surveys became more personal to them (fear of personal death and tradeoff), they were honest about (or possibly magnifying) their real lack of capabilities. That is to say, they were themselves saying that cognitive beliefs are not enough

-How exactly does karma play into the tradeoff scenario?

-Is fearlessness of death really a Buddhist value? Or is fear of death a motivation to practice Dharma?

-All of this can potentially be clarified if the authors interviewed the participants later about their motivations and feelings behind their answers

-Can't believe I spent $15 on that article when it was free on Garfield's site...

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17333
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Grigoris » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:34 am

Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:19 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm

Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist citation for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
It is an observation. You seemed to want some elaboration on the metaphor. If you feel that you are forced to delete it, then delete it.

There is something to be said for not explaining to much, I am told.

The feeling of knowing is none other than the mind's inclination to deceive itself, I have observed.


From The Gateless Gate, Case 42

Manjusri and the Young Woman in Samadhi
Once Manjusri went to a place where many Buddhas had assembled with the World-Honored One. When he arrived, all the buddhas had returned to their original dwelling place.
Only a young woman remained, seated in samadhi, near the Buddha’s seat.
Manjusri addressed the Buddha and asked, “How can the young woman get near the Buddha’s seat when I cannot?”
The Buddha replied to Manjusri, “Awaken this young woman from her samadhi and ask her yourself!” Manjusri walked around the young woman three times, snapped his fingers once, took her to the Brahma Heaven and exerted all his supernatural powers but he could not bring her out.
The World-Honored One said, “Even a hundred-thousand Manjusris cannot awaken her. Down below, past twelve hundred million lands, as innumberable as sands of the Ganges, lives the Bodhisattva of Delusive Wisdom. He will be able to bring her out of her samadhi.”
Instantly the Bodhisattva of Delusive Wisdom emerged from the earth and made bows before the World-Honored One who gave him his imperial order. Delusive Wisdom stepped before the young woman, snapped his fingers once and at this she came out of samadhi.

The Verse

One can bring her out, the other cannot;
both of them are free.
A god mask; a devil mask –
the failure is an elegant performance.
Thank you.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 5874
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by kirtu » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:16 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:08 pm
Seems to me you are making this up as you along...
Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist source for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
The general flow of exposition follows Zen Buddhist teisho form. You can find numerous published teisho saying essentially this.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27989
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Malcolm » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:12 am

kirtu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:16 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm
Way-Fun wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:47 pm

Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid. Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains? When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist source for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
The general flow of exposition follows Zen Buddhist teisho form. You can find numerous published teisho saying essentially this.

Kirt
This isn't a Zendo.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17333
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Grigoris » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:29 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:12 am
kirtu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:16 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:47 pm

You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist source for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.
The general flow of exposition follows Zen Buddhist teisho form. You can find numerous published teisho saying essentially this.

Kirt
This isn't a Zendo.
Sure, but zen views are welcome.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Matylda
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by Matylda » Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Mr. G wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:09 pm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12590/full

Abstract:

It is an old philosophical idea that if the future self is literally different from the current self, one should be less concerned with the death of the future self (Parfit, 1984). This paper examines the relation between attitudes about death and the self among Hindus, Westerners, and three Buddhist populations (Lay Tibetan, Lay Bhutanese, and monastic Tibetans). Compared with other groups, monastic Tibetans gave particularly strong denials of the continuity of self, across several measures. We predicted that the denial of self would be associated with a lower fear of death and greater generosity toward others. To our surprise, we found the opposite. Monastic Tibetan Buddhists showed significantly greater fear of death than any other group. The monastics were also less generous than any other group about the prospect of giving up a slightly longer life in order to extend the life of another.
In fact I am not surprised by such discovery... monasteries, wherever they are, Tibet, East Asia or South Asia, are places of considerable professional career. In the course of time one may win a lot, position, money etc. These things are strongest of 5 desires. And there is comparatively little life burden or social burden. If they live without sex, then there is no family to take care of.. of course there are relatives, and as monastics we may help them, but still it is not own family. And if they havve sex, then it is in secret.. so still no responsibility. 

People who make professional career as religious persons are used to take or - more politely - receive, and expect others to give! not to give to them but to get from them  yes it is kind of trade, I pray, you pay.. 

On the other hand many lay people are disillusioned about life and themselves, they fear death and resposnsibility of own acts, and often guard themselves much better.. society is help for them, since society is very harsh judge. Own family is even harsher  no way to escape.. bu monks? they are often crooked, very bad characters hidden behind position and robes. They are revered whether they are stupid or not, honest or dishonest etc.. one with personality problems could be also a monk, right? But still receives all benefits from lay people.

Monks may keep corporate frame-up, and it hardly helps them to be pure in their hearts.. Lay people are sinners in common sense, but cannot keep high air about themsleves.. so they could be in a way much more yielding and generous, if take seriously to heart some teachings.

But richer lay followes? more problems one sees with them.. they try often to use money to get position and recognition in religion, then they use religion for upgrading desire of fame... there ar e lots of people like this.. Material and social position, lay or monastic, does not help to reach
 "the denial of self associated with a lower fear of death and greater generosity toward others".

To think of monastics as those who reached denial of self is simply a fairy tale for kids.

Of course there are good monks, but very few... in terms of percentage I think one digit number.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9259
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More

Post by DGA » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:27 am

Matylda wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:20 pm
Mr. G wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:09 pm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12590/full

Abstract:

It is an old philosophical idea that if the future self is literally different from the current self, one should be less concerned with the death of the future self (Parfit, 1984). This paper examines the relation between attitudes about death and the self among Hindus, Westerners, and three Buddhist populations (Lay Tibetan, Lay Bhutanese, and monastic Tibetans). Compared with other groups, monastic Tibetans gave particularly strong denials of the continuity of self, across several measures. We predicted that the denial of self would be associated with a lower fear of death and greater generosity toward others. To our surprise, we found the opposite. Monastic Tibetan Buddhists showed significantly greater fear of death than any other group. The monastics were also less generous than any other group about the prospect of giving up a slightly longer life in order to extend the life of another.
In fact I am not surprised by such discovery... monasteries, wherever they are, Tibet, East Asia or South Asia, are places of considerable professional career. In the course of time one may win a lot, position, money etc. These things are strongest of 5 desires. And there is comparatively little life burden or social burden. If they live without sex, then there is no family to take care of.. of course there are relatives, and as monastics we may help them, but still it is not own family. And if they havve sex, then it is in secret.. so still no responsibility. 

People who make professional career as religious persons are used to take or - more politely - receive, and expect others to give! not to give to them but to get from them  yes it is kind of trade, I pray, you pay.. 

On the other hand many lay people are disillusioned about life and themselves, they fear death and resposnsibility of own acts, and often guard themselves much better.. society is help for them, since society is very harsh judge. Own family is even harsher  no way to escape.. bu monks? they are often crooked, very bad characters hidden behind position and robes. They are revered whether they are stupid or not, honest or dishonest etc.. one with personality problems could be also a monk, right? But still receives all benefits from lay people.

Monks may keep corporate frame-up, and it hardly helps them to be pure in their hearts.. Lay people are sinners in common sense, but cannot keep high air about themsleves.. so they could be in a way much more yielding and generous, if take seriously to heart some teachings.

But richer lay followes? more problems one sees with them.. they try often to use money to get position and recognition in religion, then they use religion for upgrading desire of fame... there ar e lots of people like this.. Material and social position, lay or monastic, does not help to reach
 "the denial of self associated with a lower fear of death and greater generosity toward others".

To think of monastics as those who reached denial of self is simply a fairy tale for kids.

Of course there are good monks, but very few... in terms of percentage I think one digit number.
:good:

Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests