Any Buddhists on boxingscene?

[Pretty Boy32]

What�s it like? Seems nice.

[Real King Kong]

Not a Buddhist, but I�ve gotten into it some. Interesting philosophy for sure. If you get deep into it, it�s a bit troublesome cuz it kind of forces you to abandon yourself in a way. The whole persona you�ve cultivated over time is all is a figment if your imagination kind of thing. Everything is essentially meaningless and what not.

[billeau2]

What�s it like? Seems nice.

Seriously?

Yes. Been since around 20ish years old... Spent time living in a monastery in Upstate New York. Studied Buddhism in graduate school as well, but really more important to be a follower and experience your practice. Thats my feeling anyway.

[billeau2]

Not a Buddhist, but I’ve gotten into it some. Interesting philosophy for sure. If you get deep into it, it’s a bit troublesome cuz it kind of forces you to abandon yourself in a way. The whole persona you’ve cultivated over time is all is a figment if your imagination kind of thing. Everything is essentially meaningless and what not.

Seems that way, but Buddhism is based on practice and experience... Think of the difference as: Two people want to make a great pizza. The first person goes to church and has faith that when he walks into the kitchen through the grace of God it will all come together and a pizza will emerge that Sal would envy!

Person two meanwhile, goes to Sal's pizza and asks to practice making pizzas for a week. His strategy it to perfect the skills... This is the difference between faith and practice, vis a vis Buddhism versus Theology.

heres where it gets interesting though: Buddhism has a history of philosophical discourse (The Abhi Darma text, etc) and in India all the philos/religious traditions had to argue their points with each other... So the flavor of Buddhism is not always found in the strategy it used to survive as a viable tradition in a society that venerated these traditions.

In other words the "we strive to dissapear without a trace" (Nirbana), Life is suffering, we have no attachment to anything, yada yada... can seem very non-life affirming lol. But there is more to them when you practice and do not simply see these points as ideological positions...YES the Buddhist logicians, philosophers did argue these points! for the reasons above... But practice teaches one the following:

Many great men simply did not think our relationship with God(s) was important. Think about it... God does not tell us how to live, how to deal with our own suffering. Even in western theology, God was, to many, thought to have made the world and left... Science and discovery was given!

Technically speaking Buddha did not take a position on the issue of a supreme deity... we cannot express this point of view in our language, so we incorrectly say "Buddha does not believe in God." Buddha's concern was how to live in a manner where we did not create Karma, which bound us to a cycle, a chain of rebirth, based on craving, attachment and to repeat the fate of having a body that aged, got sick and died.

Buddha addressed these issues alone, for the salvation of our selfhood through self control, awareness, vigor (intellectual and physical) and kindness. REAL kindness... Not giving the drug addict a fiver for a fix cause your a good guy, but showing the life form trapped, how to escape the shackles of dependency.

Hope this helps and Pretty Boy, did not mean to hijack your thread.

Ohh and regarding meaning? Essentially to a Buddhist it works on two distinct levels; On the one hand is goodness, kindness, compassion...BUT this is a form of attachment in itself. So just as the dumb monks learn what one should do.... most of us strive for this.

But at the higher meaning? meaning can be found in total self possession, and the direct experience of not being attached in a disfunctional way to anything. This issue is the one that originally separated the two orders> Mahayana and Hinayana. But this meaning cannot be described and has to be experienced. I had a flash of it during a ten day retreat at the monastery where i resided, (no talking for ten days! meditating 8 hours a day) and it was quite an experience! Suffice to say, it is not as it sounds.

[Real King Kong]

Seems that way, but Buddhism is based on practice and experience... Think of the difference as: Two people want to make a great pizza. The first person goes to church and has faith that when he walks into the kitchen through the grace of God it will all come together and a pizza will emerge that Sal would envy!

Person two meanwhile, goes to Sal's pizza and asks to practice making pizzas for a week. His strategy it to perfect the skills... This is the difference between faith and practice, vis a vis Buddhism versus Theology.

heres where it gets interesting though: Buddhism has a history of philosophical discourse (The Abhi Darma text, etc) and in India all the philos/religious traditions had to argue their points with each other... So the flavor of Buddhism is not always found in the strategy it used to survive as a viable tradition in a society that venerated these traditions.

In other words the "we strive to dissapear without a trace" (Nirbana), Life is suffering, we have no attachment to anything, yada yada... can seem very non-life affirming lol. But there is more to them when you practice and do not simply see these points as ideological positions...YES the Buddhist logicians, philosophers did argue these points! for the reasons above... But practice teaches one the following:

Many great men simply did not think our relationship with God(s) was important. Think about it... God does not tell us how to live, how to deal with our own suffering. Even in western theology, God was, to many, thought to have made the world and left... Science and discovery was given!

Technically speaking Buddha did not take a position on the issue of a supreme deity... we cannot express this point of view in our language, so we incorrectly say "Buddha does not believe in God." Buddha's concern was how to live in a manner where we did not create Karma, which bound us to a cycle, a chain of rebirth, based on craving, attachment and to repeat the fate of having a body that aged, got sick and died.

Buddha addressed these issues alone, for the salvation of our selfhood through self control, awareness, vigor (intellectual and physical) and kindness. REAL kindness... Not giving the drug addict a fiver for a fix cause your a good guy, but showing the life form trapped, how to escape the shackles of dependency.

Hope this helps and Pretty Boy, did not mean to hijack your thread.

Ohh and regarding meaning? Essentially to a Buddhist it works on two distinct levels; On the one hand is goodness, kindness, compassion...BUT this is a form of attachment in itself. So just as the dumb monks learn what one should do.... most of us strive for this.

But at the higher meaning? meaning can be found in total self possession, and the direct experience of not being attached in a disfunctional way to anything. This issue is the one that originally separated the two orders> Mahayana and Hinayana. But this meaning cannot be described and has to be experienced. I had a flash of it during a ten day retreat at the monastery where i resided, (no talking for ten days! meditating 8 hours a day) and it was quite an experience! Suffice to say, it is not as it sounds.

Very informative. For me, like most westerners, my introduction was through zen.

[Pretty Boy32]

Seems that way, but Buddhism is based on practice and experience... Think of the difference as: Two people want to make a great pizza. The first person goes to church and has faith that when he walks into the kitchen through the grace of God it will all come together and a pizza will emerge that Sal would envy!

Person two meanwhile, goes to Sal's pizza and asks to practice making pizzas for a week. His strategy it to perfect the skills... This is the difference between faith and practice, vis a vis Buddhism versus Theology.

heres where it gets interesting though: Buddhism has a history of philosophical discourse (The Abhi Darma text, etc) and in India all the philos/religious traditions had to argue their points with each other... So the flavor of Buddhism is not always found in the strategy it used to survive as a viable tradition in a society that venerated these traditions.

In other words the "we strive to dissapear without a trace" (Nirbana), Life is suffering, we have no attachment to anything, yada yada... can seem very non-life affirming lol. But there is more to them when you practice and do not simply see these points as ideological positions...YES the Buddhist logicians, philosophers did argue these points! for the reasons above... But practice teaches one the following:

Many great men simply did not think our relationship with God(s) was important. Think about it... God does not tell us how to live, how to deal with our own suffering. Even in western theology, God was, to many, thought to have made the world and left... Science and discovery was given!

Technically speaking Buddha did not take a position on the issue of a supreme deity... we cannot express this point of view in our language, so we incorrectly say "Buddha does not believe in God." Buddha's concern was how to live in a manner where we did not create Karma, which bound us to a cycle, a chain of rebirth, based on craving, attachment and to repeat the fate of having a body that aged, got sick and died.

Buddha addressed these issues alone, for the salvation of our selfhood through self control, awareness, vigor (intellectual and physical) and kindness. REAL kindness... Not giving the drug addict a fiver for a fix cause your a good guy, but showing the life form trapped, how to escape the shackles of dependency.

Hope this helps and Pretty Boy, did not mean to hijack your thread.

Ohh and regarding meaning? Essentially to a Buddhist it works on two distinct levels; On the one hand is goodness, kindness, compassion...BUT this is a form of attachment in itself. So just as the dumb monks learn what one should do.... most of us strive for this.

But at the higher meaning? meaning can be found in total self possession, and the direct experience of not being attached in a disfunctional way to anything. This issue is the one that originally separated the two orders> Mahayana and Hinayana. But this meaning cannot be described and has to be experienced. I had a flash of it during a ten day retreat at the monastery where i resided, (no talking for ten days! meditating 8 hours a day) and it was quite an experience! Suffice to say, it is not as it sounds.

Very informative and interesting, thank you for sharing.

My interest comes really from meditation. I meditate a lot, when the pandemic hit I began to meditate more.

However, I tend to bored easy so these guided meditation audios had to constantly be adjusted which was annoying. In turn, I found a meditation school in Dublin that was thought by an Irish Buddhist monk. Before and after each meditation session we would speak about the world of Buddha, the dharma and the sagna.

Which sparked my interest entirely. I don�t meditate in his classes as much as I once did, this morning I am going back as it�s been awhile.

In the mean time, I am now reading a lot on the dharma and �modern Buddhism.?Some of which I don�t agree with, most of which I do.

I didn�t realise that Buddha never spoke about a god or how we were created, that is very interested in itself. In my opinion, I don�t really see buddhism as a religion. Buddha was a philosopher; not a god, he never wanted to be worshipped. He just wanted to help people.

It�s all very interesting

[Mushroom]

I'm definitely interested in Buddhism. I once found my self stuck in Bodhgaya for a week, I tried to get 'in' to it but I couldn't. I guess it takes practice

[billeau2]

Very informative and interesting, thank you for sharing.

My interest comes really from meditation. I meditate a lot, when the pandemic hit I began to meditate more.

However, I tend to bored easy so these guided meditation audios had to constantly be adjusted which was annoying. In turn, I found a meditation school in Dublin that was thought by an Irish Buddhist monk. Before and after each meditation session we would speak about the world of Buddha, the dharma and the sagna.

Which sparked my interest entirely. I don�t meditate in his classes as much as I once did, this morning I am going back as it�s been awhile.

In the mean time, I am now reading a lot on the dharma and �modern Buddhism.?Some of which I don�t agree with, most of which I do.

I didn�t realise that Buddha never spoke about a god or how we were created, that is very interested in itself. In my opinion, I don�t really see buddhism as a religion. Buddha was a philosopher; not a god, he never wanted to be worshipped. He just wanted to help people.

It�s all very interesting

According to our Western way of looking at religion and philosophy this (the bolded) is true. In India these two areas were not distinct. Even pure materialists (those who believed that we form, dissopate and thats it) are considered part of a school of thought (heterodox) that is in fact debated and understood as religious.

Buddhism has become a very pragmatic form of psychology to many. Meditation is a great thing to do... IMO its not important what we classify our practice as, as long as we stick to it.

[billeau2]

Very informative. For me, like most westerners, my introduction was through zen.

Yup... American Buddhism owes a great debt to Zen, in all its glory and insoucence. My own intro to practice was initially Zen, then some Burmese. Also studied Sikh Yoga a long time...great stuff. Zen is very basic and that makes it a great practice.

Basically: the energy we feel in our body that builds up... In Zen it stays centered, which is safe. In many other practices this energy can act as a serpent, and slither up through our third eye and even our crown... When this happens weird s hit can occur! If you don't have good guidance, a good teacher you can get in trouble. Now with Zen though.

[Bandman]

disturbing profile pic u got there



anyway jesus christ was also a Buddhist. thats why his teachings parallel Buddha who predates him by like 500 years