chenrezig
i went to see a buddhist teaching today, specifically on chenrezig meditation. it was cool to hear many of the points i think about abstractly expressed with words and structure, but it was also sort of hard to pay attention to. the thing about the more eastern flavours of buddhism is that there is a lot of influence from culture and mysticism for as long as the practice has been around that sort of accumulates as a bunch of details that can seem arbitrary or nonsensical.
at a few points, i was actually a little embarrassed to be there - afraid of, say, "hah! you actually believe in this stuff?", or, perhaps, of not understanding what it's all about, and wondering why it's worth one's breath. but the better attitude is to realise that anything that seems silly was just a long time ago somebody's way of expressing an important concept that they thought looked nice. for example, there is not actually a god who has a thousand arms and embodies compassion; it is just a pretty way of thinking to reflect on and draw out what you're seeking to improve in the meditation. and, there is no definite "path" to enlightenment that inherently has exactly eight aspects; it is just a nice way of organising and expressing a multitude of ideas; nor is there a reason why you have to chant about a jewel in a lotus flower rather than, say, a lotus flower inside of a jewel, or a dandelion in a cardboard box.
i was talking with one of the people there afterwards, and she made a good analogy: that being able to see the point of each statement is like learning a foreign language! without knowing the meaning of each thing, they can all seem like pointless babble, but with knowing, to reference each thing will speak to your internal grasp of what it represents. it's interesting to consider the structure of ideas, however arbitrary, as a way of guiding the practice. (also of note is how many varieties of buddhism there are, so if one arbitrary ordering tastes particularly sour, you can choose another.) all the same, i think it's a bit of a shame that there are so many arcane specifics involved in many varieties of the "religion" that lead it to be misunderstood just because the underlying intentions are so hard to explain.
at a few points, i was actually a little embarrassed to be there - afraid of, say, "hah! you actually believe in this stuff?", or, perhaps, of not understanding what it's all about, and wondering why it's worth one's breath. but the better attitude is to realise that anything that seems silly was just a long time ago somebody's way of expressing an important concept that they thought looked nice. for example, there is not actually a god who has a thousand arms and embodies compassion; it is just a pretty way of thinking to reflect on and draw out what you're seeking to improve in the meditation. and, there is no definite "path" to enlightenment that inherently has exactly eight aspects; it is just a nice way of organising and expressing a multitude of ideas; nor is there a reason why you have to chant about a jewel in a lotus flower rather than, say, a lotus flower inside of a jewel, or a dandelion in a cardboard box.
i was talking with one of the people there afterwards, and she made a good analogy: that being able to see the point of each statement is like learning a foreign language! without knowing the meaning of each thing, they can all seem like pointless babble, but with knowing, to reference each thing will speak to your internal grasp of what it represents. it's interesting to consider the structure of ideas, however arbitrary, as a way of guiding the practice. (also of note is how many varieties of buddhism there are, so if one arbitrary ordering tastes particularly sour, you can choose another.) all the same, i think it's a bit of a shame that there are so many arcane specifics involved in many varieties of the "religion" that lead it to be misunderstood just because the underlying intentions are so hard to explain.