Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
Buddhisme dengan Agama, Kepercayaan, Tradisi dan Filsafat Lain / Buddhism and the Brain
« on: 26 September 2011, 12:42:50 PM »
Many of Buddhism’s core tenets significantly overlap with findings from modern neurology and neuroscience. So how did Buddhism come close to getting the brain right?
SEEDMAGAZINE.COM September 25, 2011
Buddhism and the Brain
Opinion by David Weisman / March 9, 2011
Many of Buddhism’s core tenets significantly overlap with findings from modern neurology and neuroscience. So how did Buddhism come close to getting the brain right?
Over the last few decades many Buddhists and quite a few neuroscientists have examined Buddhism and neuroscience, with both groups reporting overlap. I’m sorry to say I have been privately dismissive. One hears this sort of thing all the time, from any religion, and I was sure in this case it would break down upon closer scrutiny. When a scientific discovery seems to support any religious teaching, you can expect members of that religion to become strict empiricists, telling themselves and the world that their belief is grounded in reality. They are always less happy to accept scientific data they feel contradicts their preconceived beliefs. No surprise here; no human likes to be wrong.
But science isn’t supposed to care about preconceived notions. Science, at least good science, tells us about the world as it is, not as some wish it to be. Sometimes what science finds is consistent with a particular religion’s wishes. But usually not.
Despite my doubts, neurology and neuroscience do not appear to profoundly contradict Buddhist thought. Neuroscience tells us the thing we take as our unified mind is an illusion, that our mind is not unified and can barely be said to “exist” at all. Our feeling of unity and control is a post-hoc confabulation and is easily fractured into separate parts. As revealed by scientific inquiry, what we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain that our pre-scientific language struggles to find meaning.
Buddhists say pretty much the same thing. They believe in an impermanent and illusory self made of shifting parts. They’ve even come up with language to address the problem between perception and belief. Their word for self is anatta, which is usually translated as ‘non self.’ One might try to refer to the self, but the word cleverly reminds one’s self that there is no such thing.
When considering a Buddhist contemplating his soul, one is immediately struck by a disconnect between religious teaching and perception. While meditating in the temple, the self is an illusion. But when the Buddhist goes shopping he feels like we all do: unified, in control, and unchanged from moment to moment. The way things feel becomes suspect. And that’s pretty close to what neurologists deal with every day, like the case of Mr. Logosh.
Mr. Logosh was 37 years old when he suffered a stroke. It was a month after knee surgery and we never found a real reason other than trivially high cholesterol and smoking. Sometimes medicine is like that: bad things happen, seemingly without sufficient reasons. In the ER I found him aphasic, able to understand perfectly but unable to get a single word out, and with no movement of the right face, arm, and leg. We gave him the only treatment available for stroke, tissue plasminogen activator, but there was no improvement. He went to the ICU unchanged. A follow up CT scan showed that the dead brain tissue had filled up with blood. As the body digested the dead brain tissue, later scans showed a large hole in the left hemisphere.
Although I despaired, I comforted myself by looking at the overlying cortex. Here the damage was minimal and many neurons still survived. Still, I mostly despaired. It is a tragedy for an 80-year-old to spend life’s remainder as an aphasic hemiplegic. The tragedy grows when a young man looks towards decades of mute immobility. But you can never tell with early brain injuries to the young. I was yoked to optimism. After all, I’d treated him.
The next day Mr. Logosh woke up and started talking. Not much at first, just ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ Then ‘water,’ ‘thanks,’ ‘sure,’ and ‘me.’ We eventually sent him to rehab, barely able to speak, still able to understand.
One year later he came back to the office with an odd request. He was applying to become a driver and needed my clearance, which was a formality. He walked with only a slight limp, his right foot a bit unsure of itself. His voice had a slight hitch, as though he were choosing his words carefully.
When we consider our language, it seems unified and indivisible. We hear a word, attach meaning to it, and use other words to reply. It’s effortless. It seems part of the same unified language sphere. How easily we are tricked! Mr. Logosh shows us that unity of language is an illusion. The seeming unity of language is really the work of different parts of the brain, which shift and change over time, and which fracture into receptive and expressive parts.
Consider how easily Buddhism accepts what happened to Mr. Logosh. Anatta is not a unified, unchanging self. It is more like a concert, constantly changing emotions, perceptions, and thoughts. Our minds are fragmented and impermanent. A change occurred in the band, so it follows that one expects a change in the music.
Both Buddhism and neuroscience converge on a similar point of view: The way it feels isn’t how it is. There is no permanent, constant soul in the background. Even our language about ourselves is to be distrusted (requiring the tortured negation of anatta). In the broadest strokes then, neuroscience and Buddhism agree.
How did Buddhism get so much right? I speak here as an outsider, but it seems to me that Buddhism started with a bit of empiricism. Perhaps the founders of Buddhism were pre-scientific, but they did use empirical data. They noted the natural world: the sun sets, the wind blows into a field, one insect eats another. There is constant change, shifting parts, and impermanence. They called this impermanence anicca, and it forms a central dogma of Buddhism.
This seems appropriate as far as the natural world is concerned. Buddhists don’t apply this notion to mathematical truths or moral certainties, but sometimes, cleverly, apply it to their own dogmas. Buddhism has had millennia to work out seeming contradictions, and it is only someone who was not indoctrinated who finds any of it strange. (Or at least any stranger than, say, believing God literally breathed a soul into the first human.)
Early on, Buddhism grasped the nature of worldly change and divided parts, and then applied it to the human mind. The key step was overcoming egocentrism and recognizing the connection between the world and humans. We are part of the natural world; its processes apply themselves equally to rocks, trees, insects, and humans. Perhaps building on its heritage, early Buddhism simply did not allow room for human exceptionalism.
I should note my refusal to accept that they simply got this much right by accident, which I find improbable. Why would accident bring them to such a counterintuitive belief? Truth from subjective religious rapture is also highly suspect. Firstly, those who enter religious raptures tend to see what they already know. Secondly, if the self is an illusion, then aren’t subjective insights from meditation illusory as well?
I don’t mean to dismiss or gloss over the areas where Buddhism and neuroscience diverge. Some Buddhist dogmas deviate from what we know about the brain. Buddhism posits an immaterial thing that survives the brain’s death and is reincarnated. After a person’s death, the consciousness reincarnates. If you buy into the idea of a constantly changing immaterial soul, this isn’t as tricky and insane as it seems to the non-indoctrinated. During life, consciousness changes as mental states replace one another, so each moment can be considered a reincarnation from the moment before. The waves lap, the sand shifts. If you’re good, they might one day lap upon a nicer beach, a higher plane of existence. If you’re not, well, someone’s waves need to supply the baseline awareness of insects, worms, and other creepy-crawlies.
The problem is that there’s no evidence for an immaterial thing that gets reincarnated after death. In fact, there’s even evidence against it. Reincarnation would require an entity (even the vague, impermanent one called anatta) to exist independently of brain function. But brain function has been so closely tied to every mental function (every bit of consciousness, perception, emotion, everything self and non-self about you) that there appears to be no remainder. Reincarnation is not a trivial part of most forms of Buddhism. For example, the Dalai Lama’s followers chose him because they believe him to be the living reincarnation of a long line of respected teachers.
Why have the dominant Western religious traditions gotten their permanent, independent souls so wrong? Taking note of change was not limited to Buddhism. The same sort of thinking pops up in Western thought as well. The pre-Socratic Heraclitus said, “Nothing endures but change.” But that observation didn’t really go anywhere. It wasn’t adopted by monotheistic religions or held up as a central natural truth. Instead, pure Platonic ideals won out, perhaps because they seemed more divine.
Western thought is hardly monolithic or simple, but monotheistic religions made a simple misstep when they didn’t apply naturalism to themselves and their notions of their souls. Time and again, their prominent scholars and philosophers rendered the human soul exceptional and otherworldly, falsely elevating our species above and beyond nature. We see the effects today. When Judeo-Christian belief conflicts with science, it nearly always concerns science removing humans from a putative pedestal, a central place in creation. Yet science has shown us that we reside on the fringes of our galaxy, which itself doesn’t seem to hold a particularly precious location in the universe. Our species came from common ape-like ancestors, many of which in all likelihood possessed brains capable of experiencing and manifesting some of our most precious “human” sentiments and traits. Our own brains produce the thing we call a mind, which is not a soul. Human exceptionalism increasingly seems a vain fantasy. In its modest rejection of that vanity, Buddhism exhibits less error and less original sin, this one of pride.
How well will any religion apply the lessons of neuroscience to the soul? Mr. Logosh, like every person who’s brain lesion changes their mind, challenges the Western religions. An immaterial soul cannot easily account for even a stroke associated with aphasia. Will monotheistic religions change their idea of the soul to accommodate data? Will they even try? It is doubtful. The rigid human exceptionalism is cemented firmly into dogma.
Will Buddhists allow neuroscience to render their idea of reincarnation obsolete? This is akin to asking if the Dalai Lama and his followers will decide he’s only the symbolic reincarnation of past teachers. This is also doubtful, but Buddhism’s first steps at least made it possible. Unrelated to neuroscience and neurology, in 1969 the Dalai Lama said his “office was an institution created to benefit others. It is possible that it will soon have outlived its usefulness.” Impermanence and shifting parts entail constant change, so perhaps it is no surprise that he’s lately said he may choose the next office holder before his death.
Buddhism’s success was to apply the world’s impermanence to humans and their souls. The results have carried this religion from ancient antiquity into modernity, an impressive distance. With no fear of impermanent beliefs or constant change, how far will they go?
Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/buddhism_and_the_brain/
SEEDMAGAZINE.COM September 25, 2011
Buddhism and the Brain
Opinion by David Weisman / March 9, 2011
Many of Buddhism’s core tenets significantly overlap with findings from modern neurology and neuroscience. So how did Buddhism come close to getting the brain right?
Over the last few decades many Buddhists and quite a few neuroscientists have examined Buddhism and neuroscience, with both groups reporting overlap. I’m sorry to say I have been privately dismissive. One hears this sort of thing all the time, from any religion, and I was sure in this case it would break down upon closer scrutiny. When a scientific discovery seems to support any religious teaching, you can expect members of that religion to become strict empiricists, telling themselves and the world that their belief is grounded in reality. They are always less happy to accept scientific data they feel contradicts their preconceived beliefs. No surprise here; no human likes to be wrong.
But science isn’t supposed to care about preconceived notions. Science, at least good science, tells us about the world as it is, not as some wish it to be. Sometimes what science finds is consistent with a particular religion’s wishes. But usually not.
Despite my doubts, neurology and neuroscience do not appear to profoundly contradict Buddhist thought. Neuroscience tells us the thing we take as our unified mind is an illusion, that our mind is not unified and can barely be said to “exist” at all. Our feeling of unity and control is a post-hoc confabulation and is easily fractured into separate parts. As revealed by scientific inquiry, what we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain that our pre-scientific language struggles to find meaning.
Buddhists say pretty much the same thing. They believe in an impermanent and illusory self made of shifting parts. They’ve even come up with language to address the problem between perception and belief. Their word for self is anatta, which is usually translated as ‘non self.’ One might try to refer to the self, but the word cleverly reminds one’s self that there is no such thing.
When considering a Buddhist contemplating his soul, one is immediately struck by a disconnect between religious teaching and perception. While meditating in the temple, the self is an illusion. But when the Buddhist goes shopping he feels like we all do: unified, in control, and unchanged from moment to moment. The way things feel becomes suspect. And that’s pretty close to what neurologists deal with every day, like the case of Mr. Logosh.
Mr. Logosh was 37 years old when he suffered a stroke. It was a month after knee surgery and we never found a real reason other than trivially high cholesterol and smoking. Sometimes medicine is like that: bad things happen, seemingly without sufficient reasons. In the ER I found him aphasic, able to understand perfectly but unable to get a single word out, and with no movement of the right face, arm, and leg. We gave him the only treatment available for stroke, tissue plasminogen activator, but there was no improvement. He went to the ICU unchanged. A follow up CT scan showed that the dead brain tissue had filled up with blood. As the body digested the dead brain tissue, later scans showed a large hole in the left hemisphere.
Although I despaired, I comforted myself by looking at the overlying cortex. Here the damage was minimal and many neurons still survived. Still, I mostly despaired. It is a tragedy for an 80-year-old to spend life’s remainder as an aphasic hemiplegic. The tragedy grows when a young man looks towards decades of mute immobility. But you can never tell with early brain injuries to the young. I was yoked to optimism. After all, I’d treated him.
The next day Mr. Logosh woke up and started talking. Not much at first, just ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ Then ‘water,’ ‘thanks,’ ‘sure,’ and ‘me.’ We eventually sent him to rehab, barely able to speak, still able to understand.
One year later he came back to the office with an odd request. He was applying to become a driver and needed my clearance, which was a formality. He walked with only a slight limp, his right foot a bit unsure of itself. His voice had a slight hitch, as though he were choosing his words carefully.
When we consider our language, it seems unified and indivisible. We hear a word, attach meaning to it, and use other words to reply. It’s effortless. It seems part of the same unified language sphere. How easily we are tricked! Mr. Logosh shows us that unity of language is an illusion. The seeming unity of language is really the work of different parts of the brain, which shift and change over time, and which fracture into receptive and expressive parts.
Consider how easily Buddhism accepts what happened to Mr. Logosh. Anatta is not a unified, unchanging self. It is more like a concert, constantly changing emotions, perceptions, and thoughts. Our minds are fragmented and impermanent. A change occurred in the band, so it follows that one expects a change in the music.
Both Buddhism and neuroscience converge on a similar point of view: The way it feels isn’t how it is. There is no permanent, constant soul in the background. Even our language about ourselves is to be distrusted (requiring the tortured negation of anatta). In the broadest strokes then, neuroscience and Buddhism agree.
How did Buddhism get so much right? I speak here as an outsider, but it seems to me that Buddhism started with a bit of empiricism. Perhaps the founders of Buddhism were pre-scientific, but they did use empirical data. They noted the natural world: the sun sets, the wind blows into a field, one insect eats another. There is constant change, shifting parts, and impermanence. They called this impermanence anicca, and it forms a central dogma of Buddhism.
This seems appropriate as far as the natural world is concerned. Buddhists don’t apply this notion to mathematical truths or moral certainties, but sometimes, cleverly, apply it to their own dogmas. Buddhism has had millennia to work out seeming contradictions, and it is only someone who was not indoctrinated who finds any of it strange. (Or at least any stranger than, say, believing God literally breathed a soul into the first human.)
Early on, Buddhism grasped the nature of worldly change and divided parts, and then applied it to the human mind. The key step was overcoming egocentrism and recognizing the connection between the world and humans. We are part of the natural world; its processes apply themselves equally to rocks, trees, insects, and humans. Perhaps building on its heritage, early Buddhism simply did not allow room for human exceptionalism.
I should note my refusal to accept that they simply got this much right by accident, which I find improbable. Why would accident bring them to such a counterintuitive belief? Truth from subjective religious rapture is also highly suspect. Firstly, those who enter religious raptures tend to see what they already know. Secondly, if the self is an illusion, then aren’t subjective insights from meditation illusory as well?
I don’t mean to dismiss or gloss over the areas where Buddhism and neuroscience diverge. Some Buddhist dogmas deviate from what we know about the brain. Buddhism posits an immaterial thing that survives the brain’s death and is reincarnated. After a person’s death, the consciousness reincarnates. If you buy into the idea of a constantly changing immaterial soul, this isn’t as tricky and insane as it seems to the non-indoctrinated. During life, consciousness changes as mental states replace one another, so each moment can be considered a reincarnation from the moment before. The waves lap, the sand shifts. If you’re good, they might one day lap upon a nicer beach, a higher plane of existence. If you’re not, well, someone’s waves need to supply the baseline awareness of insects, worms, and other creepy-crawlies.
The problem is that there’s no evidence for an immaterial thing that gets reincarnated after death. In fact, there’s even evidence against it. Reincarnation would require an entity (even the vague, impermanent one called anatta) to exist independently of brain function. But brain function has been so closely tied to every mental function (every bit of consciousness, perception, emotion, everything self and non-self about you) that there appears to be no remainder. Reincarnation is not a trivial part of most forms of Buddhism. For example, the Dalai Lama’s followers chose him because they believe him to be the living reincarnation of a long line of respected teachers.
Why have the dominant Western religious traditions gotten their permanent, independent souls so wrong? Taking note of change was not limited to Buddhism. The same sort of thinking pops up in Western thought as well. The pre-Socratic Heraclitus said, “Nothing endures but change.” But that observation didn’t really go anywhere. It wasn’t adopted by monotheistic religions or held up as a central natural truth. Instead, pure Platonic ideals won out, perhaps because they seemed more divine.
Western thought is hardly monolithic or simple, but monotheistic religions made a simple misstep when they didn’t apply naturalism to themselves and their notions of their souls. Time and again, their prominent scholars and philosophers rendered the human soul exceptional and otherworldly, falsely elevating our species above and beyond nature. We see the effects today. When Judeo-Christian belief conflicts with science, it nearly always concerns science removing humans from a putative pedestal, a central place in creation. Yet science has shown us that we reside on the fringes of our galaxy, which itself doesn’t seem to hold a particularly precious location in the universe. Our species came from common ape-like ancestors, many of which in all likelihood possessed brains capable of experiencing and manifesting some of our most precious “human” sentiments and traits. Our own brains produce the thing we call a mind, which is not a soul. Human exceptionalism increasingly seems a vain fantasy. In its modest rejection of that vanity, Buddhism exhibits less error and less original sin, this one of pride.
How well will any religion apply the lessons of neuroscience to the soul? Mr. Logosh, like every person who’s brain lesion changes their mind, challenges the Western religions. An immaterial soul cannot easily account for even a stroke associated with aphasia. Will monotheistic religions change their idea of the soul to accommodate data? Will they even try? It is doubtful. The rigid human exceptionalism is cemented firmly into dogma.
Will Buddhists allow neuroscience to render their idea of reincarnation obsolete? This is akin to asking if the Dalai Lama and his followers will decide he’s only the symbolic reincarnation of past teachers. This is also doubtful, but Buddhism’s first steps at least made it possible. Unrelated to neuroscience and neurology, in 1969 the Dalai Lama said his “office was an institution created to benefit others. It is possible that it will soon have outlived its usefulness.” Impermanence and shifting parts entail constant change, so perhaps it is no surprise that he’s lately said he may choose the next office holder before his death.
Buddhism’s success was to apply the world’s impermanence to humans and their souls. The results have carried this religion from ancient antiquity into modernity, an impressive distance. With no fear of impermanent beliefs or constant change, how far will they go?
Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/buddhism_and_the_brain/
2
Politik, ekonomi, Sosial dan budaya Umum / Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on the Issue
« on: 26 September 2011, 12:26:53 PM »
Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on the Issue of His Reincarnation
24 September 2011
Introduction
My fellow Tibetans, both in and outside Tibet, all those who follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and everyone who has a connection to Tibet and Tibetans: due to the foresight of our ancient kings, ministers and scholar-adepts, the complete teaching of the Buddha, comprising the scriptural and experiential teachings of the Three Vehicles and the Four Sets of Tantra and their related subjects and disciplines flourished widely in the Land of Snow. Tibet has served as a source of Buddhist and related cultural traditions for the world. In particular, it has contributed significantly to the happiness of countless beings in Asia, including those in China, Tibet and Mongolia.
In the course of upholding the Buddhist tradition in Tibet, we evolved a unique Tibetan tradition of recognizing the reincarnations of scholar-adepts that has been of immense help to both the Dharma and sentient beings, particularly to the monastic community.
Since the omniscient Gedun Gyatso was recognized and confirmed as the reincarnation of Gedun Drub in the fifteenth century and the Gaden Phodrang Labrang (the Dalai Lama’s institution) was established, successive reincarnations have been recognized. The third in the line, Sonam Gyatso, was given the title of the Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, established the Gaden Phodrang Government in 1642, becoming the spiritual and political head of Tibet. For more than 600 years since Gedun Drub, a series of unmistaken reincarnations has been recognised in the lineage of the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lamas have functioned as both the political and spiritual leaders of Tibet for 369 years since 1642. I have now voluntarily brought this to an end, proud and satisfied that we can pursue the kind of democratic system of government flourishing elsewhere in the world. In fact, as far back as 1969, I made clear that concerned people should decide whether the Dalai Lama’s reincarnations should continue in the future. However, in the absence of clear guidelines, should the concerned public express a strong wish for the Dalai Lamas to continue, there is an obvious risk of vested political interests misusing the reincarnation system to fulfil their own political agenda. Therefore, while I remain physically and mentally fit, it seems important to me that we draw up clear guidelines to recognise the next Dalai Lama, so that there is no room for doubt or deception. For these guidelines to be fully comprehensible, it is essential to understand the system of Tulku recognition and the basic concepts behind it. Therefore, I shall briefly explain them below.
24 September 2011
Introduction
My fellow Tibetans, both in and outside Tibet, all those who follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and everyone who has a connection to Tibet and Tibetans: due to the foresight of our ancient kings, ministers and scholar-adepts, the complete teaching of the Buddha, comprising the scriptural and experiential teachings of the Three Vehicles and the Four Sets of Tantra and their related subjects and disciplines flourished widely in the Land of Snow. Tibet has served as a source of Buddhist and related cultural traditions for the world. In particular, it has contributed significantly to the happiness of countless beings in Asia, including those in China, Tibet and Mongolia.
In the course of upholding the Buddhist tradition in Tibet, we evolved a unique Tibetan tradition of recognizing the reincarnations of scholar-adepts that has been of immense help to both the Dharma and sentient beings, particularly to the monastic community.
Since the omniscient Gedun Gyatso was recognized and confirmed as the reincarnation of Gedun Drub in the fifteenth century and the Gaden Phodrang Labrang (the Dalai Lama’s institution) was established, successive reincarnations have been recognized. The third in the line, Sonam Gyatso, was given the title of the Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, established the Gaden Phodrang Government in 1642, becoming the spiritual and political head of Tibet. For more than 600 years since Gedun Drub, a series of unmistaken reincarnations has been recognised in the lineage of the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lamas have functioned as both the political and spiritual leaders of Tibet for 369 years since 1642. I have now voluntarily brought this to an end, proud and satisfied that we can pursue the kind of democratic system of government flourishing elsewhere in the world. In fact, as far back as 1969, I made clear that concerned people should decide whether the Dalai Lama’s reincarnations should continue in the future. However, in the absence of clear guidelines, should the concerned public express a strong wish for the Dalai Lamas to continue, there is an obvious risk of vested political interests misusing the reincarnation system to fulfil their own political agenda. Therefore, while I remain physically and mentally fit, it seems important to me that we draw up clear guidelines to recognise the next Dalai Lama, so that there is no room for doubt or deception. For these guidelines to be fully comprehensible, it is essential to understand the system of Tulku recognition and the basic concepts behind it. Therefore, I shall briefly explain them below.
3
Diskusi Umum / "bibit kebuddhaan" ini apa maksudnya? Kok seperti pandangan "atta/atman" yah?!
« on: 17 May 2008, 08:51:44 PM »
Maaf, pak moderator, aku co-pas aja dari bagian vegetarian biar tidak OOT, dan mungkin juga jd lebih bisa fokus.
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #47 on: Yesterday at 05:22:07 PM »
"bibit kebuddhaan" ini apa maksudnya? Kok seperti pandangan "atta/atman" yah?!
Berputar2 di dalam samsara, tetapi tetap ada dalam mahluk
Edward « Reply #48 on: Today at 12:06:17 AM »
Silahkan teman2 yag lebih kompeten memberi penjelasan...
Bukan maksud seperti ada roh dalam diri, tp lebih k pemahaman klo semua makhluk itu isa menjadi buddha.... Itu doank yg gw ngarti >,<
willibordus « Reply #49 on: Today at 08:05:20 AM »
Bibibt keBuddhaan?
pemahaman saya sih, ambil namanya saja, yakni: BIBIT.
artinya kalo bibit duren disiram, dipupuk dan kena cahaya matahari maka pohon duren akan tumbuh.
BIBIT KEBUDDHAAN artinya: setiap orang kalau mendapat ajaran yg tepat, latihan yg tepat dan kondisi yg tepat, maka akan bisa menjadi Buddha. Bibitnya sudah ada pada kita semua, tinggal bagaimana cara memolesnya.
::
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #50 on: Today at 08:26:37 AM »
willibordus,
Ya, kalo pemahaman seperti itu, menurut saya lebih mirip pada konsep "atta". Sudah ada "atta Buddha" di dalam diri, tinggal bagaimana kita mengasahnya saja. Jika dikatakan setiap mahluk ada "bibit (= atta) Buddha" terlepas dari kondisi Nama dan Rupa, maka seperti paham "tanpa perbuatan" yang menyebutkan "atta tidak dipengaruhi oleh perbuatan baik dan buruk". Kemudian jika semua "bibit (=atta) Buddha" ini tinggal dikembangkan, maka juga mirip dengan ajaran "penyucian melalui samsara" di mana ada "atta" yang akhirnya akan menjadi 'bebas' jika prosesnya dalam samsara sudah cukup. Kemudian bagaimana kisahnya tiba2 ada 'bibit kebudhaan' dalam setiap mahluk? Grin
Ini hanya pendapat pribadi saja, karena saya tidak setuju penggunaan istilah yang 'membingungkan' itu.
Buat Moderator, kalo udah OOT, boleh dipindah. Thanx!
willibordus « Reply #51 on: Today at 08:50:04 AM »
Betul juga Bro Kainyn
Kalau dipikir2 kalimat 'Bibit Kebuddhaan' bisa saja menimbulkan salah paham bahwa seakan2 ada benih/cikal bakal Buddha dalam diri kita. Sehingga malah mengkondisikan timbulnya paham 'jiwa yg kekal / atta'.
Yah, sebenarnya tetua2 dulu hanya berusaha menjelaskan fenomena alami kehidupan kedalam kata2, berusaha merumuskan suatu konsep. Mungkin pemilihan kata2 yg kurang pas / sulit menemukan kalimat yg tepat untuk menjelaskan ajaran2 ini.
Sebenarnya 'benih kebuddhaan' tepatnya ditulis bagaimana ya?
Apakah mungkin: "setiap gabungan nama dan rupa sebenarnya berpotensi merealisasi nibbana"
atau "setiap citta sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana"
::
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #52 on: Today at 09:07:42 AM »
willibordus,
Ya, saya setuju, memang mungkin sebetulnya hanya masalah kata2 saja. Mungkin juga itu sering dipakai supaya kita lebih mengasihi mahluk lain yang pada hakekatnya sama dengan kita. Kalau saya memilih untuk tidak memakai istilah itu. Bagaimanapun mahluk itu, apakah ada atau tidak ada 'bibit Buddha'-nya, harus kita kasihi juga.
setiap citta/mahluk sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana
-> Kalo ini saya setuju, supaya memberikan pengertian bahwa kita bisa sehingga membangkitkan semangat dalam berusaha
karuna_murti « Reply #53 on: Today at 09:21:46 AM »
quote: setiap citta/mahluk sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana
paling nggak di kehidupan ini ada yang tidak bisa...
mungkin di kehidupan berikutnya
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #54 on: Today at 10:06:46 AM »
karuna_murti,
Masalah 'bisa' ini memang blom ngomong2 "kapan" dan "jenis pencapaian"-nya, tetapi emang hanya untuk menghapus pandangan bahwa mereka yang bisa jadi Arahat itu adalah mahluk2 khusus/terpilih/istimewa.
Mangkok « Reply #55 on: Today at 10:11:36 AM »
Istilah benih kebuddhaan klo boleh saya sarankan adalah potensi kebuddhaan. Istilah sanskritnya sendiri klo ga salah tathagatha garbha. Konsep ini mungkin lebih banyak dibahas di mahayana. Hal ini berkaitan terutama dengan kesunyataan batin kita. Secara sederhana, kita katakan bahwa batin kita saat ini terhalang (seperti langit yang tertutup awan), namun halangan ini bukan bagian dari batin kita, dan oleh karenanya dapat dihilangkan. Penghalangnya klo di mahayana (Tibetan) ada 2, yaitu penghalang yang berupa kilesa dan penghalang kemahatahuan. Pada saat kedua penghalang itu dihilangkan, di mahayana (Tibetan), dikatakan kita mencapai Kebuddhaan. Karena batin semua makhluk sifatnya sama, maka semua makhluk punya potensi ini.
Terima kasih
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #56 on: Today at 10:23:03 AM »
Mangkok,
Ya, saya mengerti. Berarti tetap saja "ada Atta yang dihalangi". Seperti saya katakan bahwa itu seperti pandangan Atta di mana Atta seperti mutiara yang bersih, berkilau sempurna, tertutup oleh debu, kotoran dan lumpur. Tapi karena menurut anda itu adalah pandangan dari aliran tertentu, maka saya tidak akan bahas lebih jauh. Thanx buat infonya!
Mangkok « Reply #57 on: Today at 11:09:33 AM »
Kainyn_Kutho,
Pertama2 terima kasih telah memberikan analisa yang bagus sekali. Klo menurut saya sih kita tidak bisa bahas hanya dari satu sisi saja. Contoh dalam kasus ini, di sana dikatakan kesunyataan batin. Artinya di sini kita juga perlu mengetahui batin kita itu seperti apa. Salah satunya, misalnya kita perlu tahu bahwa batin/persepsi kita tidak muncul begitu aja. Batin/persepsi kita muncul karena ada sebab dan kondisi. Karena tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendiri, maka kita sebut batin adalah sunya. Dari batin dan faktor mental kita juga tahu, bahwa untuk munculnya satu persepsi diperlukan batin utama/kesadaran utama dan faktor mental. Batin utama kita sifatnya adalah jernih dan mengetahui. Sedangkan faktor mental yang menemani ada berbagai macam, ada yang bajik, ada yang non bajik, dan ada yang netral. Nah, klo kita mengaitkan dengan dengan anatta, ini juga perlu pembahasan tersendiri. Kita tentu saja juga perlu tahu apa yang dimaksud anatta dalam Buddhisme. Dan sekedar gambaran, dari k-4 falsafah/filosofis utama Buddhis, penjelasan tentang tidak adanya sang "aku" ini tidak semua sama. Satu hal lain yang perlu diketahui tentang sunyata adalah bahwa sunyata bukan berarti kosong sama sekali, namun lebih ke arti bahwa segala sesuatu tidak bisa berdiri sendiri/muncul dari dirinya sendiri. Simplenya, karena sunyatalah produk bisa muncul, dan karena produk tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendirilah maka produk adalah sunya. Di luar semua itu, istilah apapun yang digunakan, menurutku yang penting adalah pemahaman tentang istilah yang bersangkutan. Sekedar info, istilah Buddhis dalam bahasa Inggris pun belum tentu seragam, demikian juga dalam bahasa Indonesia, jadi daripada kita terjebak dengan istilah, jauh lebih baik kita memahami esensinya.
Sori, OOT, mungkin perlu dipindah klo mau dibahas lebih lanjut.
Terima kasih
Kaynin-Kutho « Reply #58 on: Today at 11:51:04 AM »
Mangkok,
Ini beneran bisa OOT jauh nih Grin
Quote: Batin utama kita sifatnya adalah jernih dan mengetahui.
Berarti batin sebagai "atta" yang sifatnya jernih dan mengetahui 'kan?! Grin Saya lebih cenderung pada Avijja sebagai penopang Sankhara yang merupakan penopang dari kesadaran, yang merupakan penopang dari bathin dan jasmani. Jikapun ada Bathin dan jasmani tanpa 'kebodohan', itu hanyalah 'sisa' dari bathin dan jasmani 'dengan kebodohan', bukanlah 'inti sejati'.
Quote: karena sunyatalah produk bisa muncul
Berarti sunyata adalah sebab dari produk? Saya lebih cenderung pada 'sunyata' bukanlah sebab, bukan juga akibat.
Quote: karena produk tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendirilah maka produk adalah sunya
Kalo yang ini, saya setuju
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #47 on: Yesterday at 05:22:07 PM »
"bibit kebuddhaan" ini apa maksudnya? Kok seperti pandangan "atta/atman" yah?!
Berputar2 di dalam samsara, tetapi tetap ada dalam mahluk
Edward « Reply #48 on: Today at 12:06:17 AM »
Silahkan teman2 yag lebih kompeten memberi penjelasan...
Bukan maksud seperti ada roh dalam diri, tp lebih k pemahaman klo semua makhluk itu isa menjadi buddha.... Itu doank yg gw ngarti >,<
willibordus « Reply #49 on: Today at 08:05:20 AM »
Bibibt keBuddhaan?
pemahaman saya sih, ambil namanya saja, yakni: BIBIT.
artinya kalo bibit duren disiram, dipupuk dan kena cahaya matahari maka pohon duren akan tumbuh.
BIBIT KEBUDDHAAN artinya: setiap orang kalau mendapat ajaran yg tepat, latihan yg tepat dan kondisi yg tepat, maka akan bisa menjadi Buddha. Bibitnya sudah ada pada kita semua, tinggal bagaimana cara memolesnya.
::
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #50 on: Today at 08:26:37 AM »
willibordus,
Ya, kalo pemahaman seperti itu, menurut saya lebih mirip pada konsep "atta". Sudah ada "atta Buddha" di dalam diri, tinggal bagaimana kita mengasahnya saja. Jika dikatakan setiap mahluk ada "bibit (= atta) Buddha" terlepas dari kondisi Nama dan Rupa, maka seperti paham "tanpa perbuatan" yang menyebutkan "atta tidak dipengaruhi oleh perbuatan baik dan buruk". Kemudian jika semua "bibit (=atta) Buddha" ini tinggal dikembangkan, maka juga mirip dengan ajaran "penyucian melalui samsara" di mana ada "atta" yang akhirnya akan menjadi 'bebas' jika prosesnya dalam samsara sudah cukup. Kemudian bagaimana kisahnya tiba2 ada 'bibit kebudhaan' dalam setiap mahluk? Grin
Ini hanya pendapat pribadi saja, karena saya tidak setuju penggunaan istilah yang 'membingungkan' itu.
Buat Moderator, kalo udah OOT, boleh dipindah. Thanx!
willibordus « Reply #51 on: Today at 08:50:04 AM »
Betul juga Bro Kainyn
Kalau dipikir2 kalimat 'Bibit Kebuddhaan' bisa saja menimbulkan salah paham bahwa seakan2 ada benih/cikal bakal Buddha dalam diri kita. Sehingga malah mengkondisikan timbulnya paham 'jiwa yg kekal / atta'.
Yah, sebenarnya tetua2 dulu hanya berusaha menjelaskan fenomena alami kehidupan kedalam kata2, berusaha merumuskan suatu konsep. Mungkin pemilihan kata2 yg kurang pas / sulit menemukan kalimat yg tepat untuk menjelaskan ajaran2 ini.
Sebenarnya 'benih kebuddhaan' tepatnya ditulis bagaimana ya?
Apakah mungkin: "setiap gabungan nama dan rupa sebenarnya berpotensi merealisasi nibbana"
atau "setiap citta sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana"
::
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #52 on: Today at 09:07:42 AM »
willibordus,
Ya, saya setuju, memang mungkin sebetulnya hanya masalah kata2 saja. Mungkin juga itu sering dipakai supaya kita lebih mengasihi mahluk lain yang pada hakekatnya sama dengan kita. Kalau saya memilih untuk tidak memakai istilah itu. Bagaimanapun mahluk itu, apakah ada atau tidak ada 'bibit Buddha'-nya, harus kita kasihi juga.
setiap citta/mahluk sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana
-> Kalo ini saya setuju, supaya memberikan pengertian bahwa kita bisa sehingga membangkitkan semangat dalam berusaha
karuna_murti « Reply #53 on: Today at 09:21:46 AM »
quote: setiap citta/mahluk sebenarnya bisa merealisasi nibbana
paling nggak di kehidupan ini ada yang tidak bisa...
mungkin di kehidupan berikutnya
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #54 on: Today at 10:06:46 AM »
karuna_murti,
Masalah 'bisa' ini memang blom ngomong2 "kapan" dan "jenis pencapaian"-nya, tetapi emang hanya untuk menghapus pandangan bahwa mereka yang bisa jadi Arahat itu adalah mahluk2 khusus/terpilih/istimewa.
Mangkok « Reply #55 on: Today at 10:11:36 AM »
Istilah benih kebuddhaan klo boleh saya sarankan adalah potensi kebuddhaan. Istilah sanskritnya sendiri klo ga salah tathagatha garbha. Konsep ini mungkin lebih banyak dibahas di mahayana. Hal ini berkaitan terutama dengan kesunyataan batin kita. Secara sederhana, kita katakan bahwa batin kita saat ini terhalang (seperti langit yang tertutup awan), namun halangan ini bukan bagian dari batin kita, dan oleh karenanya dapat dihilangkan. Penghalangnya klo di mahayana (Tibetan) ada 2, yaitu penghalang yang berupa kilesa dan penghalang kemahatahuan. Pada saat kedua penghalang itu dihilangkan, di mahayana (Tibetan), dikatakan kita mencapai Kebuddhaan. Karena batin semua makhluk sifatnya sama, maka semua makhluk punya potensi ini.
Terima kasih
Kainyn-Kutho « Reply #56 on: Today at 10:23:03 AM »
Mangkok,
Ya, saya mengerti. Berarti tetap saja "ada Atta yang dihalangi". Seperti saya katakan bahwa itu seperti pandangan Atta di mana Atta seperti mutiara yang bersih, berkilau sempurna, tertutup oleh debu, kotoran dan lumpur. Tapi karena menurut anda itu adalah pandangan dari aliran tertentu, maka saya tidak akan bahas lebih jauh. Thanx buat infonya!
Mangkok « Reply #57 on: Today at 11:09:33 AM »
Kainyn_Kutho,
Pertama2 terima kasih telah memberikan analisa yang bagus sekali. Klo menurut saya sih kita tidak bisa bahas hanya dari satu sisi saja. Contoh dalam kasus ini, di sana dikatakan kesunyataan batin. Artinya di sini kita juga perlu mengetahui batin kita itu seperti apa. Salah satunya, misalnya kita perlu tahu bahwa batin/persepsi kita tidak muncul begitu aja. Batin/persepsi kita muncul karena ada sebab dan kondisi. Karena tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendiri, maka kita sebut batin adalah sunya. Dari batin dan faktor mental kita juga tahu, bahwa untuk munculnya satu persepsi diperlukan batin utama/kesadaran utama dan faktor mental. Batin utama kita sifatnya adalah jernih dan mengetahui. Sedangkan faktor mental yang menemani ada berbagai macam, ada yang bajik, ada yang non bajik, dan ada yang netral. Nah, klo kita mengaitkan dengan dengan anatta, ini juga perlu pembahasan tersendiri. Kita tentu saja juga perlu tahu apa yang dimaksud anatta dalam Buddhisme. Dan sekedar gambaran, dari k-4 falsafah/filosofis utama Buddhis, penjelasan tentang tidak adanya sang "aku" ini tidak semua sama. Satu hal lain yang perlu diketahui tentang sunyata adalah bahwa sunyata bukan berarti kosong sama sekali, namun lebih ke arti bahwa segala sesuatu tidak bisa berdiri sendiri/muncul dari dirinya sendiri. Simplenya, karena sunyatalah produk bisa muncul, dan karena produk tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendirilah maka produk adalah sunya. Di luar semua itu, istilah apapun yang digunakan, menurutku yang penting adalah pemahaman tentang istilah yang bersangkutan. Sekedar info, istilah Buddhis dalam bahasa Inggris pun belum tentu seragam, demikian juga dalam bahasa Indonesia, jadi daripada kita terjebak dengan istilah, jauh lebih baik kita memahami esensinya.
Sori, OOT, mungkin perlu dipindah klo mau dibahas lebih lanjut.
Terima kasih
Kaynin-Kutho « Reply #58 on: Today at 11:51:04 AM »
Mangkok,
Ini beneran bisa OOT jauh nih Grin
Quote: Batin utama kita sifatnya adalah jernih dan mengetahui.
Berarti batin sebagai "atta" yang sifatnya jernih dan mengetahui 'kan?! Grin Saya lebih cenderung pada Avijja sebagai penopang Sankhara yang merupakan penopang dari kesadaran, yang merupakan penopang dari bathin dan jasmani. Jikapun ada Bathin dan jasmani tanpa 'kebodohan', itu hanyalah 'sisa' dari bathin dan jasmani 'dengan kebodohan', bukanlah 'inti sejati'.
Quote: karena sunyatalah produk bisa muncul
Berarti sunyata adalah sebab dari produk? Saya lebih cenderung pada 'sunyata' bukanlah sebab, bukan juga akibat.
Quote: karena produk tidak bisa muncul dari dirinya sendirilah maka produk adalah sunya
Kalo yang ini, saya setuju
4
Tibetan / Sutra tentang Yang Bijak dan Yang Dungu
« on: 16 May 2008, 09:02:51 PM »
Tadinya sempat mau mengetik postingan2 tentang kisah2 dalam teks ini, namun ternyata kisah2 ini sudah diposting oleh MD Melati dalam forum wihara sehingga niat mempostingnya sempat batal. Namun, mengingat bahwa mungkin tidak semua sempat membacanya, dan juga teks ini benar2 sangat menginspirasi, jadi akhirnya mencoba untuk memposting juga. Selain itu juga, saya merasa cerita2 dalam teks ini akan sangat membantu pemahaman kita tentang prinsip2 dalam hukum karma. (Tapi bila saudara moderator atau administrator merasa tidak perlu, akan saya hentikan). Dan postingan ini jadinya tidak saya ketik ulang, tetapi co-pas dari postingan di forum wihara oleh MD Melati. Saya pilih posting di bagian Tibetan karena emang dikenalnya terutama di tradisi Tibetan. Tapi sekali lagi dikembalikan kepada saudara moderator.
Teks ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Heni untuk Kadam Choeling Bandung, diedit oleh Junaidi dan Bhiksu Bhadraruci. Teks bahasa Inggrisnya berjudul Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish oleh Stanley Frye, bahasa Tibetnya mdo mdzangs blun, bahasa Mongolnya Ulinger-un dalai (Ocean of Naratives).
Untuk memberikan gambaran tentang kisah ini (ini tidak ada di forum wihara), saya mengambilnya dari halaman belakang cover bukunya:
Salah satu harta karun literatur Buddhis adalah MDo-mdzangs-blun atau 'Sutra tentang Yang Bijak dan Yang Dungu' sebagaimana dikenal oleh orang-orang Mongolia. Naskah ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Mongolia dari bahasa Tibet sebagai Ulinger-un dalai atau Lautan cerita. Kitab ini adalah salah satu kitab Buddhis yang paling menarik untuk dinikmati dan enak dibaca. Selama berabad2, kitab ini telah menjadi sumber yang tiada habisnya dari inspirasi, instruksi dan kedamaian bagi semua yang telah membacanya. Sejarah dari naskah tidak umum ini masih belum jelas. Legenda mengatakan bahwa kisah-kisah dalam kitab ini didengar oleh bhiksu-bhiksu China di Khotan, yang menerjemahkannya (namun dalam bahasa apa?) ke dalam bahasa China, kemudian diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Tibet, lalu ke dalam bahasa Mongolia dan Oirat.
Alur ceritanya adalah Jataka, atau cerita kelahiran kembali, melacak penyebab tragedi masa kini dalam kehidupan manusia dengan mengambil tempat di kehidupan yang lalu. Tema dari setiap cerita adalah sama: tragedi dari keadaan manusia, penyebab tragedi ini dan kemungkinan mengubahnya. Tetapi tidak seperti tragedi Yunani, tragedi Buddhis tidak pernah berakhir dengan sendirinya, sebagai contoh sebuah perasaan karena sandiwara tragedi, namun sebuah panggilan untuk mengubah yang dapat diubah dan tidak semestinya dialami terus menerus. Tokoh2 yang kita temui dalam Sutra tentang Yang Bijak dan Yang Dungu, walaupun seharusnya hidup di India pada masa Sang Buddha, dapat saja hidup saat ini di kota New York, sebuah kota kecil di pedesaan atau Leningrad, dan masalah yang mereka hadapi adalah masalah yang sama yang dihadapi manusia setiap saat di manapun. Di sinilah letak daya tarik abadi dari Kitab Buddhis yang mendalam ini.
Terima kasih
Teks ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Heni untuk Kadam Choeling Bandung, diedit oleh Junaidi dan Bhiksu Bhadraruci. Teks bahasa Inggrisnya berjudul Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish oleh Stanley Frye, bahasa Tibetnya mdo mdzangs blun, bahasa Mongolnya Ulinger-un dalai (Ocean of Naratives).
Untuk memberikan gambaran tentang kisah ini (ini tidak ada di forum wihara), saya mengambilnya dari halaman belakang cover bukunya:
Salah satu harta karun literatur Buddhis adalah MDo-mdzangs-blun atau 'Sutra tentang Yang Bijak dan Yang Dungu' sebagaimana dikenal oleh orang-orang Mongolia. Naskah ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Mongolia dari bahasa Tibet sebagai Ulinger-un dalai atau Lautan cerita. Kitab ini adalah salah satu kitab Buddhis yang paling menarik untuk dinikmati dan enak dibaca. Selama berabad2, kitab ini telah menjadi sumber yang tiada habisnya dari inspirasi, instruksi dan kedamaian bagi semua yang telah membacanya. Sejarah dari naskah tidak umum ini masih belum jelas. Legenda mengatakan bahwa kisah-kisah dalam kitab ini didengar oleh bhiksu-bhiksu China di Khotan, yang menerjemahkannya (namun dalam bahasa apa?) ke dalam bahasa China, kemudian diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Tibet, lalu ke dalam bahasa Mongolia dan Oirat.
Alur ceritanya adalah Jataka, atau cerita kelahiran kembali, melacak penyebab tragedi masa kini dalam kehidupan manusia dengan mengambil tempat di kehidupan yang lalu. Tema dari setiap cerita adalah sama: tragedi dari keadaan manusia, penyebab tragedi ini dan kemungkinan mengubahnya. Tetapi tidak seperti tragedi Yunani, tragedi Buddhis tidak pernah berakhir dengan sendirinya, sebagai contoh sebuah perasaan karena sandiwara tragedi, namun sebuah panggilan untuk mengubah yang dapat diubah dan tidak semestinya dialami terus menerus. Tokoh2 yang kita temui dalam Sutra tentang Yang Bijak dan Yang Dungu, walaupun seharusnya hidup di India pada masa Sang Buddha, dapat saja hidup saat ini di kota New York, sebuah kota kecil di pedesaan atau Leningrad, dan masalah yang mereka hadapi adalah masalah yang sama yang dihadapi manusia setiap saat di manapun. Di sinilah letak daya tarik abadi dari Kitab Buddhis yang mendalam ini.
Terima kasih
5
Diskusi Umum / Apakah etis umat awan membahas vinaya anggota sangha?
« on: 10 April 2008, 10:37:50 PM »
Pertama2, saya minta maaf dulu bila tulisan ini tidak berkenan. Saya berusaha utk membangkitkan batin yang bajik agar tulisan ini benar2 berguna dan tdk malah menimbulkan ekses2 negatif.
Saya merasa agak risih (mohon maaf klo kata ini tidak berkenan) umat awam mulai membahas vinaya anggota sangha. Tentu saja apapun yang kita lakukan sangat tergantung motivasi dibelakangnya, mungkin ada yang benar2 melakukannya untuk maksud yang baik dan benar2 baik. Pertama2, hal ini tentu saja berkaitan dengan perlindungan kita kepada Triratna. Di sini ada satu bagian yang jelas bahwa kita sebagai seorg Buddhis berlindung pada Sangha. Mungkin definisi Sangha bagi tiap2 orang berbeda, namun anggaplah kita mau memakai definisi kita sendiri dan membeda2kan sangha, maka mungkin sebaiknya kita pada saat membaca perlindungan diganti dengan saya berlindung pada sangha, kecuali anggota sangha A, B, atau C.
Tentu klo kita merasa ada anggota sangha yang bertindak tidak patut, dan kita merasa dapat melakukan sesuatu, maka kita pantas berusaha. Namun, kritikan jg sebaiknya kita sampaikan dengan baik, tidak di forum umum. kita perlu mengingat beberapa hal. Posisi kita sendiri sebagai umat awam yang silanya jauh lebih sedikit dibanding anggota sangha. Seberapa pun jeleknya anggota sangha, namun mereka telah berani memegang sila dengan segala resikonya. Bahkan Buddha sendiri (sutranya saya lupa, tapi ada juga cerita di Jataka bgmn Bodhisattva waktu terlahir sebagai singa tidak jadi membunuh seseorng yang sebenarnya berniat tidak baik hanya karena org tersebut memakai jubah anggota sangha) mengatakan bahkan seorang anggota sangha yang silanya tidak benar pun harus kita hormati. Apa yg kira2 akan terjadi pada Buddha Dharma klo umat awam mulai mengontrol sanghanya? Sangha punya aturan sendiri, mereka yang paling tahu tentang aturan mereka.
Saya tidak tahu tradisi aliran lain, tapi tradisi pratimoksayana tibetan yang saya tahu, seseorg bahkan tidak boleh mempelajari sila/sumpah pratimoksa (Sila pratimoksa: upasaka/sika, samanera/ri, bhikkhu/ni, siksamana, uposatha) sebelum dia mengambil sila tersebut. Klo mau membahas vinaya anggota sangha kenapa tidak jadi anggota sangha aja sekalian? Klo mau memperbaiki perilaku anggota sangha yang dianggap menyimpang, kenapa tidak terjun langsung jadi anggota sangha?
Mungkin sekilas kelihatan baik kita membahas vinaya mereka, mungkin menambah wawasan atau hal2 positif lainnya, tapi apakah hal itu sebanding dengan resiko yang mungkin muncul? Apalgi klo membahasnya di forum umum. Sebaiknya kita memakai ajaran Buddha untuk menilai diri kita sendiri, bukan menilai orang lain, apalg menilai anggota sangha yang silanya jauh lebih banyak dari kita.
Dan sebenarnya apa sih tujuan seorang umat awam membahas sila anggota sangha? Apakah merasa sila umat awamnya sudah sempurna sehingga mau meningkatkan jadi sila anggota sangha? Jalankanlah sila kita sendiri dengan baik bila mau menilai orang lain. Bahkan kebanyakan mereka yang silanya sudah baik justru akan jarang mengkritik sila orang lain. (Berarti sila saya termasuk kurang baik juga karena mengkritik posting2 ttg pembahasan vinaya sangha, dan saya mengakui sila saya masih sangat tidak sempurna, namun semoga tulisan ini benar2 bermanfaat)
Sekali lagi, kata2 saya mgk agak keras, tapi saya benar2 mencoba melakukannya dengan niat yang baik dan mohon maaf bila ada yang tersinggung.
Semoga ajaran Buddha berkembang dengan baik dalam batin semua makhluk.
Terima kasih.
NB: saya tidak tahu harus post tulisan ini kemana, jd saya masukin ke saran aja. Moga2 benar2 bermanfaat.
6
Buddhisme untuk Pemula / ehipasiko dan kebenaran
« on: 29 March 2008, 10:41:45 AM » maaf ya karena masih belajar, jd belum bisa menjelaskan dengan baik. Pada dasarnya saya cuma ingin menyampaikan bahwa akan lebih baik klo kita tidak hanya terperangkap dalam istilah2 saja, mungkin akan jauh lebih bermanfaat bila kita jg mengetahui maknanya. Satu istilah yang sama didengar atau diucapkan orang tertentu mungkin berbeda maknanya bagi orang lain, jadi persepi/pandagan tiap orang belum tentu sama.jadi, istilah apapun yang mau kita pake, akan lebih baik disertai dengan pemahaman maknanya. Ini jg mengacu pada ehipasiko, Buddha sendiri bilg kita jangan hanya menerima begitu saja kata2 guru suci atau kata2 dalam teks suci. Mohon dikoreksi klo ada yang salah.
Terima kasih
Pages: [1]