Great comments guys! Thank you:)
It is integral to Buddhadharma that something relatively existent can only arise from specific causes and conditions. Something immaterial cannot arise from material causes, and the same for the opposite. Immaterial and material phenomena are an indisputable fact, both subjectively (i.e. through direct perception) and objectively (i.e. through logical analysis). Whether you're a mind-body dualist or not, depends on how you interpret their connection. It's reasonable to say they are mutually dependent.
Whether we hold the view (instead of believe) that karma and rebirth are real profound processes, should only be determined based on present usefulness of such view. The Buddha taught it's better to err on the side of eternalism, but he also invited everyone interested to adopt the Middle Path, beyond both extremes of philosophical negation and affirmation, and practice in accordance with such view. The intricacies of Buddhist thought that explain what karma and rebirth *really* mean surpass the scope of this article and our comments. For most practicing folks, it is a profound mystery, and suffice to say that it surely *can* be unpacked in a highly valuable manner *without* superstition and narrow-minded literalism. It was difficult to go beyond karma in Siddhartha's time. Obviously, it still is.
Great podcast! Thank you Bodhipaksha and Vincent. Six elements practice is a really fine example of the continuation in Buddhist praxis, namely we find it both in the early strata, i.e. Pali language Sutta-pitaka, and also in the later Vajrayana esoteric practice, i.e. the "stupa meditation" in the Japanese Shingon tradition, where the elements are not approached analytically, but instead visualized and associated each with a seed-syllable and a mudra. In that tantric variant, the six elements represent the "perfect body" of Dharmakaya, with which the practitioner seeks to realize mutual fusion directly, not just psychologically but also physically. This is related to the discussion in the podcast, so I thought sharing it here. Looking forward to the next part:)
@Frank What's left? Judging by the absence of comments, I see your point:)
This is an important topic for Western Buddhists. The root analogy is powerful, only the root of Western core notions is more complex than Judeo-Christian faith alone. But the whole prospect of grafting and cross-pollination (whether intentional or incidental) is dependent on the type of Buddhism we have in mind (and what type of Christian experience, of course), since the very degree of adaptive and integrative capacity would itself vary greatly, just as motivations and justifications for such would, conditioned by school (e.g. Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Vajrayana), interpretation (e.g. literalist, moderate, liberal), and level of cultural development (e.g. traditional, modern, postmodern, or beyond). Converts are often confused about both traditions, each of which is more than sufficient and self-sustaining when properly acculturated.
@Joel The example you give is commonplace. And I agree with most of your discussion. At the same time, millions have been spent in the West on temples and centers that stand empty most of the time. There are at least a dozen different economic models with differentiated sources of income, the choice of which will depend on many factors as it should be, and that's fairly simple once we get ideology and irrationality out of the way. Donation will always be there. When it comes to charging, there are also ways to be flexible and considerate to all interested, while providing the affluent with opportunities for patronage.
But I prefer to approach this problem from the other side, namely the regular practitioner, whether member, or participant, or non-affiliated.
@Alan Yes, exactly. There's a lot of reluctance and shadow around money (and power, and politics) in spiritual circles in general, which only serves to create negative consequences for everyone involved. Bringing these out in the open with due respect is necessary to begin integrating spiritual and secular spheres of life and their respective values and priorities. Teachings for renunciates won't help heal that split, and donation-based economy is an incomplete model for the 21st century.
@JoelG Good points, but there must be a third option, in addition to quitting-or-regressing, and it plays out in a variety of ways, depending on many factors, as I'm sure you're aware. A) I stand my ground without falling for the attractive-repulsive magical group-think; while B) looking for teachers who are clear about the present healthy level of meaning making being at-least-rational (one would expect post-rational among contemplatives); and C) taking part in activities that don't replicate the fundamentalist impulse, but instead boldly give new expression to core dharmas, whether in view, meditation, or ritual.
@acutia I did my best to compensate as the discussion went on:)
@Alan Glad you enjoyed it, and hope you find the rest entertaining. I did use some unusual themes.
Excellent! Thanks for this beautiful interview.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint