I was wondering if good deeds performed by animals like being a service animal, or providing soothing care to an ill human generates significant good kamma making likely a noble rebirth to a human or something closer to a vessel more imminent to nibbana. I know animals in many ways are more subject to obvious craving but as a whole I don't really know too much about animals and kamma.
I was very interested stumbling upon the Basic Points Unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna, a very interesting read. Buddhism prides itself of being less prone to the kind of sectarianism very common in other religions yet I feel you will still bump into little bits of this sentiment at times. I would still say it's common to hear that these "non-religious" kinds of Buddhism are not Buddhism. I can completely see where this comes from, I think it's very clear that there have been people like Stephan Bachelor who were inherently trying (or at least willing) to stir controversy. Then again there are/were respected teachers like Thích Nhất Hạnh, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, many teachers in Zen tradition, who would never go so far as to say that rebirth and other cosmological, transcendental phenomenon weren't true or important but that worrying about whether or not to belive or even seeking to "prove" their being, not was not a good use of time, better spend studying, practicing, living the dhamma.
Thought this would be an interesting question to pose and I would be interested to hear people's thoughts. At the end of the day, to feel attracted towards the dhamma is to have a good karmic affinity. There should be something nice to say to anyone who feels its pull.
Namo Buddhaya
Hi there,
I'm a psych student very interested in neuroscience and psychotherapy. I have felt fundamentally drawn to the question of how to live with the goal of reducing suffering. Recently the sort of therapeutic philosophy I have been trying to cultivate has been drawing me to Buddhist concepts and ideas. I'd love some perspective from people with broad experience across traditions.
What drew me in initially was my enjoyment and deep respect for the work of Dr. Alok Kanojia from Healthy Gamer (bridging traditional meditation with psychotherapy) and the words of the The Dalai Lama, framing Buddhism as a science or philosophy of mind, not a cosmological or devotional architecture but an epistemological core. This empiricism resonates deeply with how I already think.
I also feel super drawn towards and inspired by what I heard about the Buddha. A mortal man who sat down, looked with extraordinary honesty, saw the true as it really was, spent decades teaching it, and passed peacefully. I find that more moving than any cosmological elaboration, not despite the impermanence but because of it. And his concept of ehipassiko, come and see, test it yourself, feels a shockingly magnanimous principle that draws me in very differently to how I have percived other religions in my life.
I've been considering owning a dharmachakra necklace, not as a declaration or decoration but as a personal anchor for a reflection and a reminder/external connection. The framing of come and see, engage with it, see if it makes you a better person, makes me feel like this kind of identifying from the outside moving inward isn't inherently disrespectful but I want to hear honestly from people with experience.
From what I have engaged with so far I feel drawn toward Theravada, the Thai Forest tradition, and maybe some aspects of Zen, secular Buddhism. I find the austere honesty of the early texts, aspects that I've heard some call pessimistic or limited to me feel empowering, Buddha calling the body a "open sore," arahant as a ultimate goal to be free from samsara (because I think if you are enlightened you seek to guide others inherently in your remaning lifespan) and most of all how Buddha came to realize all of this, reach enlightenment and then himself passing peacefully illustrating the truth of the mark of anicca.
For anyone who has navigated coming to Buddhism from the outside with serious intent, or who has a broad perspective across traditions, I'd really value your thoughts. Is the identifying while integrating/experimenting disrespectful, is over-intellectualizing trying to micromanage where exactly to subscribe or belong to a trap, and is the sincerity of the inquiry enough to begin and belong seriously?
I'm also willing to pose it as a harder question: I wonder if trying to intellectualize and attach myself to a particular belief system is itself a form of tanha, trying to have it all planned out Maybe the more honest engagement is just to practice and let the identity follow or not follow, rather than reaching for the identity as a destination.
Sorry for yap, I'm really interested:
TL;DR: Drawn to the empirical core, ehipassiko, the human Buddha, the honest confrontation with impermanence. Wondering if the most authentic engagement is simply to read, sit, experiment and let identity and labels follow naturally rather than grasping for them. Is it valid to not know what you are yet but to be genuinely interested in Buddhism in your own time, in your own way?