34
   

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

 
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 05:41 pm
@igm,
My reply to Krumple is laden with "technical" vocabulary, i.e., "true self", "Buddha mind," and "original nature" (the last two of which I see as synonomous with "Buddha Nature"). I was tempted to throw in the distinction between big and little mind but resisted. These are, of course, terms that one does not try to define, their meaning must be intuited. Only then--when they reflect profound subjective understanding--do they serve their function. Despite his question Krumple is no less a buddha than you and I.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 06:01 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

My reply to Krumple is laden with "technical" vocabulary, i.e., "true self", "Buddha mind," and "original nature" (the last two of which I see as synonomous with "Buddha Nature"). I was tempted to throw in the distinction between big and little mind but resisted. These are, of course, terms that one does not try to define, their meaning must be intuited. Only then--when they reflect profound subjective understanding--do they serve their function. Despite his question Krumple is no less a buddha than you and I.


Sure everyone has buddha nature. Everyone has the potential, but it definately doesn't mean that everyone has realized. If they had, the buddha never would have said anything. No noble truths, no dharma talks at all. It would have been pointless. He spoke because there was a need, there was a purpose, there was a demand. This means that there are in fact two distinct aspects. You either are realized, or you are not.

I have never met a person who is realized. If the Dharma works, if what the Buddha taught arrives at realization, then surely there should be hundreds of thousands. Where are they? They should in turn be helping those who have not realized. But they aren't there, no where to be found. Sure I have seen some who self proclaim themselves to be realized buddhas, but they don't reflect a realized person, like I mentioned already.

They are selling DVDs and writing a hundred books and selling them for ten dollars a piece. They live in mansions and ride around in BMWs while they check their rolex watch to see if they are late for their next speech where the people there paid twenty dollars for a seat to hear a "dharma" talk.

All you hear from the lecture is the same empty meaning with nothing practical or tangible to take away with or a process by which to take the next step on the path to realization. It's always full of cheesy jokes, stuff you have heard a million times. Be a nice person and that's all you need to really know.. If that is all that was necessary then there should be a billion realized buddhas living but there arn't any. Just being a nice good person clearly is not enough for realization. There is more to it than that.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 06:12 pm
@Krumple,
BUDDHA MIND and the NATURALS would be an excellent name for a doo-wop rock band
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 10:42 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple, I too am wary and tired of the great guru and enlightenment industry that has sprung up in the last three decades. But I insist that the Dharma is not something that arrives after one has applied the right means. It is within us to appreciate originally--you call it realize which is fine.
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 11:00 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Krumple, I too am wary and tired of the great guru and enlightenment industry that has sprung up in the last three decades. But I insist that the Dharma is not something that arrives after one has applied the right means. It is within us to appreciate originally--you call it realize which is fine.


Doesn't your explanation contradict the Buddha's own story of self realization?

I mean he spent six years starving himself to near death, thinking this was the path to realization. Then he abandoned it but not his resolve. He was willing to die under the bodi tree or obtain realization. So clearly there is something to be applied and there is a process that is put into play that allows one to arrive at realization. He even traveled around India learning meditation techniques from other teachers but once he realized those teachers didn't have the wisdom he was seeking he left them but continued to use the tools they gave him.

I understand the principals of non-self. I understand impermanence. I understand non-thought. If all beings have such potential for realization surely it shouldn't be so hard, yet the world reflects billions of beings who have not. It can't be my own reflection that I am witnessing for their lack of realization. If that were the case then the Buddha would never have opened his mouth. He would have seen them all as already Buddhas and there would have been no need to turn the Dharma.

All this back and forth leads me to one conclusion. It is all nonsense. There are no realized buddhas alive because there is no realization at all period. Just scam artists who figured out it all is just a scam. I wish I was wrong. But it doesn't add up. There should be thousands of buddhas yet I find none.

The dharma has to be a process, if it is not a process then it has no practical use. If that is the case then the Buddha opening his mouth was a waste of air. He might as well just sat under the bodhi tree and said nothing.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 10:30 am
@Krumple,
Yes, I suppose it can be described as "nonense." That is especially so for the version of Buddhism known as Zen with it paradoxes and general rejection of the logical view of reality. The Buddha's understanding is not conveyed in his teachings; it is mere suggested by his words. You have to find your own Dharma in the practice of meditation. The wisdom enjoyed by others can never be yours. This is, I suspect, what Siddartha realized when he turned away from his dependence on other gurus to find his own Reality. Don't give up: you have all you need already--see by your own lantern--encourage the maturation of your inherent wisdom by embracing Buddhism's profound subtlety.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 10:37 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Yes, I suppose it can be described as "nonense." That is especially so for the version of Buddhism known as Zen with it paradoxes and general rejection of the logical view of reality. The Buddha's understanding is not conveyed in his teachings; it is mere suggested by his words. You have to find your own Dharma in the practice of meditation. The wisdom enjoyed by others can never be yours. This is, I suspect, what Siddartha realized when he turned away from his dependence on other gurus to find his own Reality. Don't give up: you have all you need already--see by your own lantern--encourage the maturation of your inherent wisdom by embracing Buddhism's profound subtlety.


Okay you make some good points. However; remember that the Buddha learned some tools which he used. I feel I don't have these tools. He learned from many different teachers and utilized certain aspects of their teachings.

The other aspect is similar to my math analogy. If you want to learn math, well you could technically try to do it all on your own. But if you have a teacher who already knows math, they can teach you far faster than you could do on your own. Not only that but they can help prevent you from running into pitfalls or help you from making mistakes.

But even with all that said, I am also looking for validation. If the Dharma is true then there should be results. Where are the results? There should be hundreds of thousands of Buddhas living today, where are they?

So going back to the math analogy. I want to learn math but I can't find a math teacher and it makes me concerned because if there are no math teachers it must mean no one has learned math. If no one else has learned it then what makes me think that I can?

spinning wheels in the mud
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 11:49 am
@Krumple,
Tentative points: Math (qua arithmetical knowledge) is a poor analogy for mystical understanding (although I do not know if this applies to the more mysterious aspects of math theory, something one must learn on his own). Also, I always take with a grain of salt anyone's claim to enlightenment; I believe that enlightenment is not something one talks about or is even particularly conscious of. It's almost like going around telling people you are psychologically healthy.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 12:12 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Tentative points: Math (qua arithmetical knowledge) is a poor analogy for mystical understanding (although I do not know if this applies to the more mysterious aspects of math theory, something one must learn on his own). Also, I always take with a grain of salt anyone's claim to enlightenment; I believe that enlightenment is not something one talks about or is even particularly conscious of. It's almost like going around telling people you are psychologically healthy.


Although I agree with what you say, I still think there would be something fundamentally different about their behavior or demeanor that would be noticeable.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 03:13 pm
@Krumple,
I understand. I remember back in the early sixties when I began participating in meditation groups people feeling obliged to behave as if they were in trances. It was wierd--and disengenuous. Now they do not: people act quite normal.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 12:06 pm
Is Buddhism a religion?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 12:56 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Is Buddhism a religion?


According to the definition of religion yes.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:07 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
According to the definition of religion yes.

Whose definition?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:11 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Krumple wrote:
According to the definition of religion yes.

Whose definition?


Does it matter?

If I gave you a list of sources would you accept any of them?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:36 pm
@Krumple,
I believe all major religions have many faces or facets: Buddhism like Christianity has churches, myths, rituals, fabulous beliefs in miracles and orders of officials like priests, nuns, deacons, imams, etc. But there are facets that lack these institutions, as in the mystical branches of buddhism and Christianity. These "branches" are far more structurally informal and less likely to take their "stories" literally.
One conception of religion is seen in the terms religare and religio, referring I think to the RE-CONNECTION of individuals with God or the Cosmos (ligio has the same root as ligament)--connecting the part with the whole is virtually the definition of mysticism.
In the case of the zen version of Buddhism, however, this connecting function occurs as the religious experience of one's original unity with the whole, the realization that one has never been a separate and isolated being or ego self. This is why the practice of zen meditation is so subtle and its koan exercies and didactic tales so paradoxical.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:38 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I believe all major religions have many faces or facets: Buddhism like Christianity has churches, myths, rituals, fabulous beliefs in miracles and orders of officials like priests, nuns, deacons, imams, etc. But there are facets that lack these institutions, as in the mystical branches of buddhism and Christianity. These branche are far more structurally informal and less likely to take their "stories" literally.
One conception of religion is seen in the terms religare and religio, practices that re-connect individuals with God or the Cosmos (ligio has the same root as ligament)--connecting the part with the whole is virtually the definition of mysticism.
In the case of the zen version of Buddhism, however, this connecting function occurs as the religious experience of one's original unity with the whole, the realization that one has never been a separate and isolated being or ego self. This is why the practice of zen meditation is so subtle and its koan exercies and didactic tales so paradoxical.


And you know for a fact that you are not deluding yourself....HOW????
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Neither of us can know with absolute certainty that we are not deluding ourselves. But your standard for certainty seems to me to be a form of auto-paralysis. Unlax doc.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 01:47 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Neither of us can know with absolute certainty that we are not deluding ourselves.


Well then...why put it out there as fact...rather than suggesting it as a possibility?



Quote:
But your standard for certainty seems to me to be a form of auto-paralysis.


I am not asking for "certainty"...and in most of the material being discussed here...I see no possibility of certainty.

But you presented something that you were pretending made Zen Buddhism more than just a bunch of guesses like most other religious stuff.

I was merely calling that nonsense to your attention.

Quote:
Unlax doc.


Played golf today for the first time this season. I am loose as a goose.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 02:20 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Krumple wrote:
According to the definition of religion yes.

Whose definition?


Does it matter?

If I gave you a list of sources would you accept any of them?

I'm not sure why you're asking me if I will accept your definition, as we still haven't established whether you accept your definition. I'm perfectly willing to accept any definition of "religion" that adequately describes the concept. I've offered my own, but if you have a better one, I'd be happy to accept it.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 06:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Krumple wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Krumple wrote:
According to the definition of religion yes.

Whose definition?


Does it matter?

If I gave you a list of sources would you accept any of them?

I'm not sure why you're asking me if I will accept your definition, as we still haven't established whether you accept your definition. I'm perfectly willing to accept any definition of "religion" that adequately describes the concept. I've offered my own, but if you have a better one, I'd be happy to accept it.


I personally don't see the point in asking or debating weather or not buddhism is a religion or not. To me it is irrelevant. There will ALWAYS be some who claim it is a philosophy more than a religion and others will still say it is a religion.

according to dictionary.com

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Buddhism actually fits into each one of these. But I bet that can still be objected to by some. So it just becomes a meaningless struggle with semantics.

Me personally, it doesn't matter what you call or want to categorize buddhism as. If you want to say it is not a religion, that is fine by me. If you want to say it is a religion, that is also fine by me. If you want to call it a philosophy that is fine by me. If you want to say it is nonsense, that is also fine by me.

So what is the point in asking?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/09/2021 at 12:45:01