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

@FBM,

No need for dragons or nagas. Nagarjuna, on the other hand, is helpful.

@JLNobody,

Then who kept all those sutras secret during those centuries after the Buddha died? And why did the Buddha outright deny keeping any secrets?

"What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

0 Replies

Quote:

But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma, Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no counterfeit gold has arisen in the world...[3] The earth-element[4] does not make the true Dhamma disappear, the water-element... the fire-element... the air-element..., But right here[5] men of straw[6] appear, and it is they who bring about the disappearance of the true Dhamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.013.wlsh.html

1 Reply

@FBM,

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

a friend just found a whole batch of bstract pintings by a Lncaster artist who was kind of a recluse and who died recently. The paintings are really neat.

Nothing about Buddha but I thought youd be interested.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Lancaster ENGLAND or Lancaster CALIFORNIA? I'd like a view of them in either case. Thanks.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

FBM, you know, of course, that among all the major religious the difference between religious scholarship (working with WORDS and IDEAS) is most severe or significant. I hope you are still PRACTICING the dhamma (i.e., meditation).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I'm not sure what you're driving at, JL, as most Western scholars either doubt or outright deny the historicity of the Mahayana literature. Even a brief Wiki search reveals that much:

Quote:

Scholarly views on historicity[edit]
Some scholars take an agnostic view and consider the Mahāyāna sūtras as an anonymous literature, since it can not be determined by whom they were written, and only can be dated firmly to the date when they were translated into another language.[12] Others such as A. K. Warder have argued that the Mahāyāna sūtras are not historical.[13] Andrew Skilton summarizes a common prevailing view of the Mahāyāna sūtras:[14]
These texts are considered by Mahāyāna tradition to be buddhavacana, and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha. The śrāvaka tradition, according to some Mahāyāna sūtras themselves, rejected these texts as authentic buddhavacana, saying that they were merely inventions, the product of the religious imagination of the Mahāyānist monks who were their fellows. Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahāyāna sūtras, but it tends to assume that they are not the literal word of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na_s%C5%ABtras#Scholarly_views_on_historicity

However, I've researched the topic much more deeply than just a Wiki page over the years. Scholars of Buddhism such as Richard Gombrich, Sue Hamilton, Adrian Kuzminski and others describe in great detail why the Mahayana literature should be considered apocrypha. Not only is the history lacking, literary analysis reveals such a dramatic shift in emphasis, tone, voice and phraseology from those of the Pali Canon that the only possible conclusion is separate, multiple and later authorship.

That's not to say that there's nothing useful in Mahayana literature; it's only to say that these were not the words of the Buddha, and that treating them as if they were is to bring on the decline of the dhamma that the Buddha warned about in the suttas I linked to above.

1 Reply

@FBM,

The entire question of authority is irrelevaant to me. A statement can be apocryphal yet wise (enlightened and enlightening). To insist that the dharmic value of a "sutra" depends on its provenance, that it must be traceable to the actual words of the Buddha is wrong-headed. Indeed, it is "religious" in the inferior sense of the term. Obviously my sense of the meaning of religion and Buddhism diverges much from yours. I just hope it is as valid.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I hope so, too. But if you're a Buddhist, why put the words of Nagarjuna on a par with those of the Buddha, especially seeing as how he warned against doing so? I did agree that there can be some helpful aspects of Mahayana sutras, but what I object to is the falsehood committed when they portray themselves as being the words of the historical Buddha, when in fact they were written centuries later.

And there are Mahayana concepts that seem to contradict the Buddha's teachings. True Self, Buddha Nature, etc. The Lankavatara Sutra goes so far as to contradict the Buddha's core doctrines of anatta and anicca:

Quote:

the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the TGS [Tathagatagarbha Sutra] ... the Mahaparinirvanasutra and the Lankavatarasutra characterize the tathagatagarbha explicitly as atman [Self].

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111023508/http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/orc/Publications/BPPB/pdf/BPPB-06.pdf

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Bump. Just curious.

Not only do the Buddhas still exist but there are many celestial beings that exist but are beyond the normal flesh eye's ability to perceive. Now you can call that silliness or religious mumbo jumbo. My point is, what ever I have to say will never satisfy your "curiosity". It isn't that I just believe them to be existing, it is beyond that. But the point is moot anyways because weather or not nagas exist or that aspects of the Buddha's Dharma were "saved" is completely irrelevant.

Any time a Buddha speaks it is the Buddha's Dharma. It does not matter what year it is, what location or to whom it is spoken. There wasn't just ONE buddha. Siddhartha was NOT the first buddha. But even if it were debated, what would be the point? If there has only ever been one Buddha then what is the point of Buddhism? Just some idealistic level that one should aspire to but never actually realize? Non-sense.

Even the practices of sentient beings vary on their approach to awakening. What I mean is if you are familiar with forms of meditation and the meditation objects that are used for samadhi can differ. There isn't ONE method. For example one person can use the sense of hearing to awaken and other can use the sense of touch to awaken. Two seperate methods but they both arrive at the same awakening.

You could argue that the methods are idential just the object of concentration is the variant. The point I am making is that you might try to awaken on using the sense of sight but have no success but then move to observing the in and out breath and awaken. Why didn't the first method work but the later did? It has to do with your personal karma. You can call that dogmatic if you want but this is exactly how it happens.

There is not one method that works for all because the minds of sentient beings vary. They each have various levels of intellectual ability and capacity as well as karmic hindrances. Hurdles that need to be overcome. With the wrong mindset a certain specific cure needs to be administered to allow the "bull mind" (as I call it) to relax.

There are two minds. The bull mind is chaotic and it jumps around seeking after pleasures of the senses. It runs to find entertainment and pleasure. When you try to sit it distracts you with day dreams and random thoughts. It is what prevents you from experiencing your true nature. It is like a heavy fog that prevents and restricts clear vision. Once this bull mind has been tamed and calmed through the process of meditative absorption the true mind will reveal itself. Once the bull mind has been completely got rid of the buddha nature will be experienced.

One method to calming this bull mind is concentrating on the breath. It is not the only method but it a method that leads to tranquility. When you reach the first stage jhana a natural bliss will arise that is more pleasant than any mundane experience of joy or pleasure. There are three more stages that follow each with a more subtle and intense tranquility. But why am I even mentioning this? Because even if this method does not lead you to awakening it will put you on the path of no return. Once you achieve the first stage jhana you will not backslide and you will eventually awaken.

So why did I mention all this? Because once you reach the third jhana you can see that the mahayana sutras are nothing more than the Buddha's complete teachings. You'll have direct experience to this truth. So you don't have to believe anything I have said. Test it for yourself. Prove me wrong. If you are uncertain about the steps or how to practice meditation you can ask but for now I will assume you know.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

FBM wrote:

Bump. Just curious.

Not only do the Buddhas still exist but there are many celestial beings that exist but are beyond the normal flesh eye's ability to perceive...

You see, there's no way that a science-literate person like myself is going to go down that road. Whatever benefit there is to the Buddha's dhamma, it has nothing whatsoever to do with celestial beings, for which there isn't a shred of evidence. Unless you have some evidence. Then I will listen.

As for the texts, we only have the words of one Buddha, not a multiplicity of them. Do you think Nagarjuna was a Buddha? He's very likely the author of some of the Mahayana texts.

What I see you doing is turning a blind eye to prevailing scholarship - historical, philosophical, literary and scientific - in order to cling to your preferred beliefs. As long as you cling to anything, including your own being, you're mired in samsara.

0 Replies

I'm still waiting for a Buddhist to say whether Buddhism is a religion or not. Maybe this is one of those koans that doesn't have an answer.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I remember somebody writing that Buddhism was religion, psychology, and philosophy all rolled into one.

One problem is that the fundamentalists, literalists, and proponents of organized religions have high-jacked the definition of religion, making us believe that religion--any religion--has some sort of objective reality. Many, if not most, of us--including atheists (especially atheists) insist that religious myths and symbols can only be taken literally and not metaphorically. That makes sense if you're four years old, but not if you're forty.

Spiritually mature people understand and accept that religion or spirituality is totally subjective and helps us relate to the world of nature and man.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

I remember somebody writing that Buddhism was religion, psychology, and philosophy all rolled into one.

One problem is that the fundamentalists, literalists, and proponents of organized religions have high-jacked the definition of religion, making us believe that religion--any religion--has some sort of objective reality. Many, if not most, of us--including atheists (especially atheists) insist that religious myths and symbols can only be taken literally and not metaphorically. That makes sense if you're four years old, but not if you're forty.

Spiritually mature people understand and accept that religion or spirituality is totally subjective and helps us relate to the world of nature and man.

Then the "spiritually mature people" ought to stop telling us that various holy books or traditions represent the sentiments of a GOD.

You guys all seem to roll out that subjective crap whenever the going gets too tough in the objective area.

It seems to me that people make guesses that there are gods; then make guesses that the gods are offended by some human activities and require certain human activities; and that the way we know those things...

...is a result of studying the holy books and traditions.

You cannot have it both ways, Coluber...and in my opinion, the immaturity comes from your side...not the other.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

One problem is that the fundamentalists, literalists, and proponents of organized religions have high-jacked the definition of religion, making us believe that religion--any religion--has some sort of objective reality.

There's some truth to that - I can understand why a Buddhist wouldn't want to adopt the mantle of "religion" if that term is associated with the worst aspects of fundamentalist nut-jobbery. But negative connotations aside, "religion" is just a category, and Buddhism either fits into that category or it doesn't.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I'm not so sure it's so black-or-white, joe. In my experience with it, there is definitely a religious aspect which attracts a great number of people. However, there's a philosophical side that attracts others who are less interested in using it as a religion than as a practical, applied philosophy for self-development.

Rather than either-or, both-and seems possible. Thus, you find Buddhism discussed in World Religions classes as well as Philosophy classes.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Yes, religion can "rightly" refer to the great spiritual realization of one's unity with Reality (re-ligare to reconnect) OR it can "wrongly" refer to what I call organized supernatural superstitution. The former is what is so for mystical spirituality which we see in esoteric Sufism, Hinduism, zen Buddhism and some aspects of Christianity and Judaism. In these "mystical" forms of religion experience (a product of meditation) rather than doctrinal belief (a product of scholarship) is what matters.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, religion can "rightly" refer to the great spiritual realization of one's unity with Reality (re-ligare to reconnect) OR it can "wrongly" refer to what I call organized supernatural superstitution. The former is what is so for mystical spirituality which we see in esoteric Sufism, Hinduism, zen Buddhism and some aspects of Christianity and Judaism. In these "mystical" forms of religion experience (a product of meditation) rather than doctrinal belief (a product of scholarship) is what matters.

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

1 Reply

FBM wrote:

I'm not so sure it's so black-or-white, joe. In my experience with it, there is definitely a religious aspect which attracts a great number of people. However, there's a philosophical side that attracts others who are less interested in using it as a religion than as a practical, applied philosophy for self-development.

Rather than either-or, both-and seems possible. Thus, you find Buddhism discussed in World Religions classes as well as Philosophy classes.

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, religion can "rightly" refer to the great spiritual realization of one's unity with Reality (re-ligare to reconnect) OR it can "wrongly" refer to what I call organized supernatural superstitution. The former is what is so for mystical spirituality which we see in esoteric Sufism, Hinduism, zen Buddhism and some aspects of Christianity and Judaism. In these "mystical" forms of religion experience (a product of meditation) rather than doctrinal belief (a product of scholarship) is what matters.

This reminds me of the 19th century politician who was asked about his position on alcohol. "If you mean by 'alcohol' the destroyer of families, the scourge of the working classes, and the vile corrupter of our youth, then I am resolutely opposed to alcohol," the politician replied. "On the other hand, if you mean by 'alcohol' the laborer's sweet libation at the end of day, the bringer of conviviality to the masses, and the soother of troubled spirits, then I am resolutely in favor of alcohol."

I can understand why you'd want Buddhism to be a "religion" insofar as that term means only good things and why you'd deny that Buddhism is a "religion" insofar as that term means anything bad. But categories don't usually work that way, and the category "religion" certainly doesn't. Buddhism, in other words, can't be both a floor wax and a dessert topping. It's either a religion, as that term is generally understood, or it isn't.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know