Buddhist Mythology.

JosephW

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

BhikkhuJayasara

for me the myths start when you start seeing babies walking and talking right out of the womb and lotus flowers growing at it's feet.also the flying in the sky and other things of this nature. There are different stories of the buddha depending on the culture and tradition and some are pretty down to earth while others are quite fantastical.

the whole "appearing" in front of people " as a strong man might bend an outstretched arm".. doesn't bother me so much.

these attributes are really related to the students more then the teacher.. just as students today just have to feel their teacher is enlightened or the best.. so did early disciples feel the need to flourish stories.

What does Ajahn Brahm Say? "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

I'm not necessarily totally discounting any kinds of psychic attainments and things of that nature.. but there is a limit.

some say the part about him living 29 years without knowing old age, sickness, and death has to be allegory.. and they may be right.. but I'm not so ready to discount the work of his father to try and hide those things.

how

I usually think that such story's are just teachings to learn. That it originates in fiction or fact seems irrelevant.

JosephW

I just bumped into an interview with the Dalai Lama, someone that I don't often pay any attention too, and he was talking about how Siddhartha's mother was impregnated from the white elephant in her dream bearing a lotus flower, and then him being born ejected through his mother's side instead of the normal way, as if he actually believed this... So it just got me thinking if I was the only person that didn't believe in such outlandish legend sounding beginnings...

vinlyn

I'm with you, Joe.

Invincible_summer

JosephW said:

I just bumped into an interview with the Dalai Lama, someone that I don't often pay any attention too, and he was talking about how Siddhartha's mother was impregnated from the white elephant in her dream bearing a lotus flower, and then him being born ejected through his mother's side instead of the normal way, as if he actually believed this... So it just got me thinking if I was the only person that didn't believe in such outlandish legend sounding beginnings...

To speak from a more modernist perspective, stories with such fantastic description are often used as a trope to distinguish the subject of the story as unique or special. I'm not sure if many "ethnic Buddhists" (i.e. Buddhists in Asia who grew up as Buddhists and may be more into the mythology and "worship") actually believe that the Buddha was born in such a way. But the point is that the Buddha was very distinctly different and special, even from the time of his birth.

DairyLama

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

In a way it doesn't matter. But I would advise against a judgemental skeptical approach when reading the suttas because there is so much dismissing and rejecting going on that one completely misses the point.

Cinorjer

I have a large poster hanging on my wall that is composed of rows of traditional paintings showing the life of Buddha, starting with his mother who lies sleeping while a white elephant looks in through an open window. Each picture has Chinese under it explaining the important thing being illustrated, but since I don't read Chinese I have no idea what most of them are depicting. There's plenty of pictures of the child destined to be Buddha doing stuff and some pictures are obviously Buddha lecturing the Gods. These legends do grow up around any religious figure, don't they?

I keep the poster to remind me that for most of the world, Buddhism is a religion of faith in divine forces greater than our own, not a philosophy or 8-step program to lead a better life. Buddhism has always contained a large element of devotion and worship. A mother's simple offering at an altar and heartfelt plea for the Medicine Buddha to help her sick child is as valid as my own approach.

Silouan

Even the notions of rebirth/reincarnation and resurrection have their basis in the mythologies of their respective regions and cultures, but we can choose to interpret them denotatively as either concrete facts or lies, or connotatively as spiritual truths. From the latter perspective neither would be more or less truthful than the other.

"Throughout the inhabited world, in all times and under every circumstance, the myths of man have flourished; and they have been the living inspiration of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth." - The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell

DairyLama

Cinorjer said:

These legends do grow up around any religious figure, don't they?

Though I think it's very difficult to ascertain where history ends and legend begins, particularly when we making these judgements with modern eyes.

taiyaki

The important thing is to realize that distinctions on real verse myth are complete projections, though that doesn't deny their practicality or function.

The conceptual mind and the belief in the conceptual mind always presupposes many things.

The real question is how do you relate to it if you view it as a myth. How do you relate to it if you view it as fact. What is most useful for you?

Ignorance is the belief that one story has more intrinsic value over another.

Thus for myself I believe its all a myth because to me its a story, regardless of if it did or didn't happen at some point. Its an idea and an idea always points to a referent. Symbols only have meaning in relationship to that which the symbol represents and most importantly it is our relationship to the symbols and referents that play an even more important role.

For myself the myth is relate-able if I can suspend judgement about fantastical labels verses realistic labels. Then I can see how it relates to my life concretely. What is the essence of the Buddhist fable. Because it is from there that we work and practice.

vinlyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

In a way it doesn't matter. But I would advise against a judgemental skeptical approach when reading the suttas because there is so much dismissing and rejecting going on that one completely misses the point.

Or perhaps you miss the point about a religion that allows you to think.

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

Ignorance is the belief that one story has more intrinsic value over another.

So all stories have the same intrinsic value or no intrinsic value? Maybe you mean to simply say that nothing appears to have a static value.

taiyaki

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Same or different are designations. There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Idk but this is as clear as i can write atm. Just got off work and its been a long day. If you want clarity please pm me!

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Not true at all. Take food or water for a basic example, it doesn't matter what you call it or what the "designation" is, it has value regardless. It will also have value regardless of the ideas around it, or whatever special meaning is assigned to it. The body values food and water.

taiyaki said:

There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

An awkward statement. I think what you're trying to say is simply that things are apparently impermanent, so nothing has a fixed nature, nothing is static.

taiyaki said:

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Emptiness essentially means impermanence.

taiyaki said:

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Not true at all. Take heat for a basic example, it doesn't matter what "conditions" we "impose," whether we affirm or negate heat, or whatever we "project" or "cling to" heat.

What do you think the difference is between a myth and something like heat?

vinlyn

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Same or different are designations. There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Idk but this is as clear as i can write atm. Just got off work and its been a long day. If you want clarity please pm me!

As I recall you're an art teacher.

Do they pay you? After all, there is no value in what you do (according to you).
Do yo accept and use the pay check? After all, there is no value in money (according to you).
Should we listen to what you say? After all, there is no value in your opinions (according to you).

Oh, and when your student says, "Why should we study art?", do you say, "We shouldn't. Art has no value"?

Tosh

vinlyn said:

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Same or different are designations. There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Idk but this is as clear as i can write atm. Just got off work and its been a long day. If you want clarity please pm me!

As I recall you're an art teacher.

Do they pay you? After all, there is no value in what you do (according to you).
Do yo accept and use the pay check? After all, there is no value in money (according to you).
Should we listen to what you say? After all, there is no value in your opinions (according to you).

Oh, and when your student says, "Why should we study art?", do you say, "We shouldn't. Art has no value"?

Vinlyn, there's the Two Truths doctrine, have you studied that? Basically there's the truth of the conventional - that money has value (for example) - and there's the truth of the ultimate, that money is empty of inherent existence (value). Both truths are entwined.

I think Taiyaki is speaking about the ultimate truth and you're confusing it with the conventional.

Heart of Wisdom Sutra refers.

vinlyn

Tosh said:

vinlyn said:

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Same or different are designations. There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Idk but this is as clear as i can write atm. Just got off work and its been a long day. If you want clarity please pm me!

As I recall you're an art teacher.

Do they pay you? After all, there is no value in what you do (according to you).
Do yo accept and use the pay check? After all, there is no value in money (according to you).
Should we listen to what you say? After all, there is no value in your opinions (according to you).

Oh, and when your student says, "Why should we study art?", do you say, "We shouldn't. Art has no value"?

Vinlyn, there's the Two Truths doctrine, have you studied that? Basically there's the truth of the conventional - that money has value (for example) - and there's the truth of the ultimate, that money is empty of inherent existence (value). Both truths are entwined.

I think Taiyaki is speaking about the ultimate truth and you're confusing it with the conventional.

Heart of Wisdom Sutra refers.

I know what he's saying. But he's being too abstract about it...something he loves to do. But I am pointing out that while he may like to think abstractly, in many ways he probably leads a very conventional life.

And by the way, this sentence doesn't really work: "Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas." It's defining a word using the word.

taiyaki

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Not true at all. Take food or water for a basic example, it doesn't matter what you call it or what the "designation" is, it has value regardless. It will also have value regardless of the ideas around it, or whatever special meaning is assigned to it. The body values food and water.

Yes that is true but under the designation that the body desires to survive. What about people who intentionally fast, or do not eat because of severe depression. For those individuals the meaning, intention and ideas have shifted. For those people water and food though it is common sense knowledge that our bodies desire it are not desirable.

So basically there is no inherently existent desire or quality that exists independent apart from the individual and the individuals designation. And to assert a prior to designation would be impossible to speak about because the very act of communication is dualistic and preloaded with many assumptions. But I understand what you're pointing to and I agree but there is always exceptions to the common sense point of view.

taiyaki said:

There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

An awkward statement. I think what you're trying to say is simply that things are apparently impermanent, so nothing has a fixed nature, nothing is static.

Sorry my head isn't work as well today! Yes things are impermanent, but that doesn't mean there is an actual process happening. There is impermanence with no arising. And that sounds paradoxical but in direct observation of phenomenal this is the case.

The best image I can describe life as is a wheel on another wheel. Though it is spinning, it doesn't move. Sorry that is the best description I can get. Impermanence with no "things" actually being impermanent but we can conventionally assert that things are impermanent.

taiyaki said:

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Emptiness essentially means impermanence.

In its superficial form yes. But it goes much deeper than impermanence. Emptiness is essentially dependent origination. This arising depends on that arising. This ceases and that ceases.

taiyaki said:

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Not true at all. Take heat for a basic example, it doesn't matter what "conditions" we "impose," whether we affirm or negate heat, or whatever we "project" or "cling to" heat.

What do you think the difference is between a myth and something like heat?

Well let me give you a concrete example of heat. Heat is heat. Just a sensation that we designate as "heat". If we can experience just heat as sensation apart from the designation then that is suchness. In that experience there really is no true difference between heat and cold. That is why sometimes my art students will touch really hot water and then touch really cold water and not tell the difference until the perception and the view register together. Its an interesting thing.

Another way to experience something like this is to rub your index finger and your thumb. And then shift the attention on the thumb then the index finger. Which one is actually doing the touching? It is just sensation but then we can shift the attention and in a way that is how we construct this whole reality. And thats a case for dependent arising.

Not sure if that clarifies my point but I am trying to make something very abstract in everyday language.

The myth is our ignorance. We give solidity and inherent existence to "assumed things". This is a conceptual process that governs our perception. And we are so conditioned that our perceptions reflect our conditioned views on reality.

Now this is getting esoteric for most people but the element of fire can be overcome because it is a dependent arising. So for instance in Dzogchen the elements are integrated back into their purity which is the five lights. Thus one isn't effected by fire anymore. Another example of this is Tibetian Mahasiddhas who practice tummo and can overcome the element of cold. So it may sound esoteric but with practice one can integrate fire into its essential condition and thus not be governed by it.

Now that isn't going to be the case for everyone as that is a very high practice. But we can realize something very concrete about fire. It is a sensation that is dependent upon conditions such as a body, mind, fuel, air, etc. And because all of these conditions are met there is what we call fire. But if the conditions are not met then there is no fire. This is dependent arising and emptiness.

The myth is the belief that there is an intrinsic, independently existence fire outside in time and space. Take note of what words I use.

Anyways hope this brings more clarity.

taiyaki

vinlyn said:

taiyaki said:

Value is dependent upon the designation and the power one gives to value, meaning, ideas.

Same or different are designations. There is no intrinsic reality apart from the designations.

So for instance when we examine a red paper we call it red. Apart from the designation of red there is no inherent, independent quality as red. So the convention of red is the final truth and that is said to be emptiness.

Thus there is freedom from negation and affirmation thus complete freedom to express affirmation and negation. Because all views are valid unless we impose conditions and even then they're just words. But it all comes down to the value we project and we cling to, to give greater reality than what is actually there.

Idk but this is as clear as i can write atm. Just got off work and its been a long day. If you want clarity please pm me!

As I recall you're an art teacher.

Do they pay you? After all, there is no value in what you do (according to you).
Do yo accept and use the pay check? After all, there is no value in money (according to you).
Should we listen to what you say? After all, there is no value in your opinions (according to you).

Oh, and when your student says, "Why should we study art?", do you say, "We shouldn't. Art has no value"?

Well value comes from many vantage points. Teachers value what they do. Parents value what teachers do. Administrators value what teachers do. And Politicians value what teachers do. Now we can say that some of these individuals are indifferent towards value. And some even place no value.

So value is completely relative.

An opinion is only valuable on the basis of the audience and other assumed conditions.

For instance if I value logic then a logical and rational opinion will have more value to me than say an irrational opinion. Of course that designation of rational and irrational is also dependent upon the designation as well.

Art has no intrinsic value. If it did then everyone would have the same opinion on art. Art for the most part has been reactions against other vision of what truth is. There is no one truth of art as there are multitudes. And if we do see one truth then that too is a designation. We can see multitudes and oneness because those are projections of the mind and not intrinsic to "things".

Well you will listen to what you deem as valuable. If this isn't valuable then its not worth listening to. So your choice.

We study art to find value in our lives. If one is to take life seriously and joyfully we study art. And I always make note that, that statement or rather any statement is my opinion and that each student is to find their own value of what art means in their life. Empowerment over hand feeding.

Hope this clarifies.

Jason

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

Like Jayantha, I'm skeptical about a lot, although I'm open to certain things, as well (e.g., psychic attainments). One example of something I'm skeptical about is the Buddha's supposed omniscience, something I've previously written about in more detail.

As for my general approach to ancient Indian literature, I try to put things into context and go deeper into the stories and myths in an effort to understand the symbolism behind them. In The Celestial Key to the Vedas, for example, B. G. Sidharth notes that the Mahabharata "refers to an old lady who spins a fabric with 360 black threads and 360 white threads while a white horse stands by. The old lady is of course time. The black and white threads are night and day, and the white horse is the Sun. Incidentally, the origin of this symbolism is in the Vedic hymns of the Rig Veda. (1.64)" (53).

Obviously, there are myths and superstitions involved in allegories such as this, but I imagine that this would make complete sense to an ancient Indian, whereas today we might not make the connections right away. The point I'm trying to make is that one can't simply assume every word is meant to be taken literally in Indian literature, or any other for that matter, which so heavily utilizes allegory and symbolism. It's easy to judge ancient cultures by our modern scientific standards, but I think that this is a mistake if and when we don't understand the subtleties of a particular culture because, a cliche as it sounds, a lot can get lost in translation.

Consequently, I think there are many places in the Pali Canon where one can adopt a metaphorical interpretation of things that seem 'superstitious' in nature. Of course, one can certainly have the view that ancient beliefs and myths are nothing but superstition, but it's just as probable that people simply didn't know how to express certain ideas or experiences in any other way.

Even so, I'm not saying people in ancient India didn't believe in 'supernatural' concepts, or that I don't for that matter (I think a tentative belief in the possibility of psychic attainments and rebirth qualifies here), but I do think that not everything is meant to be taken literally.

vinlyn

Jason said:

...

Like Jayantha, I'm skeptical about a lot, although I'm open to certain things, as well (e.g., psychic attainments). One example of something I'm skeptical about is the Buddha's supposed omniscience, something I've previously written about in more detail.

...

That's a very well-written blog, and very much in tune with my thoughts on Buddha's omniscience. And it relates to my belief that Buddhism does not answer all of man's questions, but rather is concerned primarily with suffering and its alleviation. That is not to say that various teachings of Buddha's do not relate to other topics.

jll

everything is myth n legend.
except those things in your mind that you
choose to believe to be facts.
did neil armstrong walk on the moon?
many people believe that is a myth.

Jason

Off-topic posts moved here. Further off-topic posts will be deleted without warning as I'm unable to move them to the new thread.

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

And basically these teachings assert one thing which is that everything is coming from us and not at us.

If everything is coming from us doesn't that mean we are independent from what is not us?

Nirvana

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

Well, I'm not sure, but I do love the legends.

Without going too much into the origin of English words like fame and legend, I think the spirit in which one uses the word Myth is telltale. One may mainly mean "Idealized" as in "the sum of human achievement," or one could mean many other less complimentary things. "Exaggerated or idealized," "fictitious or imaginary," or even "misrepresentative of the truth."

Fame, originally from a Greek word, meant "what is said," and legend (from the latin Lego, legere) "what is read [sc. 'written']." Indeed,Lego, Legere's primary meaning is "to gather."

For me, although I admittedly take THE LEGEND with a grain of salt, it inspireth me and Leadeth me.

And, as I wrote elsewhere on newbuddhist recently on the thread on Siddhartha leaving wife and young child, some of the Legend may have been artfully manufactured to make the story richer.

Question: In what way is looking through an electronic telescope to study how the stars evolved really that much more enlightening to the human spirit, than gazing back into the past cultural galleries of story?

JosephW

PedanticPorpoise said:

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

In a way it doesn't matter. But I would advise against a judgemental skeptical approach when reading the suttas because there is so much dismissing and rejecting going on that one completely misses the point.

It doesn't matter? First of all let me say that I don't believe in such ridiculous things, and I was pointing out how the interview with the Dalai Lama was him explaining to the Western world how special the Buddha was, when the average Westerner hears such a thing he will dismiss it 9 times out of 10 thinking it's one of those crazy religions or cults... The first and last part of your statement really is a flash from the past for me, for it was the only answer I ever got in my childhood growing up as a Catholic trying to ask questions, this doesn't matter, that doesn't matter, you have to look past this and that, however the Abrahamic religions are a whole different beast... I like being able to think.

Me not believing in these things doesn't effect my reading of Buddhist scripture, I am always skeptical of what is presented to me and Buddhism is the only Philosophy that allows me to be that way... I haven't had a problem yet.

Dakini

It turns out he wasn't a prince. He was the son of a regional official, a subject of the regional king, according to some historical info I found.

Cinorjer

So was he a Prince or just a member of the entitled ruling class and maybe only a cousin to the real King? Just what drove him to join the ascetics, an extreme and controversial spiritual practice then and now? How much of the story is accurate and how much got embellished or tacked on over the years? For that matter, how seriously do we take the stories about miraculous events and divine happenings and celestial beings?

To those of us who care only about the Buddha's teachings and the rich Dharma that evolved from it, these details don't really matter (and yes, the Dharma has evolved over time as other minds added their own understanding). However Gautama ended up surrounded by disciples and preaching the Dharma, it happened. It obviously mattered to some people, at least at the time, or the stories wouldn't have been preserved and recorded.

So is there anyone out there now who finds it important that the Buddha's mother was visited by a white elephant?

JosephW

I have no earthly idea why some people are acting like this is a religion based upon the word of a God and it's like your bumping into a controversial topic or incorrect "fact" and think to yourself, "well if this wrong other things have to be wrong, this is the word of God"... That isn't why I proposed this topic, it does not effect understanding of scripture.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

JosephW said:

What parts of the story of Siddhartha Gautama do you consider to be myth and legend?

In a way it doesn't matter. But I would advise against a judgemental skeptical approach when reading the suttas because there is so much dismissing and rejecting going on that one completely misses the point.

Or perhaps you miss the point about a religion that allows you to think.

Not atall. I'm saying that skeptics are too busy making judgements to see the big picture.

Nirvana

I've read and reread this thread, trying to make sense of what sense it could possibly arrive at. The best i can do is ground myself in what taiyaki says. His first post, I think, sums it up: "For myself, I believe it's all a myth because to me it's a[n] [ancient] story ["myth"], regardless of whether it did or didn't happen at some point. It's an idea and an idea always points to a referrent." Needless to say, that point becomes a little clouded when he goes on to say that it's ignorant to believe that one story has more intrinsic value (whatever that means) than another.

But, coming from the Christian tradition, my strongest question would be: What harm might the myths do us?

I daresay that the religions of the East are based on a faith in human independence and enlightenment, rather than on the bondage mentality of the West. Therefore, I could argue and would argue that Western myths might not be so good for either one's mental health or spiritual growth.

We all know about the Muslim submission to the will of Allah. But not everyone knows about the New Testament's Greek. The Christian is advised to be a "doulos" to the Lord. The bourgeous among us would translate that word "servant," but actually the meaning is "slave." Any study of the reformed dogmatics and their catechisms would see a lot of ideas of human "bondage" to certain ideas inscribed therein.

I am unaware of this element as being central in the East. I don't mean to take this thread off-topic, please, but I just thought of this as a consideration. Maybe I disagree with @taiyaki on the point of no myth having more value than another...

Also, I do believe that Western faiths are shrouded in a hood-winking mentality. Santa-Claus-like, the Western mind makes a hoax and perpetuates it. Those who could not follow their consciences just a few hundred years ago were burnt at the stake as heretics. (What sin could possibly be greater than that?) Even today, Mormons and those living in staunch communities must guard their words....

So, I submit that a traditionalist Buddhist is not duplicitous, whereas most Christians of today are hoaxters of a sort.

taiyaki

Well not to sound like a non dual zombie.

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Myths do have values under certain conditions. Key words conditions.

But I do think value is highly dependent upon individuals and collective influence.

If the myth of a super duper bodhisattva makes you want to be more compassionate and this influences you to act better in this world.

I think that's a wonderful thing. Because its void it functions and in fact thankfully it functions.

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

taiyaki

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

Hehe I always liked the interpretation of the heart sutra as this:

if you say form, then I say emptiness.

if you say emptiness, then I say form.

No ground. And even that is no ground. and even that is no ground, etc.

Or we can all just do they. I BELIEVE that there are bodhisattvas.

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

Hehe I always liked the interpretation of the heart sutra as this:

if you say form, then I say emptiness.

if you say emptiness, then I say form.

No ground. And even that is no ground. and even that is no ground, etc.

Or we can all just do they. I BELIEVE that there are bodhisattvas.

On the contrary, the very solid ground that you stand on is called Buddhism, with all it's Truths, sutras, doctrine, myths, etc etc.

Nevermind

.

Jeffrey

Groundlessness has 'centered' as a quality. Sometimes we develop that part.

taiyaki

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

Hehe I always liked the interpretation of the heart sutra as this:

if you say form, then I say emptiness.

if you say emptiness, then I say form.

No ground. And even that is no ground. and even that is no ground, etc.

Or we can all just do they. I BELIEVE that there are bodhisattvas.

On the contrary, the very solid ground that you stand on is called Buddhism, with all it's Truths, sutras, doctrine, myths, etc etc.

Solid to you.

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

Hehe I always liked the interpretation of the heart sutra as this:

if you say form, then I say emptiness.

if you say emptiness, then I say form.

No ground. And even that is no ground. and even that is no ground, etc.

Or we can all just do they. I BELIEVE that there are bodhisattvas.

On the contrary, the very solid ground that you stand on is called Buddhism, with all it's Truths, sutras, doctrine, myths, etc etc.

Solid to you.

Funny, you just wrote "I BELIEVE" That's as solid as it gets. :clap:

taiyaki

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Nevermind said:

taiyaki said:

Since there is no value, value can function and hierarchy is possible.

Ah, but you're forgetting that there's no functioning or hierarchy. :buck:

Hehe I always liked the interpretation of the heart sutra as this:

if you say form, then I say emptiness.

if you say emptiness, then I say form.

No ground. And even that is no ground. and even that is no ground, etc.

Or we can all just do they. I BELIEVE that there are bodhisattvas.

On the contrary, the very solid ground that you stand on is called Buddhism, with all it's Truths, sutras, doctrine, myths, etc etc.

Solid to you.

Funny, you just wrote "I BELIEVE" That's as solid as it gets. :clap:

Thank the lord Jesus Christ. I am not a believer of the Beaver though.

Jeffrey

believing just means you find a quality of clarity in some situation. You see something and say 'ah that's it'.

The peril is that you get rigidity in your concepts relating to whatever it is you are talking about. So that really deadens the ah ha.

So belief as a clarity that rises and falls is not solid. You jump out into the chasm by having faith that even as your belief ceases to fit the situation, you can let go of that and have nothing as you fall in the chasm. Faith in the nature of mind fosters the courage to see things as they are. So from that standpoint belief is unavoidable yet perilous to take as solid. But the other extreme is to say we should have no beliefs. Raft and so on...

Nevermind

taiyaki said:

I am not a believer of the Beaver though.

Yes I got that.

andyrobyn

What is abstraction and metaphysical is still expression of " THAT ' or "IT ", no more or less than more intellectual expressions, as I see it. Usefulness and harm comes in when we consider how we can actually practically apply, or see how we fail in our attempts to convert what understandings we gain in our own lives.

Beej

@taiyaki- thank you.

lobster

What harm might the myths do us?

Considerable.

My Cod is bigger than your cod.
My sutra is more authentic than your thread.
My interpretation is greater than your initiation.
My Bhumi is higher than your crazy wisdom.
My lama is higher than your lame excuse.
Thus we have herd . . .

Nirvana

@lobster, I'm afraid that you have taken my statement entirely out of its context. I was comparing East to West.

To be more specific, does the myth or sacred story get in the way of authentic spiritual seeking or of seeking the truth?

What about the Scopes trial? What about Intelligent Design and Creationism? Etc.

What about dogmas that themselves become part and fabric of the mythology, that make questioning a sin?

On the other hand, if the myth is expansive and gives birth to awe and magnanimous regard of a spiritual teacher, without incurring small-mindedness towards others, I call that a very good thing indeed.

vinlyn

^^ Nirvana...now you've got me confused. What has the Scopes trail or intelligent design got to do with it (both topics that interest me, BTW)?

Nirvana

@vinlyn, assuming that you're referring to myth or mythology when you say "it," I'd say almost everything. A Biblical fundamentalist not only takes the Judaeo-Christian mythology literally, but adds a super-layer of dogma over it that also becomes part and parcel of the myth.

What I am trying to say is that when a mythology crushes the authentic seeking of the truth by its rigidness, it is an evil thing to which the knee of the mind must bow down in unthinking submission; on the other hand, if the myth is a glorious, sacred story that pulls people towards the light of reason and truth, it is indeed a very good and profitable thing.

What has the Scopes trial and Creationism (along with burning people at the stake for heresy and countless other things) got to do with rigid absurd mythologies? Inflexible and ruthless interpretation of stories or doctrines is where I'd look first.

I really do believe that the gospel of The Lord Buddha is not diminished in any way by any of its miraculous stories. Having grown up in the AngloCatholic tradition, I was always taught that those stories were "our story," and that has never been a problem for me. Everybody wants someone to admire, be it a movie star, hockey player, or whatever. What is all so wrong about wanting to believe the most or the best about a saint?

vinlyn

Okay, I can see that. Not sure I'd describe it as "evil". And I hope you're not implying that only Judaeo-Christian religions are dogmatic.

Nirvana

I am implying nothing. I am asserting that WESTERN religions are overly dogmatic. Anyone is capable of being dogmatic. So although, admittedly, some in the Eastern tradition have been or may be rigidly dogmatic, they are not typically dogmatic in ways that keep people from seeking the truth. That simply cannot truly be said of the West.