Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism is NOT a religion...
Nowsaday, a lot of people have a misconception toward buddhism, sadly this misunderstanding have endured for several centuries, that is buddhism is a religion. But, ACTUALLY, buddhism is NOT A RELIGION, not a philosophy, but a kind of education or teaching that needed by everyone. Buddhism is defined as an education to obtain the ultimate wisdom which can discover the truth of universe and humanity, simplify saying is buddhism let us know ourselves and the environment, let our mind return to buddha (enlightenment), dharma (truth) and sangha (cleanliness). This is a basic of buddhism....
Since buddhism is NOT a religion, it is generally non-theistic. In buddhism, everything in this world is formed from interconnected causes and effects, not a creation by a divine agent. God may exist in buddhism, but they are totally different from other religion. God or heavenly being (Devas) are a kind of 'organism' who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. They are same as us, cannot escaped from birth and death.
Buddhism is NOT a religion, like Confucianism, is an education. Why I say so? because buddha is not our father, but our teacher. Everyone is buddha of future no matter you are christian, muslim, or communist. As a buddhist, we have to correct this misconception of other people....
Since buddhism is NOT a religion, it is generally non-theistic. In buddhism, everything in this world is formed from interconnected causes and effects, not a creation by a divine agent. God may exist in buddhism, but they are totally different from other religion. God or heavenly being (Devas) are a kind of 'organism' who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. They are same as us, cannot escaped from birth and death.
Buddhism is NOT a religion, like Confucianism, is an education. Why I say so? because buddha is not our father, but our teacher. Everyone is buddha of future no matter you are christian, muslim, or communist. As a buddhist, we have to correct this misconception of other people....
0
Comments
I believe this to be one of the great strengths of the way in which the Buddha Shakyamuni turned the Wheel of Dharma. Because these turnings are theologically neutral, they are infinitely adaptable.
I sometimes think of Buddhism in the image of one of our sacred plants here, in Britain: the mistletoe. Here is a plant which has its own existence and value. It grows on a number of different species of tree but could not grow on its own. It is called parasitic but the word has derogatory overtones. In fact, it is a plant which demonstrates the reality of interdependent arising!
Thus I believe that Buddhism needs an underlying mythos in order to take root within a culture. I hope, in times to come, to go on recognising our own, Western myths (and I write as a Westerner) from the way in which Dharma teaching continues to adapt to Western need.
The Oxford on-line dictionary describes religion as follows....
Religion
• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
— ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’
I find definitions 2 & 3 to be most appropraite and precise.
Furthermore, a whole post has been devoted to this "is it, isn't it?" subject, which I found quite illuminating. You can find it here:
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=957#post957
I am pleased to call it my Religion. but that is, after all, just my own humble Point of View, and as such, probably only pertinent and important to me.
Welcome Nucifera, and thank you for your thought-provoking post.
Questions and statements such as these constantly keep me on my toes and encourage me to examine the Truths I come across, and take to my heart. Or not, as the case may be.
As Federica says
Actually these are all language misinterpretation that already existed for centuries. For buddhism, when buddhism reached China (if i not mistaken, is Han Dynasty), the place for learning buddhism is called "寺" (si), or also called as imperial education department (or also can defined as school) that time, not "庙" (miao), or also called temple (normally for Taoism) But now already People's Republic era, this ancient name 寺 still be used as buddhism learning centre. That's why, people now have a misunderstanding toward buddhism, as in modern mandarin, 庙=寺, 庙 is the place which for praying gods and ghosts, have a bit of superstitious elements inside, in this case, it is become a big obstacle to buddhism to disseminate... So, 1 thing I have to clarify, 'temple' this term actually is not for buddhism.
Haha... actually no matter buddhism is a religion or not, is not a problem for buddhist. But for non-buddhist, maybe they will think buddhism is a religion then reject it, so as a buddhist I have to make it clear. Whoever you are from any religion, you also can be a buddhist, this mentioned in Earth Store Sutra: A Bhrama believer become a buddha after pratice buddhism.
So buddhism is suitable for any race, country, and religion.....
Oooh you are awful! But I like you!
And the opposite to sitting and behaving like a total non idiot is....
No offense intended, but I am curious about why you believe this. Certainly there appear to be some contradictions when one delves deeply into both, but don't members of many single religions and philosophies accept apparent contradictions as just part of faith or beliefs yet to be reconciled?
The Buddhist Attitude To God
The problem, it seems to me, is that both the pro- and anti-God squads start by defining 'God' in their own, singular way and then argue from there.
Those of us who try for a non-certain approach notice that the definitions rarely cover the full range of possible understandings of whtever this God thing/event may be which is why the debate goes on.
The notion of an all-powerful, interventionist 'Creator God' in the post-Mosaic tradition is not the only way to approach theocentric scriptures. More and more writers such as Cupitt, with is "Sea of Faith" theology or, even, de Chardin with his "Noosphere" allude to, point at a far different interpretation. In the end, I believe, it comes down to a matter of hermeneutics. My apologies if the word is a bit pedantic but my thesaurus hasn't got a better alternative.
I have nailed my colours to the mast before this but I want to do it again. I shall post it separately.
What follows is a personal, if evolving, statement of opinion. It is necessarily biased by cultural, genetic, experiential, historical, karmic and other factors.
I have said that the question of God and its resolution is a matter of hermeneutics and I want to explain what I mean. Blake says:
Both read the Bible day and night
But thou read'st black where I read white.
(The Everlasting Gospel)
Comparison between a scientific textbook and a work of spirituality quickly reveals that they have very significant differences. My experience is that, when I used a manual to show me how to change a head gasket or how to build a kiln, I could, with some practice, accomplish the task. I have never been able to read a maths textbook like a novel, yet I have done both with enjoyment and fruit. Yet when I put into literal practice the 'instructions' in, say, the Christian gospels, they do not achieve the advertised outcome, e.g. Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9: Ask and it shall be given to you. They are, clearly, not operating instructions but speculations and pious hopes.
For the whole of my reading life, I have read widely rather than 'wisely'. Even at university, I followed my preferences far more than the prescribed matter. Alongside the 'serious' or 'classic' or 'good' books, I have always loved novels. In hardback, paperback and maazine, I have devoured science fiction, fantasy, historical, detective, police and all sorts of fiction. After reading Joan Grant's The Egyptian, I read Leonard Wooley and began a lifelong pursuit of history and archaeology. Reading The Third Eye led me to Buddhism even more than Christmas Humphreys.
From childhood, I have known The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, the Sufi mystical poet. In the FitzGerald translation that I learned, he says:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.
I have studied at one of the finest universities and have attended, at that time amd later, courses, workshops and lectures, sermons, retreats and seminars led by some of the finest teachers that I could reach. Over and over again, I have heard that this or that opinion describes "The Truth". I have even tried to convince myself that they were right. Unfortunately, many such assertions do not pass what I call the 'victory or defeat?' test.
Victory or Defeat? As an English boy at a French school, was I to consider Waterloo a victory or a defeat? Was Joan of Arc a witch or a saint? Fortunately, Blaise Pascal gave me an answer early in my life:
Vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà.
Although he applies this to the impossibility of establishing universally just laws, it spoke to me of the idifficulty of determining a single Truth. Indeed, in the very first words of his Pensées, he makes a distinction between the mathematical and the intuitive mind. By use of this distinction, I understood that each proclaimed 'truth' could be tested against the mathematical model. In the same context as Pascal's boutade, Pythagoras' theorem is true whether north or south of the Pyrenees, whereas Waterloo is a victory or a defeat depending on which side of the Channel you live.
As a result of this, I have come to realise that the subjectivity that I bring to my reading of scriptures is an unavoidable consequence of the material studied because it partakes of the intuitive rather than the mathematical.
Before I had unpicked this process, it used to worry me that I would study hard and 'do well' in terms of the discipline involved, whether Catholicism, Transactional Analysis, Anglicanism, psychoanalysis, history, literature, e tutti quanti, but that there would always come a point where I was asked to bend the knee and accept something on faith. Some teachers have suggested that my psyche lacks some component, a capacity for faith. From my own point of view, what I have is an intuition that if there is A Truth, it is far more complex that any of the given answers. All of those answers 'work' to some extent or other. None works in all situations, unless it be the statement that all things pass away.
It is often forgotten that training in mathematics was considered a pre-requsite before undertaking any study of philosophy. Despite that, even the Greeks who had instituted this system reached varied descriptions of the Truth. Our humanist forebears in the Renaissance taught that we should study Greek and Hebrew before reading the Bible - and I read similar calls about reading the sutras. Yet the same texts admit of multiple interpretations.
Thus I came to the opinion that all the intuitive expressions which we call religions, histories and philosophies have bits of the truth but that none can lay claim to all of it. This resides as much in the limitations of the means of communication as in the message. I suspect that the great visionaries like Gautama, Jesus, Mahomet, Zoroaster and many, many others throughout human history caught glimpses of something enormously important to us as human beings and had only the blunt instrument of language to transmit and share their new understanding. Language, however precise, is still a symbolic system, a map and not the territory.
I understand, at the same time, the need that we experience for certainty. It is as ancient a need as our fear of the dark. It appears to me to be as illusory as belief in permanence and as limiting, resulting in a dogmatic mindset by which we deny ourselves possible routes through the mystery. Non-certainty in the spiritual is as useful to me as uncertainty to physics.
My personal advice on the matter:
It's a complete waste of time debating whether there is or isn't.
Neither intellectually proving nor disproving "God" leads to the end of suffering. True followers of the Middle Way will quickly realize that the Buddha did not entertain such debates because they were not conducive to Liberation. When people truly understand this fact, they will quickly put down such time-consuming wastes of time and get down to the real work at hand. The Buddha taught unceasingly for 45 years the exact way in which we can become Liberated. The entire Pali Canon, for example, is a "How to" manual just for this purpose. Whether we intellectually prove or disprove "God", what we really have is only a "view". Views are something that a Noble Disciple has abandoned, utterly. What we should do instead is cultivate our meditation and discernment. It is only this, and this alone, that leads one to insight. Insight is the only thing that leads one to Liberation. It's just that simple.
This is all we as "Buddhists" should really be concerning ourselves with.
That is my understanding of this topic.
Jason
You make a great point - but...
Part of enlightenment, as we have read in many of the teachings of Buddha, is learning, discussing and discoursing.
Your point is very valid AND very much in the teachings of Buddha. Buddha did leave some questions unanswered based upon the selfish or malicious results the asker had in mind when asking.
But, one can only meditate so long. There are other things that will occupy the mind when we are on this journey of awakening. And some of these questions, asked in honest and sincerety, may help some reach their awakening much quicker than if they puzzled over these issues on their own.
For some of us - this sangha is our only teacher - and you're one of the best and most helpful out here.
-bf
Genryu,
Let me take your points in turn:
1. The question of whether there is a Supreme Being is one which is included among the unskillful questions is it not? I have come across sutras where the Tathagata refuses to comment rather than take your dogmatic position. For myself, I cannot find enough convincing evidence either way nor a useful experimental method to ascertain the truth and, thus, reserve my opinion pending further input. This attitude appears unacceptable to some, Buddhist, Christian and, even, atheists.
2. The question of "divine essence" is somewhat different from a Supreme Being and I tend to use Longchenpa's expression, "Univrsal Creativity". Alternatively, when pressed. I quote Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche:
Profound and tranquil, free from complexity,
Uncompunded luminous clarity,
Beyond the mind of conceptual ideas;
This is the depth of the mind of the Victorious Ones.
In this there is not a thing to be removed,
Nor anything that needs to be added.
It is merely the immaculate
Looking naturally at itself.
(quoted by Sogyal Rinpoche in The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying)
3. The fact that something was taught by this great person or that is grist to the mill of the informed awareness but does not, in and of itself, convince me that it is ipso facto the truth. Perhaps this is the fault of an Enlightenment education and perhaps it arises from a study of history. After all, time and again, beliefs that have been held for millennia have had to be ditched as they have been shown to be incorrect.
4. I can understand the position that says, as you do, that it is not possible to be Buddhist and Christian, or Buddhist and Jew, or anything other than purely one or the other, and, within your own hermeneutic, that may be the case. I am sorry that you do not see that it does not coincide with mine.
5. Thank you for reminding us that Lobsang Rampa is a pseudonym. I know Spong's book and enjoyed it. In correspondence with him, I suggested that, perhaps, his title could have been Why Christianity Must Die In Order To Change. He appeared amused!
As I mentioned earlier, I learned Omar Khayyam as a small child and it may be that he and Rumi have had more influence on my views than any dogma learned since.
Simon, I feel very much the same as you do...
In fact, I have gone so far as to try to convince myself - in keeping with ZenMonk's credo- that indeed, God does NOT exist - but I confess; the issue refuses to lie down, and I admit my friends, I am still stumped.
So I lay it aside.... I try not to ponder, because like Pooh, "I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me!"....
And if at times my ideas DO seem to contradict themselves, I don't contradict myself... I respond quite simply, with Metta, and wish nothing but well to the questioner, be they agnostic, atheist, Jew, Moslem, Christian or Buddhist....
ZenMonk, I deeply respect your advanced and intricate knowledge of Buddhism,a nd realise I am far behind you in many matters. I'll just have to keep on keeping on, I guess!
But The more I find out, the less I know....
You said, "But, one can only meditate so long. There are other things that will occupy the mind when we are on this journey of awakening."
Yes, there definitely will be, but it up to us to make those things as skillful as possible. On the Buddha's Path this is called discernment, however, the Buddha teaches us what is skillful to discern and what isn't. Why? Because we simply don't know any better. We are lost within our own ignorance. It's not something we may like to hear, but it is something that we need to hear. Pride should never come before Wisdom.
We are creatures of habit. We grasp, we seek, we desire to fulfill our needs, our wants, and our cravings. We get sucked into these things thinking that there is great pleasure and happiness to be found within them, but such pleasures are all too fleeting and seductively drag us off into heedlessly seeking the next. We may deny this by positing some grand plan for our existence, filling our time with sensual pleasures, fantasizing about what could've been, fantasizing about what could be, and trying not to worry about what is, but is that what is truly skillful?
The Buddha was of the mind to say no. It is only my opinion, but I do not believe that it is either. For example, discerning things such as the length of the life-span of the universe is unskillful, while discerning things such as the nature of the body and mind is skillful. The reason: life is short. Using our time debating, theorizing, analyzing, and fantasizing about the length of the life-span of the universe (or debating about whether or not there is a "God", whether blue is really "blue", if 6'1" is really "tall", etc.) can be a lot of fun, but it is certainly not a 'skillful' use of our time. It will never lead one to Liberation (if it did the Buddha would have included it in his teachings), and none of us will ever live long enough to even find out. What it does do, though, is it takes away from the very short time that we have in which to free ourselves from Samsara.
You might want to go to the park, but you first must have the desire, then the means, and finally you must actually get up and go there. No matter how much you may "think" about going to the park, it will never get you any closer to the real thing. Nibbana is our park, meditation our means, and unless we get up and start walking we will never get there. We will simply sit in our comfortable mental La-Z-Boys and slowly die while fantasizing about it.
The real truth is that most people will allow their worldly desires to simply carry them away, both physically and mentally. They may think that they are in "control", but that is a very deluded state of mind. Nothing in this world is under their "control", in fact, not even themselves. If they were really in "control" then they would never have to die unless they 'wanted' to. We must all follow the laws of nature, not the ones that we ourselves create.
I can quote a hundred Suttas detailing the exact nature of existence, the exact Path to Enlightenment, and the exact reasons why we all should follow it, but I cannot make people actually do it. If they insist in debating about "God", the universe, their 'love' of orgasms, killing, not killing, Republicans, Democrats, etc., then their time will simply pass them by.
All I can do is hope that people will see each moment is precious, and that there is a lot of work to be done.
The only time we have to do it is right now:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks replied.
The Blessed One said:
You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart.
Ardently doing
what should be done today,
for — who knows? — tomorrow
death.
There is no bargaining
with Mortality & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,
relentlessly
both day & night,
has truly had an auspicious day:
so says the Peaceful Sage.
"And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.
"And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called not chasing after the past.
"And how does one place expectations on the future? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called placing expectations on the future.
"And how does one not place expectations on the future? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called not placing expectations on the future.
"And how is one taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who has not seen the noble ones, is not versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is not trained in the teachings of the noble ones, sees form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
"He/she sees feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
"He/she sees perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.
"He/she sees thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.
"He/she sees consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called being taken in with regard to present qualities.
"And how is one not taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones who has seen the noble ones, is versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is well-trained in the teachings of the noble ones, does not see form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
"He/she does not see feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
"He/she does not see perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.
"He/she does not see thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.
"He/she does not see consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called not being taken in with regard to present qualities.
You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart.
Ardently doing
what should be done today,
for — who knows? — tomorrow
death.
There is no bargaining
with Mortality & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,
relentlessly
both day & night,
has truly had an auspicious day:
so says the Peaceful Sage.
"'Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words.
- Bhaddekaratta Sutta: MN 131
Tick, tick, tick...
Jason
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha185.htm
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/budtch/budteach23.htm#_edn2
http://www.kamalashila.co.uk/talks/from%20Views%20to%20the%20Dharma%20(Convention%201991).htm
http://www.dharmafacilitators.org/word/net_of_views.htm
http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
http://www.geocities.com/b12steps/
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/budtch/budteach23.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha268.htm
http://vajra.us/gus_oil_and_water.html
gassho
-fd-
“Our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology.”
(Walpola Rahula - What the Buddha Taught)
You said:
"The question of whether there is a Supreme Being is one which is included among the unskillful questions is it not? I have come across sutras where the Tathagata refuses to comment rather than take your dogmatic position. For myself, I cannot find enough convincing evidence either way nor a useful experimental method to ascertain the truth and, thus, reserve my opinion pending further input. This attitude appears unacceptable to some, Buddhist, Christian and, even, atheists."
You are basically right, the Buddha did choose to refrain from speculating about such things as the beginning of the universe, the ending of the universe, if the universe was finite, or if the universe was infinite, etc. He was only concerned with one thing, the complete and utter cessation of dukkha.
The Buddha did not speak about a creator God often. When he did reference such a Deity, he never said they didn't exist, but that our beliefs about such things were incorrect in many ways.
For example, in the Tittha Sutta the Buddha explains that people who believe that everything a person experiences is due to a creator God is not a correct view because they remain stuck in inaction. This does not say that there is no such God, or that belief in such a God is wrong, but that belief in everything being completely conditioned by such a God is not a correct view because that view leads a person to inaction. (Notice that the Buddha has an issue with the 'view' and nothing else.) This point has nothing to do with arguing about whether or not God exists, but instead it has to do with teaching Right View, and the Path leading to the end of all views. There is certainly a very big difference between the two, and the motivation behind them is the key.
There is another Sutta, the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta where a monk visits the Great Brahma (a supreme deity in ancient and modern-day India) and asks the Great Brahma a question for which He has no answer for. This particular God thought himself to be immortal and supreme, but in fact he was not - he was just very powerful and long-lived.
In the Silabbata Sutta Ananda, a disciple of the Buddha, is asked by the Buddha if other religions and practices were beneficial and worth following. Ananda answered that if those religions and practices are correctly followed, i.e. negative mental qualities are decreased and positive mental qualities are increased, then they are skillful and worth following.
The Buddha showed great respect for other people's beliefs, even when he taught those beliefs to being a Wrong View. There was a certain student named Upali, for example, who had followed another teacher named Nigantha Nataputta. After questioning the Buddha about what he taught, he begged the Buddha to accept him as his student. But the Buddha, out of respect for this teacher and his students, declined saying that Upali should respect Nigantha Nataputta, and return. Upali was exceptionally impressed by this even more so, and asked to take refuge. In the end, the Buddha finally allowed Upali to go forth in his Sangha, but only after he had thought it over very carefully.
The Buddha never said to only follow him. He only suggested practices in which people could observe of their own volition to understand their existence better, ultimately achieving the fruits of such a contemplative life - Liberation. It is a simple choice of finding the Buddha's way skillful, or not. People may like to argue their own views, but the ultimate aim of the Buddha's Path is to uproot those views completely. Wisdom has nothing to do with holding to this or that viewpoint. The Venerable Ananda shares this wisdom with us in the Kokanuda Sutta:
On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying near Rajagaha, at Tapoda monastery. Then, as night was ending, he got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. Having bathed his limbs and having gotten out of the springs, he stood wearing only his lower robe, drying his limbs. Kokanuda the wanderer, as night was ending, also got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. He saw Ven. Ananda from afar, and on seeing him said to him, "Who are you, my friend?"
"I am a monk, my friend."
"Which kind of monk?"
"A son-of-the-Sakyan contemplative."
"I would like to ask you about a certain point, if you would give me leave to pose a question."
"Go ahead and ask. Having heard [your question], I'll inform you."
"How is it, my friend: 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?"
"No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view."
"Very well, then: 'The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?"
"No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view."
"Very well, then: 'The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?"
"No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view."
"Then in that case, do you not know or see?"
"No, my friend. It's not the case that I don't know, I don't see. I do know. I do see."
"But on being asked, 'How is it, my friend: "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless." Is this the sort of view you have?' you inform me, 'No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view.' On being asked, 'Very well then: "The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless." Is this the sort of view you have?' you inform me, 'No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view.' But on being asked, 'Then in that case, do you not know, I don't see?' you inform me, 'No, my friend. It's not the case that I don't know or see. I do know. I do see.' Now, how is the meaning of this statement to be understood?"
"'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. 'The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know. That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do see."
"What is your name, my friend? What do your fellows in the chaste life call you?"
"My name is Ananda, my friend, and that's what my fellows in the chaste life call me."
"What? Have I been talking with the great teacher without realizing that it was Ven. Ananda? Had I recognized that it was Ven. Ananda, I would not have cross-examined him so much. May Ven. Ananda please forgive me."
That is my at least my understanding.
toDwI'ma' qoS yItIvqu'
Jason
"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali Canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."
Ajahn Jagaro puts it this way:
"Buddhism, however, has very different ideas on this matter. Buddhism grew out of a culture which certainly believed in gods, many levels of gods, called //devas//. There was also the highest level of gods, the //Brahma// gods, and Maha Brahma, the highest God. That was the Brahman belief system. There were many gods, and Maha Brahma was the great God, the creator, the destroyer and the punisher. Buddha made it very clear that he rejected this.
Although you should not jump to any conclusion here, clearly a Buddhist can say at this point that Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, an all-powerful being that punishes and rewards. Buddhism simply does not teach this. The Buddha did not believe this, he did not teach it."
"No god, no Brahma can be called
The Maker of this Wheel of Life"
- Visuddhi Magga, XIX
Yes, you mentioned the key word -- "views". Brahma was indeed deluded, but then again, aren't we all as the result of our Avijja? It is only this one thing that the Buddha tries to cure us of through his teachings.
Jason
Yep, sure did, as in Samma Ditthi and Miccha Ditthi. English is a problematic language sometimes :wavey:
The definition of Samma Ditthi is:
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
- Maha-satipatthana Sutta: DN 22
What people seem to be missing here is that Buddhism has nothing to do with proving that there is or isn't anything. It is quite true that the Buddha did not teach about a creator "God" simply because one was nowhere to be found, however, this was not done to merely prove that there wasn't one. He did so for a very specific reason. He only taught one thing, each and every teaching always came back to this one single point -- the complete and utter cessation of Dukkha.
The Path that he laid out takes us through every step of the way leading to Cessation. Along that Path we will learn about Kamma, Paticca-samuppada, Dukkha, Anicca, Anatta, Nibbana, etc., but the very first thing that the Buddha has us do is to look at our own mind, with all of its views, ideas, and perceptions. It is right here where our suffering lies, not in the length of the universe's life-span, or the existence of any gods. It is right here in this fathom-long body that all the answers can be found:
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
- Rohitassa Sutta: AN IV.45
"The Truth shall set you free."
Jason
...
Jason
In the text proving going on above, the Tathagata makes the point that the Noble Eighfold Path is taught in order to escape from dukkha. From that, apparently, a whole system arises which has little or nothing to do with such an escape. The questions of, to take an example from contemporary US news, 'creationism' or evolution are outwith such an escape. I can imagine Buddhist creationists and Buddhist evolutionists.
Of course, if you insist on making Buddhism into a religion, it has to address even questions that are not within its scope. And that may be important to some people.
What really gets up my nose is dogmatism whichj is based solely on texts and quotations. And elitism that excludes those people who are defined as 'other'. I hold no brief for Nichiren Buddhism but I find it significant that some Buddhist organisations exclude them. How? By diktat, just like the Vatican.
If you have to have certainty, please enjoy it. For myself, I shall continue to live with non-certainty. If that means that some people consider that I am not Buddhist/Christian/Druid or, even, sane, that is their dukkha. Let them get over it.
How would you two, talk to them then?
Think about how you would best meet the needs of this person.
Gain an insight into how they would learn from you, to their advantage...
I'm offering this as a real, concrete exercise....not as an hypothesis....
I am sadly losing the hearing in my left ear. My right may well come out in sympathy. It's a genetic problem, exacerbated by an injury I sustained many years ago, the effects of which are now coming back to roost. For around a month, I lost my hearing completely. It returned, but it was a most revelatory time for me, I can tell you!!
I learned to sign in 'Makaton' which is different to American sign language..... but more importantly, it opened up a whole new world for me - a new understanding on the challenges many people face, day to day.
These people have to contend with being called 'dumb' - a word now used as an insult, very similarly, in the same way that "what the heck's the matter with you?!? Are you deaf or something??" has been equated with therefore being thick, too.... (A guy's face when my friend told him I was, was a picture I'll never forget....!)
Normal-hearing people view the deaf as being quiet, insular, solitary and private - but that's because they are restricted to a world devoid of something we sooo take for granted - a world FULL of sound....
Just try playing the 'Metta chant' with the volume turned down..... just try watching "White Christmas", "Singing in the Rain", "Brief Encounter", "Jaws" - with no sound.....
Communication is a skill - a gift - that is all too often taken for granted. We assume that those 'listening' will obviously understand what we're saying, because they have the same capacities as we do..... 'to "Assume" anything makes an ass out of u and me. '
So occasionally, when we all write on here, and impart our carefully honed, studiously accrued knowledge.... Spare a thought for those who are Deaf. Either really, or metaphorically. Adjust what you have to communicate, accordingly....
Thank you.
I've finished.
I have been reflecting on this whole topic for a number of years now and I find a fundamental difference between the Dharma and the religions which goes beyond any question of God or gods.
The words of the Buddha that speak to me are those where he says "I teach the truth of suffering and the liberation from suffering". This is not a description of the world-as-a-whole but of the nature of human life. The religions, on the other hand, set out the give an explanation and narrative for the existence of the world and all that is in it.
Admittedly, the Buddhisms have inflated the Dharma to encompass all that is but, I submit, that is post-Tathagata expansion. After all, we have to admit that the present schools and traditions of Buddhism have all arisen in the centuries since the Buddha's passing.
Simon,
Am I reading you correctly?
Are you saying that what Buddha supposedly said in this discourse or that discourse about gods (and other things that we have no real evidence of) is basically kind of meaningless except for Acadamia?
And that the basic teachings of Buddha are truly what is of import?
-bf
The Buddha reached enlightenement after six years of searching, researching, questioning, challenging and diligence....
He began his Life's Mission of teaching, by revealing the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path.
he Lived by the Eightfold Path...
He died, his last teachings having been on - you got it - the eightfold path.
We keep being told time and time again that the Truth is there in all its' simplicity, if we will but see it.
Nowhere in the Eightfold Path does it encourage the seeker to turn towards, or away, from God.
In fact, God doesn't even get a mention. (Unlike in the 10 Commandments, where he is there, right up at the perpetual N°1)
Every aspect of the Eightfold Path exhorts and encourages the seeker to follow the Path through a specific 'Right something'.
But We are also encouraged to do as he did, every step of the way: Search, research, question and challenge.
As Nick puts it: Christianity is about living in the Future, Buddhism is about living in the 'Now'. So as Buddhists, we strive to be more conscious, more aware and more Present' than perhaps followers of other religions are encouraged to be. But I too, like Simon, am prepared to accept the great unknown, and aknowledge its mystery.
They are not seperate, just as the way to end suffering is not separate from seeing how beliefs are a hindrance to awakening, which is one of the points that the Buddha was making. and why that is still of importance to all Buddhist traditions to this day. Anyone is free to have a label or none, to call themselves what they wish to, but that is not to say that the Buddha taught what he didn't teach, or that he did teach something that he clearly didn't. You are right - it is beyond the question of God or gods, they have nothing to do with awakening. What is important is that Buddhism is not a belief system. Buddhists are human and do have beliefs, but those beliefs are not the Dharma. What is essential is not to confuse belief with fact, to see belief as simply belief, and to not confuse what we believe with what Buddhism actually teaches and what can be realized concretely and directly. The one is at best a pale simalcrum of the other.
Of course, it does make sense. If they were twins and Jesus was so important, so good, so powerful, the other one would simply be The Twin to everyone.
In many bodies of myth, there are stories of twins. They are seen as people of power, either for good or for ill. In the mainstream Christian legend, Thomas has nearly disappeared and it is his prostration that is praised. His doubt is only of importance because it is overcome.
As I considered this, I realised that it is the doubt and Thomas's integrity which shine out for me. It is why he continues to be one of my heroes, along with Voltaire's Zadig, who still has to say "But..." to the angel.
:banghead:
-bf
Buddism has been soft of a relgion to me, but I still go to a christan chruch, and jewish chruch and now a lutherin. I don't really consider myself to be anything much, but a little of everything, ya know? I enjoy all the churchs that I go to, a different one every week or so when I have time, not a member of course, but everyone knows me and I help out a lot.
Buddism has been a way of life for me, its helped me relax and look at things, its given me a reason to live and give life.
Its all what the person thinks of it, or what they make of it. Thats what I Think.