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.
If rebirth did not exist, then i will plan the perfect crime. I will stalk the most beautiful woman i know. after knowing her routines, i will rape her and kill her. making sure i leave no evidence or witnesses.
then i will rob a rich man. again killing him and leaving no trails for police to follow.
the, i will go to thailand or brazil and get plastic surgery so nobody can recognise me and get a new identity.
in the event that the police catches up with me, i will shoot myself before they can arrest me.
but i believe with proper planning and my creativity, i will be able to get away with murder.
yes, if i believe that there were no karma or rebirth.
But a lot of people don't believe in karma and rebirth (or hell or some other metaphysical "punishment"), and they don't do these things. Fear of consequences makes a very poor excuse for morality.
yes, if i believe that there were no karma or rebirth.
But a lot of people don't believe in karma and rebirth (or hell or some other metaphysical "punishment"), and they don't do these things. Fear of consequences makes a very poor excuse for morality.
yes, if i believe that there were no karma or rebirth.
But a lot of people don't believe in karma and rebirth (or hell or some other metaphysical "punishment"), and they don't do these things. Fear of consequences makes a very poor excuse for morality.
Of course, but you suggest that if people don't believe in karma and (what you refer to as) rebirth, then people would arbitrarily do whatever they chose to do. But many people do NOT believe in these things and they DON'T commit murder. If so, then shouldn't I personally know a lot of murderers myself? You suggest that the only reason people don't commit such terrible deeds lies merely in them not getting caught. Realistically, most people don't live like that-- certainly not in the 21st century.
I would hope that your reasoning doesn't accurately represent why you don't proceed with your hypothetical "perfect crime." It represents an awfully self-centered view-- by which I do not mean committing such a crime, but the "deterrent" for you committing it! Even if there existed no social or metaphysical consequences where I could "get away with it," such a thought would not even occur to me.
I see morality less of a matter of negative thou-shalt-NOTs than a matter of positively doing something for others. Compassion doesn't mean avoiding consequences that hurt me, but taking actions that acknowledge everyone's participation in life together. And I thought this way long before coming to Buddhism.
yes, if i believe that there were no karma or rebirth.
But a lot of people don't believe in karma and rebirth (or hell or some other metaphysical "punishment"), and they don't do these things. Fear of consequences makes a very poor excuse for morality.
Of course, but you suggest that if people don't believe in karma and (what you refer to as) rebirth, then people would arbitrarily do whatever they chose to do. But many people do NOT believe in these things and they DON'T commit murder. If so, then shouldn't I personally know a lot of murderers myself? You suggest that the only reason people don't commit such terrible deeds lies merely in them not getting caught. Realistically, most people don't live like that-- certainly not in the 21st century.
I would hope that your reasoning doesn't accurately represent why you don't proceed with your hypothetical "perfect crime." It represents an awfully self-centered view-- by which I do not mean committing such a crime, but the "deterrent" for you committing it! Even if there existed no social or metaphysical consequences where I could "get away with it," such a thought would not even occur to me.
I see morality less of a matter of negative thou-shalt-NOTs than a matter of positively doing something for others. Compassion doesn't mean avoiding consequences that hurt me, but taking actions that acknowledge everyone's participation in life together. And I thought this way long before coming to Buddhism.
I try hard to keep the 5 precepts bcos I believe I will have to pay for breaking them. Even if I die , i cant escape the bad karma. otherwise, I would not bother keeping them.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If rebirth did not exist, then i will plan the perfect crime. I will stalk the most beautiful woman i know. after knowing her routines, i will rape her and kill her. making sure i leave no evidence or witnesses.
then i will rob a rich man. again killing him and leaving no trails for police to follow.
the, i will go to thailand or brazil and get plastic surgery so nobody can recognise me and get a new identity.
in the event that the police catches up with me, i will shoot myself before they can arrest me.
but i believe with proper planning and my creativity, i will be able to get away with murder.
This kind of mindset concerns me a little bit. Well, quite a bit actually. It implies that you would rather do harm than encourage our growth. That you are only kind because you fear what will happen if you are cruel. What ever happened to being good for goodness sake?
I've heard the same from people that believe there is God who punishes. As if morality and ethics depends on a system of punishment and reward. Or as if Karma is some kind of vengeful deity.
This is wrong intention and wrong view.
Good luck on your fortunate rebirth... Just kidding, I think.
according to Buddha, it is the fool who does not fear the fruit of bad karma and it is the fool who thinks that his bad karma will not follow him after death. so, i am afraid you have the wrong view, ourself.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
according to Buddha, it is the fool who does not fear the fruit of bad karma and it is the fool who thinks that his bad karma will not follow him after death. so, i am afraid you have the wrong view, ourself.
Actually, they're not optional in Tibetan Buddhism. That tradition is very strong on rebirth. That fact is why Stephen Batchelor felt he had to quit that tradition. There was no room for real questioning. He said he was allowed to question, as long as they came to the "right" conclusion.
So someone who can't accept rebirth should chose carefully the school of Buddhism they want to follow. Or simply do home-study and home-practice, which is what this forum is really good about; flexibility.
Actually, they're not optional in Tibetan Buddhism. That tradition is very strong on rebirth. That fact is why Stephen Batchelor felt he had to quit that tradition. There was no room for real questioning. He said he was allowed to question, as long as they came to the "right" conclusion.
So someone who can't accept rebirth should chose carefully the school of Buddhism they want to follow.
Yes I am very set on my tradition which is within Tibetan Buddhism so I have to accept it.
Those new to Buddhism who don't like to crack heady academic books on Buddhism or read more than the Heart Sutra need to be aware that during the time when the Buddha was alive, he taught rebirth and postmortem survival. He was also against notions of rebirth not like his own and was also against 'no rebirth' espoused by some materialists and skeptics.
I suppose that the trouble you have with believing in rebirth is because you have no proof of it. But what I wonder then is whether you have any sort of belief about what happens after death and what the basis of your belief in that is.
Basically, if for example you believe that there is nothing after death, well isn't that also just a belief for which there is no proof of? Has anyone ever proved that there is nothing after death?
If one is not willing to go by faith in the Buddha's enlightenment, but require some sort of proof, well, since there is no proof available for what actually happens after death then perhaps the position which such a person should adopt is that, "I don't know what happens after death and no one else does either, so anything (including rebirth) is possible."
I think Alan Watts started off being skeptical about rebirth perhaps in a such fashion. However, he later explains that if consciousness sprang out of nothingness then it would be rational to believe in rebirth for the following reasons:
When I am dead I will be (or 'it" will be) just as I was before I was born. In both states, after death and before birth, it is as if I - and all else - had never been at all. Most people, again, shrug their shoulders and say, "We come from nothing and we return to nothing-and that's the end of it." But I demur. For it strikes me as utterly amazing that I did in fact come from this nothing. If I came from it once, I see no reason why I could not come from it again; for if, as is indeed the case, I did come from it once, this nothingness is, to say the least, unexplainably frisky.
He has also expressed the above as follows:
Consider the time before you were born. Obviously, you can’t remember it for there is nothing to remember. There wasn’t anything, it was nothingness. Now, out of this nothingness came something: life, you, consciousness, this universe, etc. Consider now death. When you die, the most rational conclusion would be that you cease to exist. Once again, there is nothingness. Now, wouldn’t it it make sense for if you sprang out of nothingness, you would do so if you “entered” nothingness again? I believe so, and if that is what happens when you die (nothingness), and life proceeds nothingness, then reincarnation is real.
Basically, I think what Alan Watts says can be seen as an extension of what Voltaire, the great French philosopher/writer, once said:
After all, it is no more surprising to be born twice than it is to be born once.
Eleanor Roosevelt echoes the same sentiment when she said:
You know, I don’t think it would be any more unusual for me to show up in another life, than showing up in this one.
Personally, I think it's not necessary that one believe in rebirth in order to practice Buddhism though one should at least be open minded about its possibility. And I want to end with the following point also. Firstly, most Thais are Buddhists and nearly all of them also believe in rebirth which gives us about 60 million Thai Buddhists who believe in rebirth. But guess what... I would say that at least tens of millions of these people have the wrong idea about rebirth! Just a few examples. A lot of people believe that to get a favourable rebirth all you need to do is make lots of dana (like giving food to monks, giving money for building temples, etc.) and it's not that important to keep the precepts. But in fact it's the other way around! A favourable rebirth is much more dependent on the precepts (sila/virtue) than generosity. Most also believe that nirvana is a goal only for the monks and laypeople are just suppose to collect merit in order to obtain a birth in the heavens and this also leads them to conclude that meditation is only for the monks and not for laypeople. Again, that's absolutely not in the spirit of what the Buddha actually taught. My point for mentioning this is that belief in rebirth won't automatically make you a "good" Buddhist. So if you are someone who doesn't believe in rebirth but you understand the importance of sila/virtue and your aim in life is not merely to accumulate merit for a good rebirth but you understand the importance of overcoming the three poisons (anger, greed and delusion), then I am very certain you will achieve much more than those tens of millions of "Buddhists" I mentioned who believe in rebirth.
Yes I am very set on my tradition which is within Tibetan Buddhism so I have to accept it.
What does your teacher say? Have you expressed your doubts to him/her?
I don't have one yet.
Then you don't have to worry about being pressured to accept rebirth, like Batchelor was by his teacher. You have plenty of time to get around to it on your own.
Quite a number of traditions don't use the 8-fold path,
care to enumerate the traditions that don't use the 8-fold path?
It might be helpful to explain just what you mean by "use", too.
The only tradition I know of that specifically uses the 8-fold path is Theravada. The other traditions seem to have their own versions of a path, there are various permutations. Use means use.
If you gain more insight into what the Buddha taught by replicating it, it also becomes more acceptable that he was right on other things that you don't yet understand. For example, seeing the implications of karma on a day to day basis, gives an idea that it could go beyond one life.
If someone understands psychological mechanisms on a day-to-day basis, that’s no guarantee he understands what happens after death. It’s a different category of knowledge.
Perhaps to understand it fully it would have to be the same knowledge.
Quite a number of traditions don't use the 8-fold path,
care to enumerate the traditions that don't use the 8-fold path?
It might be helpful to explain just what you mean by "use", too.
The only tradition I know of that specifically uses the 8-fold path is Theravada. The other traditions seem to have their own versions of a path, there are various permutations. Use means use.
Quite a number of traditions don't use the 8-fold path,
care to enumerate the traditions that don't use the 8-fold path?
It might be helpful to explain just what you mean by "use", too.
The only tradition I know of that specifically uses the 8-fold path is Theravada. The other traditions seem to have their own versions of a path, there are various permutations. Use means use.
So you'll offer us a non-answer.
I ask for an enumeration of traditions that don't and you off a tradition that, in your opinion, only, does.
Your response implies that seeing as only Theraveda "uses" the 8-fold path, the rest don't, which to say, of course, is ludicrous.
Also to say that "use"=use in a response to my request for your definition of the term as you use it, is like saying the sky is blue because it's blue.
Personally I'never encountered a tradition that doesn't include the N8FP as an important part of their core teachings, but haven't encountered them all.
My exposre includes: Thervada Kagu (and it's various lineages) Nyingma Geluk Jodo Shinshu Rinzai Soto
Your mileage, of course, may differ, but I, for one, would really like to hear some specifics in support of your statement.
Quite a number of traditions don't use the 8-fold path,
care to enumerate the traditions that don't use the 8-fold path?
It might be helpful to explain just what you mean by "use", too.
The only tradition I know of that specifically uses the 8-fold path is Theravada. The other traditions seem to have their own versions of a path, there are various permutations. Use means use.
So you'll offer us a non-answer.
I ask for an enumeration of traditions that don't and you off a tradition that, in your opinion, only, does.
Your response implies that seeing as only Theraveda "uses" the 8-fold path, the rest don't, which to say, of course, is ludicrous.
Also to say that "use"=use in a response to my request for your definition of the term as you use it, is like saying the sky is blue because it's blue.
Personally I'never encountered a tradition that doesn't include the N8FP as an important part of their core teachings, but haven't encountered them all.
My exposre includes: Thervada Kagu (and it's various lineages) Nyingma Geluk Jodo Shinshu Rinzai Soto
Your mileage, of course, may differ, but I, for one, would really like to hear some specifics in support of your statement.
Spiny is right Mahayanists do not use the eightfold path it is Theravada.
My tradition is within the Gelug and we do not use it.
Spiny is right Mahayanists do not use the eightfold path it is Theravada.
My tradition is within the Gelug and we do not use it.
What do you mean, they don't "use" it? It's a foundation of Buddhism for all traditions. Everyone teaches it. Remember, Vajrayana's first foundation is "Hinayana", then Mahayana, and the advanced teachings are Vajrayana. So Gelug teachers do teach the Eightfold Path in their beginning teachings for newbies. All TB followers are expected to have a foundation in the Hinayana/Theravada teachings.
Spiny is right Mahayanists do not use the eightfold path it is Theravada.
My tradition is within the Gelug and we do not use it.
What do you mean, they don't "use" it? It's a foundation of Buddhism for all traditions. Everyone teaches it. Remember, Vajrayana's first foundation is "Hinayana", then Mahayana, and the advanced teachings are Vajrayana. So Gelug teachers do teach the Eightfold Path in their beginning teachings for newbies. All TB followers are expected to have a foundation in the Hinayana/Theravada teachings.
The 8 Fold path is not an explicit teaching within the Gelug usually we follow the teachings on the 6 perfections and the Bodhisattva's way of life as our morale conduct it is Implicitly included within the instructions however mainly because our instruction lineage places great emphasis on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra's our Hinayana practice and instruction is different to what you would find within lineages that only teach the first turning.
For example the Lamrim includes Hinayana Instructions so this is mainly where we get our instructions on Renunciation and so forth from rather then lineage jumping to Theravada.
Dudes! There is no such thing as Hinayana. That word is more or less used as an insult to distinguish the early competing schools from Mahayana. Maybe Sravakayana is a better term?
Dudes! There is no such thing as Hinayana. That word is more or less used as an insult to distinguish the early competing schools from Mahayana. Maybe Sravakayana is a better term?
Just sayin...with metta Victor
I put it in quotes, because it's a technical term that IS used in TB.
As you probably already gathered I am having trouble believing in Rebirth as much as I want to believe as so much of my Practice involves its belief.
How do you banish doubt of it? Have you had a similair conflict to?
First and foremost, doubts are only questions, not something to banish.
Second, try examining what nano second is not the rebirth of the next one. A meditative practise will show each one is both inherently connected to and yet different from the last.
That understanding should be enough to carry your practice unless what you are really doing is thinking that someone is asking you to believe that it's your ego that will be reborn.
That word is more or less used as an insult to distinguish the early competing schools from Mahayana.
Sure, maybe 2000 years ago it was used as a insult, but I don't recall EVER hearing the term used in adeliberately insulting manner.
Maybe Sravakayana is a better term?
No, I think Hinayana is fine.
In the part of the country I'm from, the term "square" was used as a pejorative in reference to Scandinavians. This was a century ago. I'm of Norwegian and Swedish decent. Should I take your example whenever someone uses the word "square"?
Personally, I use the term seldom, but not because some others may find the term offensive. I refrain from using it in mixed company because I prefer not to deal with irrational objections to a word that, in actual usage, in no way refers to them. In short, I find such protestations to be offensive. So, to satisfy my sense of moral outrage, would you mind just getting over it?
If significant numbers of reasonable people find a word offensive, what Buddhist principle is it that says, "Go ahead, use the word anyways."
Quibbling over mundane terminology is not supported, either.
"Significant numbers" is not the immediate issue. Rather, it's the absurd notion that there's no such thing as a particular word (whatever that means) and that the word appears to have something inherently offensive about it regardless of the intent in it's usage.
Caz meant absolutely zero insult, that much is obvious, yet he's being called out for just that.
If significant numbers of reasonable people find a word offensive, what Buddhist principle is it that says, "Go ahead, use the word anyways."
Quibbling over mundane terminology is not supported, either.
"Significant numbers" is not the immediate issue. Rather, it's the absurd notion that there's no such thing as a particular word (whatever that means) and that the word appears to have something inherently offensive about it regardless of the intent in it's usage.
Caz meant absolutely zero insult, that much is obvious, yet he's being called out for just that.
That is unjust as well as irrational.
Does the Buddha's teaching support that?
The "quibbling over mundane terminology", as you put it, isn't the point.
And I'm not calling Caz out...didn't even mention Caz. So I'm not going to answer for that.
But over the years of reading about Buddhism, I've become very aware that there are many Buddhists who view the term Hinayana as insulting. To me it makes no difference, but apparently to quite a few people it does.
I don't use the "N word" because many people find it offensive. Or the "B word" or the "C word", or any number of other offensive words.
I've gotten chewed out on this forum for using the term "American Indian", rather than "Native American", even though American Indians I have known have preferred the former, and even though in several polls of American Indians, it was the preferred term.
People have sensitivities about words that are used about labels. And, when possible, I prefer to use words that don't ruffle someone else's sensibilities.
If you want to be offensive to other people, that's your decision. But I would suggest that the concept of right speech would suggest we should err on the side of caution when using labels that people object to. It's just a matter of courtesy (translated in this instance into compassion).
If significant numbers of reasonable people find a word offensive, what Buddhist principle is it that says, "Go ahead, use the word anyways."
Quibbling over mundane terminology is not supported, either.
"Significant numbers" is not the immediate issue. Rather, it's the absurd notion that there's no such thing as a particular word (whatever that means) and that the word appears to have something inherently offensive about it regardless of the intent in it's usage.
Caz meant absolutely zero insult, that much is obvious, yet he's being called out for just that.
That is unjust as well as irrational.
Does the Buddha's teaching support that?
Chill dude. Nobodys calling anybody out for anything.
Just go ahead and use whatever word you like. But using the word Hinayana is and will always be a reminder of a dispute within Buddhism that allegedly made the whole Mahayana tradition stoop to petty namecalling (i.e. Hinayana). And you still want to keep doing it disregarding what anybody else thinks? Maybe you need to polish up your metta practise?
Be it 2000 years ago or yesterday, using the word still looks bad, feels bad and smells bad out of consideration for the Mahayana tradition. But I do realize my comment is not relevant to this thread so feel free to disregard it.
Spiny is right Mahayanists do not use the eightfold path it is Theravada.
My tradition is within the Gelug and we do not use it.
What do you mean, they don't "use" it? It's a foundation of Buddhism for all traditions. Everyone teaches it. Remember, Vajrayana's first foundation is "Hinayana", then Mahayana, and the advanced teachings are Vajrayana. So Gelug teachers do teach the Eightfold Path in their beginning teachings for newbies. All TB followers are expected to have a foundation in the Hinayana/Theravada teachings.
" Everyone" ? I was the student of first one, and then another, of the most well known of Karma Kagyu teachers of the last century, for a total of 30 years, and I never, ever, heard either of them refer to the 8FP.
They weren't against it I'm sure. I suspect that if they had been asked they would have described it in detail.
But their jumping off point was located elsewhere. In the Maha-ati teachings to be precise. Maha-Ati and Dzogchen assume no necessity for Hinayana/Theravada teachings at all. But I suspect I am wasting my time.. Were there more students of those traditions on this forum I suspect that we would see a number of replies affirming that. The reality of New Buddhist Forum is that for whatever reason there are few Maha-Ati or Dzogchen students among the membership, so dissenting against the view that ALL Vajrayana groups start with the Hinayana view looks like eccentricity or an individual with an axe to grind.. Go to vajrayana.com ( the specialist Vajrayana forum ) and put that question there and you will get a very different response.
NB Referring to ' Tibetan Buddhist ' or ' T.B.' is misleading..The Vajrayana is not confined to Tibet, nor to Tibetans.
The only tradition I know of that specifically uses the 8-fold path is Theravada. The other traditions seem to have their own versions of a path, there are various permutations.
So you'll offer us a non-answer.
Why the aggression? I gave a straight answer to your question, which was that Theravada is the only tradition I know of which specifically uses the 8-fold path. I don't know of any Mahayana or Vajrayana traditions that specifically use the 8-fold path.
I am not sure that NO Vajrayana school refers to the 8FP, the Gelug I believe does. But I have just checked with my wife who is the student of a Sakya teacher and she says that it does not feature in his teachings or in his teacher's teachings at all. Again as with my Kagyu teachers there is no suggestion of antipathy..it just does not feature. Neither do the 4NT for that matter. I think part of the problem is a reluctance to see that there is no standard model of Buddha-Dharma, and this includes aspects that some would consider to be of the essence. Once one lets go of the need to see specific commonalities we are more free to see what IS being said. Until then one is forced to read stuff into things that is not there. Or to say that certain schools can't really be Buddhist. Or that the 8FP/4NT MUST be there really but that we have carelessly mislaid them...
@ no one in particular... Would not using the 4NT and 8FP be a contradiction in Mahayana?
I thought that the position for all Mahayana is to become Bodhisattvas and then Sammasambuddhas themselves?
A Buddha being a selfawakened Being I guess it would be contradictory to follow another Buddhas teaching to enlightenment (in which case you are a sravaka buddha and not a sammasam buddha).
Dudes! There is no such thing as Hinayana. That word is more or less used as an insult to distinguish the early competing schools from Mahayana. Maybe Sravakayana is a better term?
Just sayin...with metta Victor
No we have never used the word Sravakayana to describe the path of Renunciation, the context of the 3 scopes of Lamrim The Lesser and Middling fall into the power of Hinayana Instructions and the Greater Scope is of Mahayana Instruction. Hinayana doesn't Refer to Theravada but to the class of teachings it would be good to try and distinguish traditional terminology from a perceived insult.
Comments
I will stalk the most beautiful woman i know.
after knowing her routines, i will rape her and kill her.
making sure i leave no evidence or witnesses.
then i will rob a rich man.
again killing him and leaving no trails for police to follow.
the, i will go to thailand or brazil and get plastic surgery
so nobody can recognise me and get a new identity.
in the event that the police catches up with me,
i will shoot myself before they can arrest me.
but i believe with proper planning and my creativity,
i will be able to get away with murder.
And you think you will be happy?
i make my choices based on my beliefs.
dont you?
I would hope that your reasoning doesn't accurately represent why you don't proceed with your hypothetical "perfect crime." It represents an awfully self-centered view-- by which I do not mean committing such a crime, but the "deterrent" for you committing it! Even if there existed no social or metaphysical consequences where I could "get away with it," such a thought would not even occur to me.
I see morality less of a matter of negative thou-shalt-NOTs than a matter of positively doing something for others. Compassion doesn't mean avoiding consequences that hurt me, but taking actions that acknowledge everyone's participation in life together. And I thought this way long before coming to Buddhism.
i am suggesting that if i dont believe in rebirth,
I will be a very sophisticated violent criminal.
I believe I will have to pay for breaking them.
Even if I die , i cant escape the bad karma.
otherwise, I would not bother keeping them.
I've heard the same from people that believe there is God who punishes. As if morality and ethics depends on a system of punishment and reward. Or as if Karma is some kind of vengeful deity.
This is wrong intention and wrong view.
Good luck on your fortunate rebirth... Just kidding, I think.
according to Buddha, it is the fool who does not
fear the fruit of bad karma and it is the fool
who thinks that his bad karma will not follow him
after death.
so, i am afraid you have the wrong view, ourself.
It might be helpful to explain just what you mean by "use", too.
So someone who can't accept rebirth should chose carefully the school of Buddhism they want to follow. Or simply do home-study and home-practice, which is what this forum is really good about; flexibility.
I suppose that the trouble you have with believing in rebirth is because you have no proof of it. But what I wonder then is whether you have any sort of belief about what happens after death and what the basis of your belief in that is.
Basically, if for example you believe that there is nothing after death, well isn't that also just a belief for which there is no proof of? Has anyone ever proved that there is nothing after death?
If one is not willing to go by faith in the Buddha's enlightenment, but require some sort of proof, well, since there is no proof available for what actually happens after death then perhaps the position which such a person should adopt is that, "I don't know what happens after death and no one else does either, so anything (including rebirth) is possible."
I think Alan Watts started off being skeptical about rebirth perhaps in a such fashion. However, he later explains that if consciousness sprang out of nothingness then it would be rational to believe in rebirth for the following reasons: He has also expressed the above as follows: Basically, I think what Alan Watts says can be seen as an extension of what Voltaire, the great French philosopher/writer, once said: Eleanor Roosevelt echoes the same sentiment when she said: Personally, I think it's not necessary that one believe in rebirth in order to practice Buddhism though one should at least be open minded about its possibility. And I want to end with the following point also. Firstly, most Thais are Buddhists and nearly all of them also believe in rebirth which gives us about 60 million Thai Buddhists who believe in rebirth. But guess what... I would say that at least tens of millions of these people have the wrong idea about rebirth! Just a few examples. A lot of people believe that to get a favourable rebirth all you need to do is make lots of dana (like giving food to monks, giving money for building temples, etc.) and it's not that important to keep the precepts. But in fact it's the other way around! A favourable rebirth is much more dependent on the precepts (sila/virtue) than generosity. Most also believe that nirvana is a goal only for the monks and laypeople are just suppose to collect merit in order to obtain a birth in the heavens and this also leads them to conclude that meditation is only for the monks and not for laypeople. Again, that's absolutely not in the spirit of what the Buddha actually taught. My point for mentioning this is that belief in rebirth won't automatically make you a "good" Buddhist. So if you are someone who doesn't believe in rebirth but you understand the importance of sila/virtue and your aim in life is not merely to accumulate merit for a good rebirth but you understand the importance of overcoming the three poisons (anger, greed and delusion), then I am very certain you will achieve much more than those tens of millions of "Buddhists" I mentioned who believe in rebirth.
I ask for an enumeration of traditions that don't and you off a tradition that, in your opinion, only, does.
Your response implies that seeing as only Theraveda "uses" the 8-fold path, the rest don't, which to say, of course, is ludicrous.
Also to say that "use"=use in a response to my request for your definition of the term as you use it, is like saying the sky is blue because it's blue.
Personally I'never encountered a tradition that doesn't include the N8FP as an important part of their core teachings, but haven't encountered them all.
My exposre includes:
Thervada
Kagu (and it's various lineages)
Nyingma
Geluk
Jodo Shinshu
Rinzai
Soto
Your mileage, of course, may differ, but I, for one, would really like to hear some specifics in support of your statement.
My tradition is within the Gelug and we do not use it.
For example the Lamrim includes Hinayana Instructions so this is mainly where we get our instructions on Renunciation and so forth from rather then lineage jumping to Theravada.
Just sayin...with metta
Victor
Second, try examining what nano second is not the rebirth of the next one.
A meditative practise will show each one is both inherently connected to and yet different from the last.
That understanding should be enough to carry your practice unless what you are really doing is thinking that someone is asking you to believe that it's your ego that will be reborn.
Sure, maybe 2000 years ago it was used as a insult, but I don't recall EVER hearing the term used in adeliberately insulting manner. No, I think Hinayana is fine.
In the part of the country I'm from, the term "square" was used as a pejorative in reference to Scandinavians. This was a century ago. I'm of Norwegian and Swedish decent. Should I take your example whenever someone uses the word "square"?
Personally, I use the term seldom, but not because some others may find the term offensive. I refrain from using it in mixed company because I prefer not to deal with irrational objections to a word that, in actual usage, in no way refers to them. In short, I find such protestations to be offensive. So, to satisfy my sense of moral outrage, would you mind just getting over it?
"Significant numbers" is not the immediate issue. Rather, it's the absurd notion that there's no such thing as a particular word (whatever that means) and that the word appears to have something inherently offensive about it regardless of the intent in it's usage.
Caz meant absolutely zero insult, that much is obvious, yet he's being called out for just that.
That is unjust as well as irrational.
Does the Buddha's teaching support that?
And I'm not calling Caz out...didn't even mention Caz. So I'm not going to answer for that.
But over the years of reading about Buddhism, I've become very aware that there are many Buddhists who view the term Hinayana as insulting. To me it makes no difference, but apparently to quite a few people it does.
I don't use the "N word" because many people find it offensive.
Or the "B word" or the "C word", or any number of other offensive words.
I've gotten chewed out on this forum for using the term "American Indian", rather than "Native American", even though American Indians I have known have preferred the former, and even though in several polls of American Indians, it was the preferred term.
People have sensitivities about words that are used about labels. And, when possible, I prefer to use words that don't ruffle someone else's sensibilities.
If you want to be offensive to other people, that's your decision. But I would suggest that the concept of right speech would suggest we should err on the side of caution when using labels that people object to. It's just a matter of courtesy (translated in this instance into compassion).
Just go ahead and use whatever word you like. But using the word Hinayana is and will always be a reminder of a dispute within Buddhism that allegedly made the whole Mahayana tradition stoop to petty namecalling (i.e. Hinayana). And you still want to keep doing it disregarding what anybody else thinks? Maybe you need to polish up your metta practise?
Be it 2000 years ago or yesterday, using the word still looks bad, feels bad and smells bad out of consideration for the Mahayana tradition. But I do realize my comment is not relevant to this thread so feel free to disregard it.
/Victor
I was the student of first one, and then another, of the most well known of Karma Kagyu teachers of the last century, for a total of 30 years, and I never, ever, heard either of them refer to the 8FP.
They weren't against it I'm sure.
I suspect that if they had been asked they would have described it in detail.
But their jumping off point was located elsewhere.
In the Maha-ati teachings to be precise.
Maha-Ati and Dzogchen assume no necessity for Hinayana/Theravada teachings at all.
But I suspect I am wasting my time..
Were there more students of those traditions on this forum I suspect that we would see a number of replies affirming that.
The reality of New Buddhist Forum is that for whatever reason there are few Maha-Ati or Dzogchen students among the membership, so dissenting against the view that ALL Vajrayana groups start with the Hinayana view looks like eccentricity or an individual with an axe to grind..
Go to vajrayana.com ( the specialist Vajrayana forum ) and put that question there and you will get a very different response.
NB Referring to ' Tibetan Buddhist ' or ' T.B.' is misleading..The Vajrayana is not confined to Tibet, nor to Tibetans.
But I have just checked with my wife who is the student of a Sakya teacher and she says that it does not feature in his teachings or in his teacher's teachings at all.
Again as with my Kagyu teachers there is no suggestion of antipathy..it just does not feature.
Neither do the 4NT for that matter.
I think part of the problem is a reluctance to see that there is no standard model of Buddha-Dharma, and this includes aspects that some would consider to be of the essence.
Once one lets go of the need to see specific commonalities we are more free to see what IS being said.
Until then one is forced to read stuff into things that is not there.
Or to say that certain schools can't really be Buddhist.
Or that the 8FP/4NT MUST be there really but that we have carelessly mislaid them...
I thought that the position for all Mahayana is to become Bodhisattvas and then Sammasambuddhas themselves?
A Buddha being a selfawakened Being I guess it would be contradictory to follow another Buddhas teaching to enlightenment (in which case you are a sravaka buddha and not a sammasam buddha).
Just wondering...?
/Victor
Some Mahayanists at least , see the whole ' Bodhisattva and aspiring to be one' model as a skillful means rather than a statement of literal fact.
To quote Ajahn Chah, ' Dont be an Arahant, dont be a Bodhisattva, be nothing '.
'Dont be anything' ..but a Lao speaker told me that this is a softening of what Ajahn Chah actually said...