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.
How can anyone think he understand buddhism more than others
I really cant understand why do certain people believe they understand Buddhism more than others even "teach" others .
How could they think they understand Buddhism more than a cat ?
Can anyone "teach" Buddhism ?
How could they think they understand Buddhism more than a cat ?
Can anyone "teach" Buddhism ?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In Buddhism I believe is all about learning NEVER in any possible way involve "teaching".....I can learn Buddhism from you or a tree but I cant and is impossible for me to show or teach Buddhism to any one or anything.....please comment
all the buddha does is point.
everything is pointing to just this.
you cannot learn this. you cannot know this.
it is something to realize. those who know understand that to say nothing and to say something is the same.
yet out of the compassion arising naturally when one accepts what is, the buddha speaks.
everyone has buddha nature. the grass is still green.
I understand how you say Buddha can't be taught, it must be experienced, but it has to be both. The teachings help generate the conditions of experiencing the world without fetters. Then one can stare at a tree, a cat, and practice.
Well what exactly is buddhism these days? Its all added commentry. New things are getting added as we speak by new teachers,masters, monks etc etc..
For me, real buddhism would have been 4noble truths and 8fold path. THATS IT. (Buddha might have only made 6 fold path and 2 got added, who knows) but the point is DOES IT MATTER as long as whatever your reading makes sense and can benifit u RiGHT NOW.
See I'm not interested in rebirth and ending the cycle blar blar blar crap because quite frankly we will never know what really happens after we die. So I'm more concerned about how I can be happy NOW and help others achieve their happiness. And I find the 8 fold path (although very basic common sense) makes sense and a good practice for all buddhists and non buddhists..
Don't forget, when buddha was around there were no pens,paper, no one could write anything and by the time they could write something down buddha had passed away for than 300 years or so..now that's a hell of a long time. Its a fact that most stuff we hear is all just hear-say and made up crap coz there's no proof buddha said any of it.
So I'm not interested in traditions and rituals and rules and etc etc...
I personally think buddha would have told his followers to sit and be still....just sit. Followed by a little talk explaining the 8fold path.
And I also think this enlightenment state people believe he attained is way too far fetched..
Apparently a buddha is someone who has ended the cycle of rebirth and is cut from all delusions,cravings and emotions and doesn't get attached and won't say hurtful things and be compassionate to EVERYONE and won't ever get angry and won't this and won't that....well I say bull sh1t. LoL
I think buddha would have still done all these things but he just *gets it* he gets why he's having that emotion and can quickly snap out of it. Let's say he's angry with something, he would just be able to accept it sooner than others therefore move on quicker.
I bet he was just a calm geezer. But nothin special. Just thing made sense in his head. He had a few satori moments I bet!! And then start teachings. Then after few years the whole thing just got blown way out of proportion and lots of things and text and quotes got added..masters who thought they were enlightened would start quoting buddha and make up stories etc etc..
Anyway anough of my waffling on! Just my opinion anyway! X
But to try to answer your question- briefly, I guess, one could use the analogy of finding the wish-fulfilling gem under a pile of cow dung. If one does not know the gem is underneath the dung, then they miss the point entirely. This applies to your question about a cat knowing about Buddhism. A cat would not know there is a gem under the cow dung, and it would be difficult to persuade it to look.
Another example would be a non-contacted indigenous group that had never communicated with a "modern" person. They see the same moon we do. But they might have trouble believing that men have reached and walked on the moon, and it would take a lot of explaining to get them to believe it.
So the process of teaching and learning about Buddhism would involve the teacher supplying the necessary basic knowledge to the student. Just that simple. I would point out with great emphasis that the realization of emptiness is something that the individual has to work out for him/her self, or enlightenment or whatever you might want to call it. My point is, it is important to be aware of certain facts and techniques to be able to reach a higher level of insight.
So it's possible to teach and learn certain facts and techniques about Buddhism- I would say it's even necessary except for certain very distinct people such as Siddhartha Gautama.
But if we all realized Buddha-nature as easily as you suggest we might, we would all be fully awakened beings, there would be natural peace and harmony among all people, and we wouldn't have to go through all of this.
A person who thought he/she understands Buddhism better than others would hopefully do so humbly, and teach humbly.
Keep trying to clean off that funny hard lump you found underneath the cow dung.
That is all.
I base my Buddhism on the Nikayas and am a strong naturalist (i.e., I can entirely do without the supernatural stuff), just to say where I'm coming from.
On goshiki comment that a cat has a good understanding of the Dhamma: IMO a cat has none whatsoever. That's why the Buddha said it is a particularly bad rebirth to be born an animal. One virtually never gets out of that state as it's based in ignorance. Cats entirely live out their desires / impulses and are barely, if at all, capable of forming ethical actions, right or wrong. That's how one gets stuck there. If one sees the endpoint point of the Dhamma as seeing things as they are, which we can call tathata, then I think that has two aspects. By tathata I mean seeing things as ends in themselves, for themselves, what they are in themselves just as themselves, not some exchange value to someone. So this is part mystical, to be sure, but it is equally and simultaneously ethical: treating others as ends, not means. Way over the pay grade of a cat.
The usual way to demythologize rebirth as animal is to say it happens from time to time. When one is so stupid that their reduced to animal desires: food, sex and such, then they have been born as an animal. Not unlike being really stoned.
Many of the conversations conflate understanding with teaching, which is wrong. Pacceka Buddhas understand but don't or can't teach. One can understand all sorts of things and not be able to teach them (that's why teachers go to school to learn to teach) but that doesn't mean that their unteachable.
Let's note that the Buddha taught for 45 years.
As for zenmyste comment that the Dhamma consists of the 4NT's and the 8FNP and no more (and not unjustified doubts about the Nikayas accurately representing what he taught) I think not. First, neither of those are really simple ideas without interpretation. One can argue about what 1st NT and dukkha means for days. The Buddha also said, over and over, that paticca samuppada (often translated as dependent arising) is what the Dhamma comes to, and he said repeatedly that it is very hard. He once criticized Ananda for saying it wasn't.
I've learned a great deal from others who know more than me, some of them almost certainly not just in the sense that they know more about something or other than I do, but that they're advanced further in realization of those teachings than I have.
Believing I can understand more about the Dhamma by conversing on this forum,
metta, stephen
If human continue to used "knowledge" to learn Buddha ,Buddhism will always be in human "knowledge" circle just like history books in school .
We fill in skill & knowledge into a "self" named by our father and start to package this self into what we think created by us . Infact we are wrong , in Buddha there is no such thing as "ourself".
Knowing Buddha is TOTALLY different than searching knowledge like in our current world . Buddha is about knowing own awareness after being awake ..........knowledge is tiny part .
Dhamma can be teached.
There are people with different levels of understanding gained throw intellect.
There are people with different levels of understanding gained throw direct experience.
No big deal.
If it could not be taught, there would be no teachers.
If it did not take effort to understand, there would be no need for those teachers.
There will always be someone that has a better understanding.
Unless of course you're mistaking Buddhism for something else. Buddhism is Buddhism... it is not the goal itself, not itself Unbinding, but only the finger pointing to the moon.
Why peeps just practice without getting attached to metaphysics for no good reason?! sheeet!
lol, I am still attached to deez forum
So people like "venerble" Dalai Lama....should he , his talks , his "teaching" be regarded as referral to Buddhism teaching ????
Anything anyone says on this forum, as far as the staff is concerned, has equal weight as an opinion. It is up to you to decide what to believe, or to believe anything at all. Again I caution the same thing the Buddha did... be wary of believing what people say unless it agrees with your own reason, your common sense, and your experiences. That is the very point of practice, to find the truth of what is taught for yourself.
As far as actual, real "teachers" of Buddhism, recognized and part of established Buddhist traditions, they are no different than any other teachers. They have mastered the material, know what they're talking about, and are worthy to teach if you want to learn. There's not much else to say about them.
We can not really know what the truth is, especially when it's coming from some random forum poster instead of a recognized teacher, until we have walked the Path long enough and put enough effort in to where we see for ourselves, so that we know the truth for ourselves and can honestly judge what is said. Until then we must keep our eyes and ears open and continually put what we experience to the test.
The only 2 questions are;
1) What distinguishes a "recognized teacher"? I think it depends on how each individual feels about certain teachers. Whether or not their teachings ring true to them.
2) How long we walk the path and how much effort we put in before we find the truth for ourselves again would depend on the individual. Maybe 5 minutes, maybe 50 years.
With Metta and Respect
#1 (What distinguishes a "recognized teacher"? I think it depends on how each individual feels about certain teachers. Whether or not their teachings ring true to them.) depends upon your tradition. If someone is recognized as an official teacher by a monastic sangha within your own tradition, then they are an official teacher. You don't have to follow that particular teacher, but they are as "real" as it gets. To not recognize them as a real teacher, while still being of that tradition, separates you from that tradition... you can't have it all your way and still hold to tradition.
#2 (How long we walk the path and how much effort we put in before we find the truth for ourselves again would depend on the individual. Maybe 5 minutes, maybe 50 years.) is a simple truth; it takes longer for some to see the truth than others.
@anthisouk Those are some wise words. I find that when I practice being open, I enjoy everything more. For instance, sometimes at the local grocery store, there is an employee who seems to have some sort of Aspergers Syndome. He always wants to talk to me like I had been his friend for 20 years. At first I was like, ugh ... I don't want to deal with this... I just want to get home and blah blah blah. Then as I was analyzing my behaviour's skillfulness, I realized that I should be open to this. So I started being interested; I commented on things; I decided to enjoy this conversation. Now, not only do I enjoy these conversations, but he seems quite happy to be able to have them as well. I am not pretending and being fake... saying things like yeah, uh huh, etc, I actually have a genuine interest. I feel like everybody(living things) can be a teacher and a student. They are interdependent aren't they? @goshiki you have said that it is impossible for you to show or teach buddhism. I disagree. I believe that by just being you, you give everybody an opportunity to learn/practice (buddhism, compassion, openness, etc), is that not teaching?
We learn when we are open.
Isn't the hidden implication of this statement that the writer of this sentence understands Buddhism more than others?
Just a thought!
You keep pointing to the teachers as being pretentious when it is the common folk who lift them so high.
However, he said he attained freedom from suffering. He told us how we can too. We bought into the idea. Now we are trying to end our suffering too. If it doesn't work, we can just stop. However, the method is tried and true. If not ending suffering, it brings happiness, which is passable and still worth the endeavor for us Buddhists.
When my father die five years ago I fully understand that death is part of his purification process and I must not suffer sorrow ( perhaps I already suspected ) but after I saw all my family member cry , I cried like a baby .
I am learning to learn this hard but I cant learn if others still cry on funeral , still fear death . I believe if human really selfless to learn from Mr Siddharta , perhaps human now never known what is suffering .
Human for thousand of years trying hard to "decorate" him , makes him "talk" , said thing on his behalf even many "trying" to act like him .
If human continue to do this I think perhaps if he still alive now he might be very dissapointed with what had happening . so leave the guy or girl rest in peace lets move on our own without coping his lifestyle .
Is only the "gossip" of his finding that excite me never is him or his lifestyle .
Respect him as a freind , a human , a living without saying anything on his behalf......
Which essentially means you don't believe Buddha taught impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self (The Three Marks), you don't believe Buddha taught the 4 Noble Truths, you don't believe Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path, you don't believe Buddha taught the 5 Precepts.
Which essentially means you're not even sure what Buddhism is all about. I'm not sure what you're doing here in the first place.
If you're here to really learn, then try to understand what we are trying to tell you in the first place, instead of denigrating people who have way more experience than you in terms of meditation and Buddhist philosophy, e.g. His Holiness Dalai Lama.
If you're here just to push your own philosophy or beliefs, then you're fighting a losing war. Most of us here have enough experience to place our trust and confidence on what Siddharta Gautama taught. If you have none of that, then so sorry for you.
Some people, who don't really think about what this actually means, often have a knee jerk reaction and misconstrue the principle of doubt/questioning/mistrust as negative and constricting when in fact it is the central principle of Dharmic liberation. It is what sets Dharma aside from other religions and spiritual practices.
It is what prevents The Dogma from infecting The Dharma.
>>>Which essentially means you don't believe Buddha taught impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self (The Three Marks), you don't believe Buddha taught the 4 Noble Truths, you don't believe Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path, you don't believe Buddha taught the 5 Precepts.
Do you see the mistake in your processes here @dorje?
For example, should you believe the Eightfold Path is wise and noble because someone told you or because after investigating, understanding and travelling it you can see it leads away from Dukka?
>>>Most of us here have enough experience to place our trust and confidence on what Siddharta Gautama taught.
Sure, and I would hope that most here put trust and confidence in what Buddha taught for that reason; not because its written on some brittle palm fronds....
The answer to @goshiki's insistent premise is that there are many people who are well qualified to teach "about" Buddhism, some more than others, but that the individual needs to work out the fruits of the process him/her self. That's the essential distinction here.
I don't understand why this discussion just keeps going around in circles. There are people that are well qualified to teach about Buddhism and guide a student's understanding about Buddhism, but no one can make another person enlightened.
That's really all there is to it. To follow @goshiki's premise to its logical conclusion, there is no point in him/her starting this discussion because according to the premise, there is no one that can teach another person Buddhism, so there's no point in @goshiki pushing the premise of the OP either. It's all negative and nay-saying, with nothing constructive.
So @goshiki, if you don't think anyone can teach about Buddhism, why don't you just let the idea go out of your mind and get on with your life without learning about Buddhism?
No teacher should be "trusted" just because of "the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher'". They should only be trusted by the seeker when what they teach can be seen to lead away from Dukka, towards benefit etc.
I think the Kalma Principle is like freedom of speech or pacifism, in that even the slightest compromise destroys its essence.
>>>The answer to @goshiki's insistent premise is that there are many people who are well qualified to teach "about" Buddhism, some more than others, but that the individual needs to work out the fruits of the process him/her self. That's the essential distinction here.
Yes, agree. And would add that it is not just the teacher that should be questioned but the entire doctrine and documents.
>>>I don't understand why this discussion just keeps going around in circles.
Me neither!:) I can see why rebirth and drugs never settles in terms of discussions but this I find a huge mystery and have for a number of years.
The essential point is that if a teacher understands and teaches the dharma well then their teachings will stand up to any amount of doubt and questioning. Its wonderfully self verifying.
>>>That's really all there is to it. To follow @goshiki's premise to its logical conclusion, there is no point in him/her starting this discussion because according to the premise, there is no one that can teach another person Buddhism, so there's no point in @goshiki pushing the premise of the OP either. It's all negative and nay-saying, with nothing constructive.
Yes, agree. Though @goshiki is mistaken if they do not appreciate the response to the universal doubt of the Kalama Principles. It is only when you realise that no matter how hard you try the dharma cannot be doubted that the penny drops, then it doubt becomes liberating not naysaying.
>>>So @goshiki, if you don't think anyone can teach about Buddhism, why don't you just let the idea go out of your mind and get on with your life without learning about Buddhism?
@goshiki, my advice differs from the above, I say keep on doubting, keep on trying to disprove the Dharma and the teachers and the texts. Eventually, if you have a modicum of smarts and focus, you will be forced to conclude that most of what you are taught or discover cannot be doubted.
It truly is that potent, but please don't take my words or anyone elses words for that:)
Question everything, light your own Path.
Namaste
If in such case , I think I could only respect our differences and learned as much as I can without any discussion from my side .
Thks Sir .
Buddhism is IMPOSSIBLE to be taught but can be learned from all living or non-living so in no condition I deny learning here from you guys so why I must stopped or forced to stop this discussion ?
I am happy "meeting" you guys here , debating with you guys with love and respect . You know today I never eat anything for lunch just spend the whole day answering reply ? Is great learning process , I never had this kind of chance from all my friend or family . No one near my place like to discuss on death , afterdeath or Buddhism . They only interested in money or sex which is also my "hobby"...
But I do think that one could start from nothing, in a void, and end up with the four noble truths. In the same way as one could arrive at other laws or nature, science or reality.
Luckily for us, this has been done before, countless times, so we have a short-cut to the Dharma. This is what teachers can provide.
It is not that there is some secret or inaccessible truth - Buddhists who say that are mistaken in my opinion.
>>>Buddhism is IMPOSSIBLE to be taught
Clearly not. It is very easy to be taught:)
>>>>so in no condition I deny learning here from you guys so why I must stopped or forced to stop this discussion ?
You need to understand that we are often attached to our views, even as Buddhists. Nothing wholesome will ever come from confronting the attachments of others. Simply, try hard not to be confrontational:)
Often this is very hard!
namaste