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.
potential new buddhist, a few "issues" with buddhism
Hey guys, first post here. Compared to other religions (if you want to call it that. philosophy if you prefer) Buddhism seems pretty much perfect. What bothers me is the "fact" (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that when Gautama Buddha first became enlightened, basically the first thing he did was wonder if it was even worth the effort of trying to teach? He had to be convinced by one of his disciples? What reason could he possibly have had for such apathetic thinking?
Then I hear he refuses to teach women for the first 5 years, then when he does he adds extra rules for them to follow. To be honest, even if it turns out that he was somehow a horrible person, I'll still value his teachings greatly and try my best to follow them, but I'd much prefer if I could think of him as a mentor rather than someone who accidentally stumbled on something great. Thanks for any responses.
Then I hear he refuses to teach women for the first 5 years, then when he does he adds extra rules for them to follow. To be honest, even if it turns out that he was somehow a horrible person, I'll still value his teachings greatly and try my best to follow them, but I'd much prefer if I could think of him as a mentor rather than someone who accidentally stumbled on something great. Thanks for any responses.
0
Comments
B. he didn't refuse to teach woman, at all, ever. He may have been reluctant to ordain women due to societal complications — as well as possible complications within the already existing order of monks — at the very beginning; but he never, at any time, refused to teach women (e.g., see "was the buddha sexist?").
And I don't think discrimination against women for the sake of fitting in is understandable in the slightest. say I reached buddhahood myself, would it be ok if i discriminated against homosexuals which seems to be the current trend in the USA? I'm not saying a buddhist can't have his or her hangups (which would usually be put in place by society anyway) but an ACTUAL Buddha?
edit: is there any reason this was moved to a much lower traffic area? =/
And he spent the rest of his life teaching the Dharma, but also trying to keep his opinionated, egotistic followers from fighting with each other, just as he knew would happen. I really can't blame him for hesitating to begin such a frustrating job.
As for the nuns, yes a hundred picky rules were claimed to come out of his lips that covered every aspect of temple, monk and nun behavior. Most scholars sincerely doubt the Buddha was so concerned about who bowed to whom in the temple hallway that hadn't even been built yet.
While it's pretty certain he early on established some basic rules such as discouraging teenagers without their parent's permission, remember in his time women were tightly controlled by their father and later on, husband.
Your comment about women being controlled actually does help, thank you for that. It does make sense that they were most likely not even allowed to go ask him, and that even if they did, he would recognize it would do them more harm if he told them to disobey their "owner" or however they referred to them.
And to me, enlightenment does seem very straightforward. How is it not? You're basically perfect aren't you? If he still went through the struggles we do then what's the difference? Him trying to avoid frustration (or any supposedly "negative" part of life) seems to go against what he just learned moments before.
Some of the extra rules for Bhikkhunis include things like not walking around outside their monastery on their own. This is to reduce the likelihood that they will be attacked or raped. The Buddha had the Bhikkhuni's best interests at heart when he added the extra rules.
It is also important to note that the earliest Sangha (monastic community) had absolutely no rules what-so-ever. The rules were not created arbitrarily, they were created in response to some actual problem that had already occurred. Monks and nuns would come to the Buddha and tell him about the various problems and difficulties that were occurring in the Sangha and the Buddha would create a rule to prevent similar situations occurring in the future.
If we were already Enlightened, whether we are monks or nuns or lay people, we wouldn't need any rules, we would naturally follow them. Rules are not there to imprison us. Rules, in Buddhism, are there to keep us safe and to support the development of inner-peace and wisdom.
Kind regards,
Guy
As for him potentially feeling doubt, you've all helped in that too. The source I heard that from was a kind of summary and just rubbed me the wrong way. In the future I'll try to clarify what really happened before letting it turn into doubt. Thanks again guys.
you think buddhism is a philosophy.
in some ways it is. but the heart of buddhism is existential.
it is something to realize for yourself. if the buddha reached a state of mind of peace, how could he give that state of mind to someone else? he can't. he can only point and teach methods towards this state of peace.
thus the idea in zen. finger pointing to the moon.
spiritual bypassing is done when you take truth and say it.
it doesn't matter if you say it. you have to understand and see from where the being is saying it from. from what state of consciousness is that being saying it from?
sure we are all perfection, but such perfection accept total imperfection.
and thus this perfection without realization is meaningless because then it is merely philosophy.
buddhism changing your whole life. philosophy creates distance between reality and yourself.
"In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration...I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death...Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers..."
You could say theoretically it is very straight forward, but to actually have the ability to live that way, not so much. It requires all of the above 8 parts in order to happen, according to the Buddha. Thinking is just one, perhaps 2 parts of that.
there is only perfection. this perfection is beyond perfection and imperfection. to call it perfection is to miss the mark, but i'll make that mistake for the sake of conversation.
such perfection encompasses both yet at the same time goes beyond both.
okay so lets look at anger for example. with an awakened mind one can see anger arise and fall.
we must understand that anger is our child and we are the mother. we take care of it softly with awareness and allow it to be as it is. in doing so anger comes and goes. when we don't understand ourselves and reality then we push and pull away at anger. thus causing many problems. anger itself is an impersonal arising of karma.
anger is neither imperfect or perfect. as anger can be both positive and negative. it can be harmful and helpful. mostly harmful but anger is the energy of compassion when viewed from the correct perception.
so this anger is inherently empty just like all emotions/thoughts. we give value by pushing and pulling. when we see perfection or just SEE clearly we allow anger to come and go. like a thunderstorm.
this is something to be experienced rather than thought over. meh!
But in saying that perfection and imperfection are concepts, I think you also allow for every human thought or emotion to be a concept as well. Love, hate, anger, happiness, all of it. My idea of perfection is being 100% undisturbed by ANYTHING, including all emotions, thoughts, and ideas. I'm not saying not reacting, but basically not being upset. For me, perfection = acceptance. Do you believe that it's possible for a sentient being to be purely accepting of all circumstances? I realize this went off track of the original post a bit but I'm really interested in what you have to say about this.
And speaking of which, where have you learned to think like that if you don't mind my asking? I don't expect a 1 word answer that I'll be able to replicate but I like what you have to say and would like to kind of follow your path to Buddhism if possible.
hate to break it to you. when you pass the gateless gate its not like that. you learn to engage with the world fully. not hide behind like a zombie. all is felt 100%. all is thought of 100%. but they are all objects, impersonal, not you, impermanent.
there are two choices in life. accept what is or suffer.
a thought creates a feeling and a feeling creates a thought. they are all thoughts. feelings are just juicy thoughts. there is no mind/body split. all can be experienced within your subjectivity. all can become objects of your subjectivity. ALL OBJECT CANNOT BE FOUND NOR CAN THEY BE GRASPED. good luck trying.
acceptance is total acceptance of the inevitable. whether it is bawing your eyes out because your child has died. or just eating dinner. all is truth and valid. FORM IS EMPTINESS and EMPTINESS IS FORM.
acceptance comes from clear seeing. clear seeing just see's what is. what is, is just this. just this is whats here right now.
all buddhism leads to surrender. in such surrender you realize what is.
i practice zen buddhism.
fuck all this. just practice, practice, practice. sit and see for yourself whats here. allow death and suffering to be your motivation to free yourself by entering the gateless gate.
we all have shoes on our head, yet we choose not to save the cat. fuck!
there is no sense reward for being a buddha. there is only liberation from sense desires.
i understand buddha as completely radically open to experience, not super jesus. Since buddha was open to experience he was influenced by those who asked him to teach.
we ask all the buddhas of the ten directions to hear us so that they may help us awaken. we are calling to the open aware nature within us, which is the nature of the buddhas, to come alive.
all is infinite potential. even though you can limit infinite potential by projection of ideas, it allows for it. lol but its infinite potentiality hahaha.
we are both right and wrong. how awakening moves is individual and it's impossible to make grand gestures of projection and expect it to be accurate.
to be in hell, but also be in peace. such is the nature of a bodhisattva.
i'd be careful. do not believe what you assume to be enlightenment. for it is nothing like we assume or project.
but this is my opinion and a pretty meaningless opinion at that. so take it for what it is.
Here is something Trungpa Rinpoche said about contacting emotions here. It is his teaching on a buddhist idea known as 'the Lion's Roar'.
When 2 of the Buddha's students died and he was informed about it, he said something along the lines of "its as if the earth has lost the sun and the moon". The Buddha was likely very saddened by the loss of life, even though he knew that life is impermanent and that we must all die someday. Being 'enlightened' doesnt get rid of someones emotions, it makes them more aware of them. It removes selfishness from the equation and focuses compassion on all other sentient beings. The Buddha loved everyone, he felt compassion towards others, he felt sadness when they died, but he also moved on.
The Buddha was not perfect, not a god, but a human being. And like all human beings, he lived in a particular culture. Enlightenment doesn't mean one possesses all the "correct" answers to certain issues. Being enlightened doesn't mean one stops making "mistakes." Enlightenment is not something one possesses like a thing, but rather, it is a never-ending process. Actually, the fact that the Buddha did have to get his bearings to me makes him all the more human.
IIRC, the Buddha did say he was reluctant to teach at first, because he thought it wouldn't be possible to put into words the complexities of his vast understanding of the nature of life, to make his vision accessible to followers. But he succeeded. Fortunately for us.
I would define it as the ability to simultaneously see the world for what it really is (a harsh delusion) whilst having compassion for those still living the delusion. So you care that people are suffering, but ultimately you know that it's all right.
Actually, it does.
You seem to have missed my point, which is why I put "correct" and "mistakes" in quotes. Conceiving life to be something measured purely by an cut-and-dry absolute yardstick is not particularly skillful.
You seem to have missed my point, which is why I put "correct" and "mistakes" in quotes. Conceiving life to be something measured purely by an cut-and-dry absolute yardstick is not particularly skillful.
in korean zen we wear gray robes.
symbolizes ashes and all the gray areas in life. one foot at a time.
The Buddha found the way of transcendence, which is also the way above and beyond words. This is why it is very hard to 'teach' because as humans, we are mostly still stuck on the intellectual level. To wit, when embracing a loved one, a child, a husband and or wife, there is just this embrace - and where is the intellect then. This goes to show that most of our lives are led with our very own breath and life. But that source of life, that sustenance of love, is not so easily identified by those not yet trained in this. This is why we have something called Buddhism.
It is not a promise, nor is it just a belief/faith system (though many treat it like this) - it is also a promise though, a promise that lays out a way and context of training that makes it possible for liberation in this lifetime, just like Lord Buddha.
Remember that the Buddha operated in a social context and system. Just like we do today. Today you would (most likely) also be aware of social customs and norms and so too did the Buddha. It is likely that women could not travel so freely and so exposedly in those days and there would be problems with introducing a system like that. And his order was largely a monastic one.
But despite whatever theories are put forth, the Buddha's life and example we can see are exemplary not in terms of this or that custom - but in terms of harmony, goodwill and genuinely teaching and passing on the messages - and potentiality - for genuine peace, goodwill, transcendence and maybe even joy in this lifetime - for all.
Blessings and good journey to you.
Abu
anything we discuss is theory. fuck it all. just practice!