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.
When we practise Buddha's teachings we should do so without ommiting or adding anything.
''If there is any doubt or apprehension in your mind about the valdility of buddha, the dharma and the sangha as being the ultimate objects of refuge, even though you may have taken part in a refuge ceremony, that very suspicion or doubt prevents you from being a practicing buddhist, at least for the time being'' - the Dalai Lama
The dharma should be known and followed as it was founded and taught from the blessed one.
The Dali Lama also said that dhrama will have to change if science says otherwise. Just YouTube dali lama & Carl Sagan.
What was he refrring to exactly with regards to the dharma, because I can give off two quotes now that relate to science and the dharma by him which may be of interest..
''On the basis of cosmology, buddhism talks about the infinite process of the universe, the coming into being and going through a process of dissolution before again coming into being, This process has to be understood in relation to the three realms of existence. According to the sarvastivadin Abhiddharma literature (the buddhist discourses on metaphysics and psychology which serve as a reference in tibentan buddhism), it is from the third level of the form realm donwards that the world is subject to the continuous process of arising and dissolution. From which includes the formeless realm, the world is beyond this process which we could call the evolution of the physical universe. This infinite process of evolution is very similar to the modern scientific notion of the big bang. If the scientific cosmological theory accepts only one big bang as the beginning of things, then of course that would not fit in with buddhism.''
Just to note, this first quote is less substantial than the second one and was written nearly 10 years ago.
''Feelings, of course, can be considered in relation to two different dimensions of reality. We can speak about them purely at the physical level, as sensations, but when we try to understand feelings in terms of mental consciousness the issue is far more complex. And although we naturally accept that there must be connections between the consciousness and the nervous system of the body, we must somehow be able to account for deeper levels of feeling as well, or what we could call tones of experience. I would like to point out that although very little reasearch has been carried out in this area, and despite the fact that what little exists is still at a rudimentary stage, experiments done on meditators point to a phenomenon which may be difficult to account for within the current scientific paradigm. These experiments have shown that without any voluntary physical change in the body, and without any physical movement on the parft of the individual, a person can affect his or her physiological state simply by using the power of the mind through a focused, single-pointed state. The physiological changes that take place are difficult to explain according to the current assumptions about human physiology.''
He goes on to say, ''What does this mean? What seems to be accepted scientifially is that all thoughts that occur in our mind give rise to chemical changes and movements within the brain, which are then expressedin physciological change. But does pure thought leasd to such physical effects too? And is it the case that thoughts occur solely as a result of chemical changes within the body? I have asked scientists on several occasions whether it would be possible for the process to begin first with just a pure thought, and then, secondly, thought processes occur which give rise to chemical changes, which in turn trigger physiological effects. Most of the time their answers have indicated that since it is assumed that consciousness is contingent upon a physical base, (the brain) every occurrence or thought must necessarily be accompanied or caused by chemical changes in the brain. To me, however, that assumption seems to be based more on prejudice than experimental proof. Therefore I think the question is still open and further research is required.''
Statements like "We should practice that old time Buddhism the way Buddha did." or in this case "We should not omit or add anything" just makes me shake my head. ALL scripture and teachings have been interpreted and translated and passed down by fallable and faulty human beings. Unless you have invented time travel, you have no way of knowing what the Buddha actually said and no way of asking him to explain something you don't quite understand. So we are all in the same boat.
When I talk to someone who claims we should all be practicing the True Dharma, I first ask, "Whose version of the Dharma is true, then?" Funny how the answer always boils down to, "Why, mine of course!"
Here's a newsflash for everyone out there. We are all practicing what we perceive as the original, true Dharma as Buddha taught it. What, you think someone deliberately practices something they believe is false? The important point is not who is right and who is wrong, but that we actually put effort into our practice, whatever form it takes.
Statements like "We should practice that old time Buddhism the way Buddha did." or in this case "We should not omit or add anything" just makes me shake my head. ALL scripture and teachings have been interpreted and translated and passed down by fallable and faulty human beings. Unless you have invented time travel, you have no way of knowing what the Buddha actually said and no way of asking him to explain something you don't quite understand. So we are all in the same boat.
When I talk to someone who claims we should all be practicing the True Dharma, I first ask, "Whose version of the Dharma is true, then?" Funny how the answer always boils down to, "Why, mine of course!"
Here's a newsflash for everyone out there. We are all practicing what we perceive as the original, true Dharma as Buddha taught it. What, you think someone deliberately practices something they believe is false? The important point is not who is right and who is wrong, but that we actually put effort into our practice, whatever form it takes.
Good point. However, what if someone's "perception of the original" says "I can take LSD every weekend because the precepts don't say anything about drugs!" What if someone's perception of the original says "I really don't need to meditate, the Buddha didn't really teach that". What if someone's perception of the original says "I don't need to make an effort, I can 'just be'. What then?
>ALL scripture and teachings have been interpreted and translated and passed down by fallable and faulty human beings.
That may be true but what is relevant is the amount and degree of faults they had vs what many other people have. Is it not wise to follow the advice of a person who has 5 faults when you have 500, figuratively speaking? Following traditional methods prevents the practice from being tainted by your own ignorant and wrong perceptions. Doesn't it?
Yes, it's not "anything goes" either, but people being what they are, we spend our time arguing about did the Buddha teach emptiness or not, and what did he mean exactly, and such.
Comments
Just YouTube dali lama & Carl Sagan.
''On the basis of cosmology, buddhism talks about the infinite process of the universe, the coming into being and going through a process of dissolution before again coming into being, This process has to be understood in relation to the three realms of existence. According to the sarvastivadin Abhiddharma literature (the buddhist discourses on metaphysics and psychology which serve as a reference in tibentan buddhism), it is from the third level of the form realm donwards that the world is subject to the continuous process of arising and dissolution. From which includes the formeless realm, the world is beyond this process which we could call the evolution of the physical universe.
This infinite process of evolution is very similar to the modern scientific notion of the big bang. If the scientific cosmological theory accepts only one big bang as the beginning of things, then of course that would not fit in with buddhism.''
Just to note, this first quote is less substantial than the second one and was written nearly 10 years ago.
''Feelings, of course, can be considered in relation to two different dimensions of reality. We can speak about them purely at the physical level, as sensations, but when we try to understand feelings in terms of mental consciousness the issue is far more complex. And although we naturally accept that there must be connections between the consciousness and the nervous system of the body, we must somehow be able to account for deeper levels of feeling as well, or what we could call tones of experience.
I would like to point out that although very little reasearch has been carried out in this area, and despite the fact that what little exists is still at a rudimentary stage, experiments done on meditators point to a phenomenon which may be difficult to account for within the current scientific paradigm. These experiments have shown that without any voluntary physical change in the body, and without any physical movement on the parft of the individual, a person can affect his or her physiological state simply by using the power of the mind through a focused, single-pointed state. The physiological changes that take place are difficult to explain according to the current assumptions about human physiology.''
He goes on to say,
''What does this mean? What seems to be accepted scientifially is that all thoughts that occur in our mind give rise to chemical changes and movements within the brain, which are then expressedin physciological change. But does pure thought leasd to such physical effects too? And is it the case that thoughts occur solely as a result of chemical changes within the body? I have asked scientists on several occasions whether it would be possible for the process to begin first with just a pure thought, and then, secondly, thought processes occur which give rise to chemical changes, which in turn trigger physiological effects. Most of the time their answers have indicated that since it is assumed that consciousness is contingent upon a physical base, (the brain) every occurrence or thought must necessarily be accompanied or caused by chemical changes in the brain. To me, however, that assumption seems to be based more on prejudice than experimental proof. Therefore I think the question is still open and further research is required.''
When I talk to someone who claims we should all be practicing the True Dharma, I first ask, "Whose version of the Dharma is true, then?" Funny how the answer always boils down to, "Why, mine of course!"
Here's a newsflash for everyone out there. We are all practicing what we perceive as the original, true Dharma as Buddha taught it. What, you think someone deliberately practices something they believe is false? The important point is not who is right and who is wrong, but that we actually put effort into our practice, whatever form it takes.
>ALL scripture and teachings have been interpreted and translated and passed down by fallable and faulty human beings.
That may be true but what is relevant is the amount and degree of faults they had vs what many other people have. Is it not wise to follow the advice of a person who has 5 faults when you have 500, figuratively speaking? Following traditional methods prevents the practice from being tainted by your own ignorant and wrong perceptions. Doesn't it?