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.
Because @taiyaki has been a member here for about a year now, and it's not like them to insult other by calling them idiots; and also from the context of their reply, which to me was a general statement and not directed at you specifically.
I looked at the first page and it seemed to me that each post was content based. Can you say something about how you assess whether a post is conent based or not? Is this post content based? :hiding:
The term was, profess content-based beliefs. Not write posts that include content.
Conrad.
Yes Conrad I didn't understand what you meant by content-based beliefs.
There's really no need to label people as trolls. If you think someone is just trolling, it's better to simply not participate in the discussion as they'll more than likely get themselves banned or leave on their own after a while.
BINGO! Pass "GO", collect $1000, retire to a life of leisure.
You could equally claim Dakini was a troll for turning a statement of mine, which she disagreed with, over into a "question for the group." She had no interest in considering the answers, and she got very angry with someone for implying that she might.
I do not have a problem with debate or polemic. I think it's a good way to work things out. I've gotten good insights from real arguments.
Let me ask you: do you think Nigel is trying to hurt you?
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'd like to suggest that @nigelart do some study of the other traditions in order to understand where they're coming from. Just being a regular part of this forum would likely accomplish alot.
You could equally claim Dakini was a troll for turning a statement of mine, which she disagreed with, over into a "question for the group." She had no interest in considering the answers, and she got very angry with someone for implying that she might.
Whoa! Off-topic! I have a few words to say about how you conducted yourself on a certain thread, goading Dakini, so let's not go there!
I'd like to suggest that @nigelart do some study of the other traditions in order to understand where they're coming from. Just being a regular part of this forum would likely accomplish alot.
Great idea. And while he's working on that, let's everyone... one the count of 3: one...two...three...*chilllll*
Whoa! Off-topic! I have a few words to say about how you conducted yourself on a certain thread, goading Dakini, so let's not go there!
So you judge identical behavior differently when you agree or disagree with the person's philosophy, and you're fine with that.
Interesting.
C.
Whether or not it's true in this particular case, I think that's a rather common occurrence in general, intentional or not. I sometimes find myself doing just that. It's quite difficult, if not impossible, to be entirely objective about things.
@Nigelart I attend a Zen Sangha... I have not read any original Buddha writings, but I will if the Sangha recommends. Does that answer our question?
It sounds like you are challenging Buddhist labels associated with certain practices. I have not placed such a label on myself, so I have nothing to defend. I'm trying to learn new things as my interests and beliefs have dramatically changed in the last several months... I have no idea which path my learning desires will take me, and can care less what the road sign says.
I don't think that I would last more than a day in your class if you bring the same approach as you bring here... I instinctly doubt people who feel they have to sell their path as the best or only path. The true guru doesn't have to sell, they teach those who come to them.
I actually learned a lot of things. I learned that some people study the Pali Canon due to faith in Buddha rather than the content.
You never knew before that there exist people of faith?
I think most westerners come to buddhism as a reaction against christianity, which is highly faith based. not to say jeffrey is like that but from my personal point of view that is what brought attraction towards buddhism.
Those who are raised with Buddhism tend to either follow the same pattern of having lots of faith with their religion or flat out negating it.
@Nigelart I attend a Zen Sangha... I have not read any original Buddha writings, but I will if the Sangha recommends. Does that answer our question?
It does. And may I just say halleluja!
You're the first guy in this thread who gave me a straightforward answer. Thank you.
It sounds like you are challenging Buddhist labels associated with certain practices. I have not placed such a label on myself, so I have nothing to defend. I'm trying to learn new things as my interests and beliefs have dramatically changed in the last several months... I have no idea which path my learning desires will take me, and can care less what the road sign says.
Whatever. The thing I'm finding odd and almost fascinating at this point is how so many people tend to indulge in the Buddhist practice and so often couldn't be bothered to learn anything about the founder of that practice. Obviously, I'm in the extreme minority in this, so let's agree to disagree.
To me, the situation is similar to attempting to learn how to play blues licks on the guitar while at the same time absolutely not being interested in listening to any of the famous blues guitarists. But hey, anything's possible -- we humans are strange, strange beings.
I don't think that I would last more than a day in your class if you bring the same approach as you bring here... I instinctly doubt people who feel they have to sell their path as the best or only path. The true guru doesn't have to sell, they teach those who come to them.
I never said I'm selling anything. My classes are free for all. I don't expect dana, as I have other means for making a living.
People come to me, for various reasons. It's the word of mouth thing, mostly. And yes, a lot of people leave in disappointment. I'm not hiding behind anything, I don't profess to work on the continuation of any tradition or lineage. I just teach Buddhism the way the Buddha exposed it in the Nikayas and Agamas. Anyone curious about that can easily obtain a copy of Nikayas or Agamas and read for themselves. Some, after doing that, still feel they need further instructions, and they come to me. That's all. I don't charge anything, I don't collect dana, I just feel enormously blessed to be given an opportunity to work with others on elucidating the primitive Buddhist teachings.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think the main issue here is that @nigelart you see the Nikayas and Agamas as the sole source of genuine Buddhadharma and therefore if someone doesn't study them they aren't studying Buddhism. Most people don't share this view.
Those who are raised with Buddhism tend to either follow the same pattern of having lots of faith with their religion or flat out negating it.
So from the western point of view its "weird".
So please excuse us, we mean no harm.
That's cool. The issue with the Buddhist study and practice is that it is so bloody advanced, that it gets impossible for a normal human being to grasp it. At least I think I'm a normal human being, but then I could quite easily turn out to be a retard. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I'm of average intelligence, I still cannot grasp the recondite and profound teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.
That's when the faith element kicks in. I have no other means of knowing whether the content presented to me is valid or not, other than to seek out the most authentic words of the Buddha, and then take them on faith. That's why I'm a bit cautious of some other 'sources', such as Buddhagosa, Chandrakirti, Mipham, and such. All these later 'masters' have put forward their own flavours of Dharma, and I'm not sure what their personal agendas were. So, after studying them carefully, I remain sitting on the fence.
With the Buddha, however, I'm always jumping in heads first. With utter abandon. Oh, the joy of the Buddha's teachings!
I think the main issue here is that @nigelart you see the Nikayas and Agamas as the sole source of genuine Buddhadharma and therefore if someone doesn't study them they aren't studying Buddhism. Most people don't share this view.
Absolutely and vehemently not true. There are many, many other sources of genuine Buddhism. I've spent twenty plus years carefully studying Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. Absolutely everything written in there is in perfect agreement with everything the Buddha said (as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas). There are many, too many to mention here, brilliant works of later Buddhist masters and commentators that propagate true Buddhadharma in the most beautiful way possible (Mogaliputtatissa being one of the brightest examples in the Buddhist firmament).
My point is this: it would be very hard for us mere mortals to discern these brilliant later works from fraudulent works if one is not familiar with the Buddha's original teachings.
May seem daunting, but keep in mind that the Buddha had spent 45 years constantly teaching. Everything you ever need to know about the most sublime aspects of Dharma and the Buddhist teaching and practice is contained in there.
Once you internalize these teachings, you will be enriched with an infallible inner radar that will be your best guide in life. No need to worry about meeting or keeping a teacher if you are intimately familiar with the above teachings.
Live long, prosper, and practice Dharma diligently.
@Nigelart I attend a Zen Sangha... I have not read any original Buddha writings, but I will if the Sangha recommends. Does that answer our question?
It does. And may I just say halleluja!
You're the first guy in this thread who gave me a straightforward answer. Thank you.
What do you mean?! I gave you a straight answer! You will probably have to scroll back many pages though.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Absolutely and vehemently not true. There are many, many other sources of genuine Buddhism. I've spent twenty plus years carefully studying Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. Absolutely everything written in there is in perfect agreement with everything the Buddha said (as recorded in the Nikayas and Agamas). There are many, too many to mention here, brilliant works of later Buddhist masters and commentators that propagate true Buddhadharma in the most beautiful way possible (Mogaliputtatissa being one of the brightest examples in the Buddhist firmament).
I guess I don't really understand where you are coming from then. In other posts you talk about how you are just a normal person who isn't able to discern what is true and what isn't. And in others you come across as dismissive of other sources of teachings.
My point is this: it would be very hard for us mere mortals to discern these brilliant later works from fraudulent works if one is not familiar with the Buddha's original teachings.
I can understand this, however @Jeffrey had several good posts on more recent thinking that the pali canon is not necessarily the only source for Buddha's original teachings.
@nigelart, I honestly think that part of the problem is that the pali canon is so ancient. The writing style.
That's a very lame excuse. Unacceptable.
It is what it is. Personalizing and adding ad hominem to my observation do not add anything relevant.
Sorry, apologies for not being precise enough. I really didn't mean that as aimed at you personally. I didn't even read it as you stating that was your personal problem. I thought you were saying that in general many find archaic Pali idioms to be an impediment to reading the canon.
So I'm saying that to such people I always reply with "that's a lame excuse. Make an effort!"
It's like someone saying how they've heard that Billy Holiday is possibly the greatest singer ever, but how they can't listen to her, because the recordings are so ancient. To which I say "yes, but make an effort nevertheless."
Nige, several people have given you a simple, straightforward answer to your OP question. So, um... why are you still here? :scratch: Conrad posted a very good definition of, er... rhymes with "roll". By that definition, if you were legit in your inquiry, you would have folded up and moved on pages ago. So, what's this all about, Nige? What's it really all about?
I guess I don't really understand where you are coming from then. In other posts you talk about how you are just a normal person who isn't able to discern what is true and what isn't. And in others you come across as dismissive of other sources of teachings.
I am dismissive of the sources that collide with the Buddha's original teachings. I personally, relying on my own feeble faculties, could never be able to discern such fraudulent teachings if it wasn't for the aid and help of the material found in the Nikayas and Agamas. Once you get a handle on the doctrine found in the Nikayas, it's like obtaining a compass in a desert. Now you all of a sudden know which way to turn.
Without having this compass, I feel completely lost. I also wouldn't trust any self-proclaimed, self-appointed zen master or any such fraudulent enterprise to be my guide. Also, I don't feel capable of building my own compass. I rely on the Buddha to supply me with one.
Why is this simple fact so difficult for so many to comprehend?
I can understand this, however @Jeffrey had several good posts on more recent thinking that the pali canon is not necessarily the only source for Buddha's original teachings.
I never said it was the only source for the Buddha's original teaching. There are many sources that purport to be the Buddha's original teachings. There are even people who keep discovering the Buddha's face in their toast at breakfast.
All I said was that Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas are the MOST RELIABLE sources of the Buddha's original teaching. I didn't even claim they're the earliest sources. Early/later has nothing to do with authenticity.
Nige, several people have given you a simple, straightforward answer to your OP question. So, um... why are you still here? :scratch: Conrad posted a very good definition of, er... rhymes with "roll". By that definition, if you were legit in your inquiry, you would have folded up and moved on pages ago. So, what's this all about, Nige? What's it really all about?
Discussions like this rarely stop after just a few responses. They just keep going in circles until people get bored and stop posting or they're closed. Incidentally, how does repeatedly calling and/or insinuating someone's a troll help the conversation evolve or end? Please stop.
Without having this compass, I feel completely lost. I also wouldn't trust any self-proclaimed, self-appointed zen master or any such fraudulent enterprise to be my guide. Also, I don't feel capable of building my own compass. I rely on the Buddha to supply me with one.
Why is this simple fact so difficult for so many to comprehend?
Because what people want to hear is that they are already enlightened, just as Eckhart Tolle says they are: That they are already perfected, that they merely need to accept their own perfection and let go of the idea that there is work to do or expectations that are placed on them. And if you uphold the idea that there are standards, you are a troll or a fundamentalist.
You have attacked people's gods, Nigel. That is why you are being stoned.
Conrad.
ps - And for the record, I'm a wannabe. That's why I'm into this.
Without having this compass, I feel completely lost. I also wouldn't trust any self-proclaimed, self-appointed zen master or any such fraudulent enterprise to be my guide. Also, I don't feel capable of building my own compass. I rely on the Buddha to supply me with one.
Why is this simple fact so difficult for so many to comprehend?
Because what people want to hear is that they are already enlightened, just as Eckhart Tolle says they are: That they are already perfected, that they merely need to accept their own perfection and let go of the idea that there is work to do or expectations that are placed on them. And if you uphold the idea that there are standards, you are a troll or a fundamentalist.
You have attacked people's gods, Nigel. That is why you are being stoned.
Conrad.
ps - And for the record, I'm a wannabe. That's why I'm into this.
Sano's Lute string. Not too loose and not too tight.
Hello everybody. I am familiar with the 8fp, 4nt. I have watched a few documentaries on the Buddha. I am reading pdf downloads from the buddhanet - next one I'm going to read is about the 5 aggregates. I am not very familiar with original teachings - other than the basic explanations of 8fp, 4nt, and
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2012
@conradcook, Then ask her in a PM or if you think it's a question worthy of general consideration, open a thread. Please try not to derail the current discussion.
whoops.... this happens so often.. apologies. For some reason the text disappears out of whatever I'm typing in, and goes skew whiffy somewhere else on the computer.. anyway... carrying on from where I was: and I'm happy with my progress. Everyone has to start somewhere. My own personal mileage means that I learn best from reading texts (on reputable sites such as buddhanet) that quite frankly, are easier for me to understand, rather than reading more 'dense' information. I also like listening to Buddhist talks from Audio Dharma etc. I will continue my journey at my own pace, and allow it to unfold in its own way. If I feel I'm getting lost I will seek advice. Amen.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I am dismissive of the sources that collide with the Buddha's original teachings. I personally, relying on my own feeble faculties, could never be able to discern such fraudulent teachings if it wasn't for the aid and help of the material found in the Nikayas and Agamas. Once you get a handle on the doctrine found in the Nikayas, it's like obtaining a compass in a desert. Now you all of a sudden know which way to turn.
Without having this compass, I feel completely lost. I also wouldn't trust any self-proclaimed, self-appointed zen master or any such fraudulent enterprise to be my guide. Also, I don't feel capable of building my own compass. I rely on the Buddha to supply me with one.
Why is this simple fact so difficult for so many to comprehend?
I don't know that its the fact that you want to use them for your own compass, its that you are dismissive of others sources for their dharma. It's fine and good that you use them as your source and don't feel comfortable with other sources, I don't remember any criticism of that fact. But when you label other traditions as 'fraudulent' or dismiss them in other ways that peoples hackles get raised.
So to answer your question as to why I personally don't read the Nikayas and Agamas is that I follow a Mahayana tradition and they believe in a second and third turning of the wheel of dharma and use the sanskrit sutras as the source of Buddha's word. Then off of that there are masters who came along and presented the concepts in a more easily understandable way. The commentaries aren't taken at face value but are tested and debated to ascertain their validity.
Comments
Then you can benefit more and more people!
I do not have a problem with debate or polemic. I think it's a good way to work things out. I've gotten good insights from real arguments.
Let me ask you: do you think Nigel is trying to hurt you?
Conrad.
C.
hate to be off topic but what does "profess content-based beliefs" mean?
it sounds very postmodern hehehehe.
like having no stance, but to posit a stance to find a reaction?
subtle aversion in the form of trolling?
:clap:
Interesting.
C.
It sounds like you are challenging Buddhist labels associated with certain practices. I have not placed such a label on myself, so I have nothing to defend. I'm trying to learn new things as my interests and beliefs have dramatically changed in the last several months... I have no idea which path my learning desires will take me, and can care less what the road sign says.
I don't think that I would last more than a day in your class if you bring the same approach as you bring here... I instinctly doubt people who feel they have to sell their path as the best or only path. The true guru doesn't have to sell, they teach those who come to them.
Those who are raised with Buddhism tend to either follow the same pattern of having lots of faith with their religion or flat out negating it.
So from the western point of view its "weird".
So please excuse us, we mean no harm.
You're the first guy in this thread who gave me a straightforward answer. Thank you. Whatever. The thing I'm finding odd and almost fascinating at this point is how so many people tend to indulge in the Buddhist practice and so often couldn't be bothered to learn anything about the founder of that practice. Obviously, I'm in the extreme minority in this, so let's agree to disagree.
To me, the situation is similar to attempting to learn how to play blues licks on the guitar while at the same time absolutely not being interested in listening to any of the famous blues guitarists. But hey, anything's possible -- we humans are strange, strange beings. I never said I'm selling anything. My classes are free for all. I don't expect dana, as I have other means for making a living.
People come to me, for various reasons. It's the word of mouth thing, mostly. And yes, a lot of people leave in disappointment. I'm not hiding behind anything, I don't profess to work on the continuation of any tradition or lineage. I just teach Buddhism the way the Buddha exposed it in the Nikayas and Agamas. Anyone curious about that can easily obtain a copy of Nikayas or Agamas and read for themselves. Some, after doing that, still feel they need further instructions, and they come to me. That's all. I don't charge anything, I don't collect dana, I just feel enormously blessed to be given an opportunity to work with others on elucidating the primitive Buddhist teachings.
That's when the faith element kicks in. I have no other means of knowing whether the content presented to me is valid or not, other than to seek out the most authentic words of the Buddha, and then take them on faith. That's why I'm a bit cautious of some other 'sources', such as Buddhagosa, Chandrakirti, Mipham, and such. All these later 'masters' have put forward their own flavours of Dharma, and I'm not sure what their personal agendas were. So, after studying them carefully, I remain sitting on the fence.
With the Buddha, however, I'm always jumping in heads first. With utter abandon. Oh, the joy of the Buddha's teachings!
I'd like to study them, maybe you can redirect me to a link or a book I can buy?
My point is this: it would be very hard for us mere mortals to discern these brilliant later works from fraudulent works if one is not familiar with the Buddha's original teachings.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/index.html
May seem daunting, but keep in mind that the Buddha had spent 45 years constantly teaching. Everything you ever need to know about the most sublime aspects of Dharma and the Buddhist teaching and practice is contained in there.
Once you internalize these teachings, you will be enriched with an infallible inner radar that will be your best guide in life. No need to worry about meeting or keeping a teacher if you are intimately familiar with the above teachings.
Live long, prosper, and practice Dharma diligently.
I can understand this, however @Jeffrey had several good posts on more recent thinking that the pali canon is not necessarily the only source for Buddha's original teachings.
Hey, guys, I'm making $10 a pop on tickets to this circus, while you all sit here and beat each other bloody.
COME AND GET YOUR POPCORN, FOLKS! Real butter, too! Don't all rush at once!
So I'm saying that to such people I always reply with "that's a lame excuse. Make an effort!"
It's like someone saying how they've heard that Billy Holiday is possibly the greatest singer ever, but how they can't listen to her, because the recordings are so ancient. To which I say "yes, but make an effort nevertheless."
Without having this compass, I feel completely lost. I also wouldn't trust any self-proclaimed, self-appointed zen master or any such fraudulent enterprise to be my guide. Also, I don't feel capable of building my own compass. I rely on the Buddha to supply me with one.
Why is this simple fact so difficult for so many to comprehend? I never said it was the only source for the Buddha's original teaching. There are many sources that purport to be the Buddha's original teachings. There are even people who keep discovering the Buddha's face in their toast at breakfast.
All I said was that Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas are the MOST RELIABLE sources of the Buddha's original teaching. I didn't even claim they're the earliest sources. Early/later has nothing to do with authenticity.
You have attacked people's gods, Nigel. That is why you are being stoned.
Conrad.
ps - And for the record, I'm a wannabe. That's why I'm into this.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I am familiar with the 8fp, 4nt. I have watched a few documentaries on the Buddha. I am reading pdf downloads from the buddhanet - next one I'm going to read is about the 5 aggregates. I am not very familiar with original teachings - other than the basic explanations of 8fp, 4nt, and
Please try not to derail the current discussion.
thank you!
and I'm happy with my progress. Everyone has to start somewhere. My own personal mileage means that I learn best from reading texts (on reputable sites such as buddhanet) that quite frankly, are easier for me to understand, rather than reading more 'dense' information. I also like listening to Buddhist talks from Audio Dharma etc. I will continue my journey at my own pace, and allow it to unfold in its own way. If I feel I'm getting lost I will seek advice.
Amen.
So to answer your question as to why I personally don't read the Nikayas and Agamas is that I follow a Mahayana tradition and they believe in a second and third turning of the wheel of dharma and use the sanskrit sutras as the source of Buddha's word. Then off of that there are masters who came along and presented the concepts in a more easily understandable way. The commentaries aren't taken at face value but are tested and debated to ascertain their validity.