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.
Presecular Buddhism
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
_/\_
metta
*edited to insert 'not' into first sentence*
It seems to me that each time we discuss this strand (albeit marginal) of Western interpretation of the Dharma dissention arises. Strong feelings are aroused and hardening positions are taken.
Whilst I believe that the Truth will often be upsetting to the 'bien pensants', a stumbling-block to the self-righteous and a challenge to the powerful, I also believe that its 'karmic' value can be judged by the peace it brings - or otherwise.
There will always be those on the margins of exegesis and whose hermeneutic is rooted in finding controversy. Their value is to send us back to the texts and to our practice. Their fault will always be to unsettle without bringing resolution. Discord follows in their wake, obscuring the Path rather than illuminating.
Very true, Simon.
Ven. Shakyaryanata,
I address you this way to show you that I am pretty much neutral about your character, and also your teachings (for now at least), although I may not follow them.
I would just like to stand up for Brigid, against your reputed suggestion of her ad hominim attack on you, which I would rather consider it as just an objective measurement of reverence relative to Chogyam Trungpa, and also on your site.
True enough, who amongst us in this forum can boast of having the same status as him? In your suggestion of her attack on you, I feel that you might possibly have exaggerated it a little, perhaps misinterpreting it. It is the truth, absolutely, that you, Ven. Shakyaryanata, indeed do not have the common recognition among most Buddhists as a great man, and notice, that here, I am not mking any judgement on your teachings, but on our impression. You may indeed, to your own claim at least, to have the truest teachings of the Buddha which, unfortunately for you once more, is largely unsupported by us and most other Buddhologists. Therefore in this mismatch from your viewpoint, you have lost out on your due recognition, but I do believe that if you so call yourself worthy of the praise that we give to Chogyam Trungpa, you would not have posted such, but that is after all, according to my understanding of my own brand of Buddhism, not yours.
On your teachings again, you may boast to have the best and exclusively right teachings, but as we differ on our interpretation both of our groups, Presecular and Modern, may start to view each another as a possible "cult". On your attacks carried out against Modern Buddhism, you have already viewed us as a cult, and with all the qualities associated with it, we may only see yourself as the leader of another. It is the same, sad truth in all religions elsewhere, where each school true to its own teachings may view other schools as a work of the Demon, blasphemy and such vice versa, and that when you attack us, and we do not say that it is ad hominim, when we as much as doubt and question you based on our interpretation of our quest for truth, you may not have the privellege of proving that we are carrying out attacks on you.
Venerable, I do sincerely trust that both you and me, with the rest of the forum here, and for all who call themselves Buddhists in the world, are seeking the Truth, and not what we think is Buddhism. As much as we find Buddhism to be relatively, Truth itself is considerably absoute (and please be aware that I do not mean absolutely absolute, there is a distinction).
I agree. But when we even doubt the authencity of your so-called Scriptures you argue fundamentally on, you should not avoid the question, but prove to us word-by-word (or by any other black-and-white method), that your translations are semantically accurate, then only can we embark on your sola scriptura debate. And besides even after then, if you maytruly prove to us the authencity of the Scriptures, we may also find ourselves along the way questioning the reliability of the Scriptures.
Reserving my judgements,
Ajani
Martin.
I have been very disapointed in reading this thread. Why am I disapointed? Some people seem to enjoy more embaressment than learning, to me, this is sad. It is all too normal to mislike many phrases on the attan.com page (I only know the google cache version) but this is not the main point.
I often believe that reflection on right speech is not sufficiently done and many mistake it merely as the infamous "PC". As far as I know, telling them here what has been heard there in order to split them also is not right conduct of right speech.
In my eyes, vaccha holds the biggest stake in truth here, his remarks about "how the conduct/morality of the teacher may tarnish the quality of the message he is trying to relate." should be taken serious.
If you need support from the scriptures, read Digha Nikaya 1 , the Brahmajala Sutta
“Monks, if anyone should speak in disparagement of me, of the Dhamma or of the Sangha, you should not be angry, resentful or upset on that account. If you were to be angry or displeased at such disparagement, that would only be a hindrance to you. For if others disparage me, the Dhamma or the Sangha, and you are angry or displeased, can you recognise whether what they say is right or not?” ‘No, Lord.’ “If others disparage me, the Dhamma or the Sangha, then you must explain what is incorrect as being incorrect”, saying: ‘That is incorrect, that is false, that is not our way, 4 that is not found among us.’
“But, monks, if others should speak in praise of me, of the Dhamma or of the Sangha, you should not on that account be pleased, happy or elated. If you were to be pleased, happy or elated at such praise, that would only be a hindrance to you.” If others praise me, the Dhamma or the Sangha, you should acknowledge the truth of what is true, saying: ‘That is correct, that is right, that is our way, that is found among us’.
thanks
_/\_
metta
I think you have to remember that if there is truth to be found at the site of which you speak, why is it immersed in muck and mire? If the owner of the site is such a good teacher, would not a teacher know how to get their message across using some of the most basic teachings of the Buddha? Where is the onus for Right Speech, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness - in regards to this author and his site?
And... I'm not ripping on Vaccha here because I think he/she/they are an asset to this site. But... are you only agreeing with Vaccha because that is how "you" feel? It's always easy to agree with someone who feels exactly the way you feel about something.
Is that a search for truth? Is "self" wrong"? Is "non-self" wrong?
Can one author actually teach "their" truth regarding the teachings of Buddha - while breaking many, many of the Buddha's other teachings? Is equinamity only for those that agree with you?
You raise some interesting questions and thoughts with your post, fofoo.
But, no matter what, I hope you find your stay enjoyable and that you can gleen something from your visits here.
-bf
in fact, on the very same ground i asumed some others posted, out of an emotion, this was my motive too (being sad about it)
I admit i should have done more research about the person behind the page and read all of the page that is available in the google cache. For a moment, after i posted here. when i saw some writings about the swastika being the buddhist cruzifix, i started to sweat and wished i never had posted here anything.
but actually i am now more happy to have found this valuable place, will do research about the person and site in dispute before posting anything more about it and contribute to the anatta thread in the next day, if i think i have something to say.
regards
In fact, I'm not (honestly) saying anything abou the site in question, the author of the site or their teachings.
I just believe that all the truths that Buddha taught will work together. If one so-called teaching of Buddha doesn't work with other teachings of the Buddha - one might have to question the teaching.
I think everyone will be glad you came, fofoo.
-bf
BTW, the swastika was actually a vedic symbol indicating well-being among other things. Its rotation was the opposite of the Nazi swastika. Also, many other cultures did, in fact, use such a symbol, and it was considered auspicious. However, it seems that the author of the site was a little too enthusiastic on this topic. Combined with his references to gook buddism, etc, it raises some questions about his purity of intention.
Anyway, welcome to the forum. Feel free to disagree with me & others on any point. As long as you keep some decorum, we will all get along just fine.
_/\_
metta
thank you not1not2,
I know that the symbol origniated as a symbol in ancient indian religions, though in other form than used by the nazis. But imagining a buddhist praying to a "cruzfix" in whatever shape like a catholic (nothing against catholics or any other religions) scared me, besides, no one was cruzified on that "cruzifix" to the best of my knowledge.
Well, I am German and this issue raises more intense emotions to me than any hate speech, because it symbolized hate for 12 years here, although the ancient indians are surely not to blame for it.:) Popular German Writers "Trimondi & Trimondi" are in the business of linking buhdha with krishna and hitler though. Although no serious scholar of which I know takes them serious, it generates some emotinal heat both on buddhists and non-buddhists, the later ones often use the books of those two to slander (especially tibetian) buddhism. Now I am getting off-topic, i wish you all a good day and insightfull discissions with me and others in future.
regards
buddhafoot,
What you say here I agree with very much. Coincidentally, it is why I take the view that I do as, for example, in the anatta thread. For me to see the Buddha's affirmation of self as transcendent clears up rather than creates contradictions. I know that's not the way many see it, but it's okay.
in friendliness,
V.
Now that's just silly.
_/\_
metta
It seemed to me this idea of the "rotation" of the swastika as being the main distinction from Indian usage is a mythic simplification that is probably misleading. The Vedic swastika rotated both ways, and this was an important part of its symbolism as the evolution and devolution of existence out of and back to the center. I think that if there is now (post-nazi) an almost universal usage of the buddhist swastika as left-facing it is more due to the modern stigma and the need to make a distinction, whereas before appropriation by the nazi party, its usage was more ambivalent and I believe it is not uncommon to see right-faced swastikas in Buddhist art, often in an alternating pattern.
Regarding attan.com, which does seem to be down now, it contained a really helpful article on the real meaning of the swastika (distinguishing it from the nazi usage, whom the author called 'fascist stooges'
in friendliness,
V.
Being German, do you happen to be familiar with the work of George Grimm? I found his Doctrine of the Buddha to be an invaluable work.
I don't think he had any connections with the nazi party. Hopefully not, because his work is worth reading. I believe it was once available through attan.com, but I got my copy from www.khazana.com which is a good resource for out-of-print books on Buddhism.
in friendliness,
V.
Thanks for the info.
_/\_
metta
to the best of my knowledge, he had no ties with the nazis. The nazis themselves actually weren`t too much into buddhism, hitler was deeply alerigious, the most sympathetic statements he made was about islam.(you can look it up under wikipedia, in the article "anti-christian quotes of hitler" are some remarks about religions)
himmler was the one fascinated , and mostly by racisist views motivated, by indian religions. However,afaik, his favorite book was the baghavad gita, he even tried to derive a warrior ethics for the waffen-ss out of it, if i remember correctly. no, none of them was a practicing buddhist afaik and grim, or buddhism in general, is commonly seen to have stagnated if not lost ground during nazi rule despite inital enthusiam of some nazis in hope to get rid of everything jewish even in religion.
Back to Grimm, as far as i could understand, his interpretation of anatta is against the "no-self at all", but he never states the self is the christian soul or even the atman. He remains in plainly negating what the self is not, consequently also refuting Schopenhauer, which thought to have identfied what christians call soul, hindus call atman, as "the will (to live)" while never defining positivly what it is. Afaik, at the end of his book he writes something like (My true being/self (Mein wahres Wesen) is of course also not the will. Maybe we can debate the book in future
Regards
Vacchagotta,
That it why I value your input on this forum. I do know the way that you believe. You are able to present it in a fashion that allows for one to think about what you are saying. It may not agree with 95% of the people on this forum, but I believe you make a valid argument.
And you do it without name calling, denigrating comments to others, etc. You just state what you think and leave it to others to ponder.
-bf
I would agree with you that Grimm goes against the usual notion of the Christian soul. In fact he argues against it specifically, at least insofar as it is taken as a continuance of the existing personality.
in friendliness,
V.
In the anatta thread, i realized there is a sect called "dark zen". I am not a member of this sect nor any other sect and speak of my behalf and discuss to learn. In fact, I initially thought that the people who argue for an atman are mostly hindus, because i had such discussions with hindus about anatta in past. By the way, i was told, No-self would be Niratta in Pali, not-self is anatta. I have no idea if this is correct, if someone knows, please answer in the anatta thread.
I cannot and will not pass any form of judgement on the two aforementioned persons, but I do not hesitate to label the inflammatory hog-wash on those two sites for the junk it truely is at heart. While on one hand it (the site attan.com) is a rather impressive repository of amazing reference materials and sources for the serious student of the earliest forms of the dharmavinaya....it's usefulness is rather harshly juxtaposed by it's vitriol and bitter degradation of any who disagree with it's conclusions and views.
I hope to come to get to know some of you folks soon....I've been reading a lot of what you have to say/think and feel right at home. I'm a buddhist.....and I'm an american.....so by crackey! I must be one of them thar "Merikan Buddhists"!!
yes, the websites you mention have come to our attention before.
needles to say, we're largely in agreement with you, and have chosen, as recommended by The Buddha himself - to examine everything diligently before deciding whether to accept it as our Truth, or to leave it aside...
I personally have found myself in the latter category.....!
Namaste and hello to you!
We all hope you will enjoy a long, fruitful and happy abiding with us!
If the Buddha really taught that there is no eternal soul (atta) then Buddhism is an absurd nihilistic religion. If the only self is Samsaric and there is no transcendent self (soul, atta in the Vedic sense), then there is no possibility of enlightenment, rebirth or liberation from Samsara because by definition there is nothing to take rebirth, gain enlightenment or be liberated. Just a phantom and an illusion that ceases to exist at death when it's causes, the 5 aggregates, perish. It cannot be "experience" either, because experience is impermanent and thus dukkha and Buddha said experience is without self (soul - atta). Without atta (eternal soul), the entire project of Buddhism falls apart. You can try to spin it, but whatever notion of "self" you cobble together to explain how something that you have defined as not existing can take rebirth and be enlightened, from a no soul perspective, will be Samsaric by definition, impermanent and thus dukkha. This is the central problem with Buddhism. It has gotten the lesson of anatta wrong. Anatta is an adj. that describes that which is without soul (atta). Therefore the use of atta in suttas does not mean "oneself" (no reflexive term for self in ancient pali) but logically means "Soul" or "True Self" in the Vedic sense since Anatta means an absence of the soul, true self in the Vedic sense. So annatta is being used by the Buddha to point out what atta is not, namely everything within Samsara. If you could identify atta within Samsara, then there would be no possibility of enlightenment because your essential nature will be Samsaric. But because atta cannot be found in Samsara, that means escape from Samsara is possible because your essential nature is Nirvana (the unborn, unmade etc. that makes liberation from the born, made etc. possible). There is zero basis in the suttas to support the claim that the Buddha taught there is no eternal soul and thus, the entire foundation of Buddhism for the last 2,000 years crumbles and falls apart. Understand?
“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436]
Hi @LOTUS69 , please see the "Announcement" thread regarding reviving old thread, on the main http://newbuddhist.com/discussions/indexrecent discussions page, many thanks!