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.
Burning off fingers, and other Buddhist practices.
The teachings are just a finger pointing to the moon, as they say, and even the Buddha knew that the teachings would be changed and misrepresented... and so ultimately we must investigate them for ourselves to know the difference between truth and fantasy.
Sure, but IMO it's important to keep an open mind about the teachings, rather than just imposing our current set of beliefs/disbeliefs/preconceptions/biases.
It applies to everything, whether other religious teachings or his own. The Buddha always said his teachings were verifiable, and so we should verify them for ourselves. It's not simply because we're told they're the truth that we should accept them as such... we should use our own reason and judgment, our own efforts, to penetrate the truth. The teachings are very much meant to apply to our lives, in the here and now, which is the only place we can practice toward the alleviation of suffering.
What are you going to verify his teachings with cloud? Are you going to verify his teachings with your 5 aggregates?
You cant verify nirvana so are you going to assume its not true.either?
You can verify nirvana as much as you can verify walking on water.
Also to judge things around based on the laws of"reality" "ie" samsara was considered materalistic,and based on the views of a false reality to begin with.
Ill look up that sutta for you,its the one where the guy doesnt think the afterlife and thr supernatural dont exist,cause he cant prove it based on his 5 aggregates in this world,i think you will like it,the Buddha leys him know just because he cant SEE the gods or afterlife doesnt make them not real,and that judgeing things based purely on this "reality" means ur simply baseing ur understanding of Buddhism upon samsara and the 5 aggregates.
Saying some of the statements in the sutras should be taken metaphorically is wise. Burning off one's finger or setting one's body on fire can be seen as a metaphor for extreme effort or devotion, and so on. But, our tendancy is to then go on and say "Oh, but this other thing the sutras talk about, that has to be taken literally. It's OK to go all metaphorical on merit transmission by fire, but not when we read about reincarnation? All the talk about rebirth is in fact a perfect metaphor for illustrating how our daily self is reborn moment to moment. To be fair, either the entire body of sutras must be taken literally, or each person or school may use them in whatever manner best helps their practice.
Those of us who now say there is no merit to gain by mutilation or suicide by fire aren't rejecting the sutras, only the literal interpretation of this element. We accept the metaphorical message just fine. Likewise, those of us who shake our heads at talk of hell and heaven realms and past lives don't reject the sutras, we readily accept the metaphorical message.
The only point I'm trying to make is that we all do this to some extent or another and only differ on what we put into each catagory. "That is their understanding, this is mine." is the only valid answer when asked who is right or wrong.
Likewise, those of us who shake our heads at talk of hell and heaven realms and past lives don't reject the sutras, we readily accept the metaphorical message.
Why do you need to shake your head? Why not just keep an open mind?
And they suttas/sutras were wrote literal in truth it takes a major strech to make them metophorical.
When I read the suttas the teachings on rebirth and the realms etc seem like straightforward descriptions, not metaphors. And generally in the suttas similes are clearly described as such. The issue seems to be about people not being comfortable with some of the teachings contained in the suttas. That's fine, it's understandable, but IMO it's not productive to try and rewrite the suttas just so that they conform to our current belief set.
And they suttas/sutras were wrote literal in truth it takes a major strech to make them metophorical.
When I read the suttas the teachings on rebirth and the realms etc seem like straightforward descriptions, not metaphors. And generally in the suttas similes are clearly described as such. The issue seems to be about people not being comfortable with some of the teachings contained in the suttas. That's fine, it's understandable, but IMO it's not productive to try and rewrite the suttas just so that they conform to our current belief set.
How do you feel about people writing new sutras, expanding and expounding on their own understanding of the dharma? Because it's exactly what people did then and still do today. Only today, we write in the language of our time using words and literary forms of our times and using books instead of rolled up scrolls or stacked tablets. The Buddha did not sit down and dictate the Dhammapada. It was written by a monk or monks centuries later to inspire other people and try to point toward an understanding of the dharma.
I really believe a Buddhism that stopped changing when the Buddha died and with a record that consisted only of his words and history would have died out quickly, like many other cults. In fact, it did die out in it's mother country. As it found new minds, some practices and beliefs didn't work out and were eventually put aside, new ones adopted and some of those also got put aside.
So can we discuss two views of the dharma? In one view the dharma is a precious thing held in Buddha's hand, a jewel of great value that must not be cut upon and crammed into new settings, or it stops being the jewel that Buddha created. The other view sees the dharma as a living thing, like a Bonsai tree perhaps, always growing and needing nurturing and trimming and responding to your own vision, passed from generation to generation. What the tree looked like when first planted is not what you want or expect today.
Likewise, those of us who shake our heads at talk of hell and heaven realms and past lives don't reject the sutras, we readily accept the metaphorical message.
Why do you need to shake your head? Why not just keep an open mind?
My mind is always open to new ideas and theories. An open mind examines what is presented to it and assigns value according to evidence and experience and knowledge of what we do already know. But that's Skeptical Buddhism, a topic for another thread.
Let's just say people have believed in all manner of Gods and Heavens and Hells and Afterlifes throughout the million or so years of our species. The only thing they have in common is that each is guaranteed to be different and conform to the culture that worshipped and believed. So what makes the particular set of beliefs included with Buddhism more authentic than the God Jehova with his particular system of eternal reward and punishment and souls having one turn to get it right? Only belief that my own tribe must be right.
I'd be flaberghasted if Buddhism did not include a pantheon and belief in some afterlife when it was being formed, because the people who developed Buddhism into a complete religion held their own beliefs. What amazes me is that the Buddha told people those beliefs were irrelevant when it came to living a spiritual life. That is a profound and true statement proven by looking around at the world and examining its history, yet a statement that true believers everywhere can't allow themselves to even consider. That is what a closed mind is all about.
Likewise, those of us who shake our heads at talk of hell and heaven realms and past lives don't reject the sutras, we readily accept the metaphorical message.
Why do you need to shake your head? Why not just keep an open mind?
My mind is always open to new ideas and theories. An open mind examines what is presented to it and assigns value according to evidence and experience and knowledge of what we do already know.
I was talking about an open mind in relation to things we don't know.
So can we discuss two views of the dharma? In one view the dharma is a precious thing held in Buddha's hand, a jewel of great value that must not be cut upon and crammed into new settings, or it stops being the jewel that Buddha created. The other view sees the dharma as a living thing, like a Bonsai tree perhaps, always growing and needing nurturing and trimming and responding to your own vision, passed from generation to generation. What the tree looked like when first planted is not what you want or expect today.
Interesting analogy but I think you're setting up an artificial dichotomy. Yes the jewel has found different settings as it adapts to new cultures and times. But I'd question the wisdom of cutting up something of such purity and beauty, merely because of current fashion or personal whim, and particularly when we may not have the skills or knowledge required.
There's a difference between trimming, and destroying, if what you are trimming is still actively nurtured by others.
There's no wisdom in basing a new tradition on war with its predecessor. If one doesn't like certain traditions, we are free simply to abandon them and nurture another. We can have an entire forest of Buddhism, descended from the original tree--we don't have to actively destroy some seedlings in order to grow others.
There is a poster on another forum who has the (what seems to me very sad) signature, “It is difficult for the correct dharmas to manifest if the erroneous ones are not destroyed." The quote is attributed to Xuanzang; I haven't looked into it yet, but I find it chilling and not at all what I feel Buddhism is about.
This is what I see as a great difficulty in talks of Western reform--so often the discussion turns not to fostering new traditions for ourselves, but doing away with those being used by others.
It's natural to vicariously fear the existence of things we personally choose not to participate in, or outright disapprove of; that sad fact is at the root of many religious wars.
There's a difference between trimming, and destroying, if what you are trimming is still actively nurtured by others.
Perhaps, but do we really have the skill and wisdom to trim correctly? And are we just trimming the bits we don't currently like? Clearly Buddhism is adapting to western culture, like it has to many other cultures and times, and that's as it should be. But I sometimes wonder whether we have the experience and knowledge to clearly distinguish between baby and bathwater.
I'd be flaberghasted if Buddhism did not include a pantheon and belief in some afterlife when it was being formed, because the people who developed Buddhism into a complete religion held their own beliefs.
So are you speculating that the Buddha's loyal monks made a load of stuff up after he died? Why would they do that? I suppose the other possibility is that the Buddha made it up himself, but again I don't find that a convincing theory.
I'd be flaberghasted if Buddhism did not include a pantheon and belief in some afterlife when it was being formed, because the people who developed Buddhism into a complete religion held their own beliefs.
So are you speculating that the Buddha's loyal monks made a load of stuff up after he died? Why would they do that? I suppose the other possibility is that the Buddha made it up himself, but again I don't find that a convincing theory.
Because this is what they believed. This was their understanding. Because the old monks and scholars were just people, the same as people everywhere, and inherited a set of biases and beliefs and a way of making sense of the world. People don't usually "make stuff up", not intentionally. What they do is mix together what they were taught and what they observed and what they experienced and out of that mess we get our belief system.
Just because someone believes something deeply and passionately and sincerely doesn't mean it's true. We all have to believe something. People kill each other over trying to prove who has the true beliefs.
But if you're asking why would the old monks put words into the Buddha's mouth? Because they had the best of intentions, and as messages get passed around, one of the first things that happens is, the author of the message becomes some authority from the past, since profound sayings must have come from profound people. Then the message itself gets slightly embellished, speculation becomes conviction, etc. It happens to all inspirational writing, then and now. That's not theory. It's modern scholarship.
:thumbsup: @Cinorjer, Couldn't have put it better myself! Some of the teachings even contradict the other teachings. It's hard to attribute everything to the Buddha, from all of the traditions, even if that's been historically the case. What we can do though is investigate, through our practice, to find out the truth for ourselves.
Personally I think people have made things more complicated over time, not being satisfied with the simple message of suffering and the cessation of suffering. As long as the Four Noble Truths (with Noble Eightfold Path) survive, we should be in good shape. Those are really the foundation that everything else is built upon.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2012
This is why we must be lamps unto ourselves and not trust a sutta just because it is a sutta.
For me if a sutta, suttra or even a discourse is out of tune with my understanding of the Four noble truths along with the Eightfold path it will either help my understanding or it will be disregarded as wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of a lesson.
If it is out of tune with imperical evidence then I either take it as a metaphore or disregard until a proper metaphore fits.
I would rather be ignorant than have faith in something that doesn't make any sense to me.
I also want to say that I rather enjoyed that Pepsi commercial, lol.
For me if a sutta, suttra or even a discourse is out of tune with my understanding of the Four noble truths along with the Eightfold path it will either help my understanding or it will be disregarded as wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of a lesson.
Sure, and there's a lot of stuff in the suttas which is quite profound and beyond my current understanding. But I wouldn't disregard it or reject it, I'd just acknowledge that my current understanding is still limited.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hey, me too but there is a difference between being beyond our current understanding and contradicting our current understanding without logic to back it up.
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it. My inner b.s. detector went off like Spiderman. It doesn't really help any that the idea has been done before because it still defies the way of things and that's the very way Buddha taught.
But if you're asking why would the old monks put words into the Buddha's mouth? Because they had the best of intentions, and as messages get passed around, one of the first things that happens is, the author of the message becomes some authority from the past, since profound sayings must have come from profound people.
But some of these old monks were themselves enlightened and it seems very unlikely to me that they would embellish to the extent you're suggesting. And of course the oral tradition was self-regulating because it was done by groups of monks rather than individuals. I've spent quite a lot of time reading the suttas, and I think they do provide a reasonably accurate account of what the Buddha taught. So when people attempt to cast doubt on their validity, is it an objective questioning or does it really stem from those people being uncomfortable with certain aspects of the Buddha's teaching?
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2012
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
My point exactly. A trivial point to be sure so why include it?
It doesn't move the story forward but only embellishes on the charactor of the messenger as if the validity of the message depends on the grade of the messenger.
It's all just so much whistles and bells... Ribbons and bows... Signs and wonders.
But if you're asking why would the old monks put words into the Buddha's mouth? Because they had the best of intentions, and as messages get passed around, one of the first things that happens is, the author of the message becomes some authority from the past, since profound sayings must have come from profound people.
But some of these old monks were themselves enlightened and it seems very unlikely to me that they would embellish to the extent you're suggesting. And of course the oral tradition was self-regulating because it was done by groups of monks rather than individuals. I've spent quite a lot of time reading the suttas, and I think they do provide a reasonably accurate account of what the Buddha taught. So when people attempt to cast doubt on their validity, is it an objective questioning or does it really stem from those people being uncomfortable with certain aspects of the Buddha's teaching?
That's true. I agree with you completely. Saying it's not only possible but certain that our collection of suttas is not inerrant is not the same as saying it's all nonsense. And, when we read something that makes us uncomfortable, that by itself cannot be the reason to reject the teaching. We must allow the Dharma to challenge our beliefs and assumptions or it won't transform us. Wisdom means that occasionally we challenge back.
Buddhism truly comes alive when we see it as a product of normal people doing something remarkable. If we don't insist on perfection in the teachings or the teacher or even ourselves, we begin to see with a clear mind, because perfection is an illusion.
By its nature, a basic tenet's very purpose is to be widely applied in different circumstances across time, space, and cultures. In other words, "Be kind" can be applied in any era, country, etc., whereas "Smear fresh honey on your doorframe every third Thursday on a full moon" may seem important in one era, to one culture, and totally unnecessary 100 years later to another.
Because, in my opinion, the Buddha attempted to distill much of his philosophy down to very important, basic tenets, I believe it's absolutely implied that they are meant to be applied--in other words, mean to be "adapted." By adapted we don't mean changed at it's heart, but rather applied over and over and over to different situations--which may make it look different on the surface, but is not changing the heart of the teaching, and in fact is doing exactly as the teaching intended.
I think we can confuse adaptation with change; what really matters is whether the heart of the tenet is actually being applied--not whether we are teaching in Tibetan or English or Sanskrit. (If the Buddha said certain sounds were sacred, though, I am inclined to honor that view and think that there is something inherently important in certain mantras, for example, but that's subject to debate and analysis--as it should be).
This is a very common discussion in religion throughout the ages--to what extent and in what ways is it okay to adapt it, and what is the difference between applying, adapting, or actually changing the heart of a particular tenet?
This is a very common discussion in religion throughout the ages--to what extent and in what ways is it okay to adapt it, and what is the difference between applying, adapting, or actually changing the heart of a particular tenet?
I think it can take a lifetime to understand what the heart of a particular set of teachings are, so I feel a certain caution about trimming, chopping, cutting and grinding.
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
My point exactly.
My point was that we simply don't know.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
My point exactly.
My point was that we simply don't know.
Yeah, I know what your point was. That's why I responded like this;
My point exactly. A trivial point to be sure so why include it?
It doesn't move the story forward but only embellishes on the charactor of the messenger as if the validity of the message depends on the grade of the messenger.
It's all just so much whistles and bells... Ribbons and bows... Signs and wonders.
I respectfully disagree that we don't know but that has nothing to do with why I said what I said.
I said what I said because performing miracles has nothing to do with the dharma.
I said what I said because performing miracles has nothing to do with the dharma.
According to the suttas the Buddha developed supernatural powers. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there is no way we can know the truth of it. Having a belief or disbelief about it is really rather pointless IMO.
More generally I'd suggest that we actually know far less than we think we do.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't even know what supernatural means... If something happens, it happens naturally so if Buddha and then Jesus walked on water then I agree that our knowledge is lacking there.
I just don't find these tales condusive to the Noble Truths or Eightfold path but that's just my own opinion. I find that to see Buddha in this way is to put him out of reach however I have never been able to see him in that way without suspending my disbelief so who am I to say?
I don't even know what supernatural means... If something happens, it happens naturally so if Buddha and then Jesus walked on water then I agree that our knowledge is lacking there.
I just don't find these tales condusive to the Noble Truths or Eightfold path but that's just my own opinion. I find that to see Buddha in this way is to put him out of reach however I have never been able to see him in that way without suspending my disbelief so who am I to say?
Lol totally agree--supernatural is a misnomer.
One important reason to me, for doing guru yoga, is training or reminding my brain that the Buddha was a real flesh and blood peron. I think people sometimes feel guru yoga is about making the teacher seem like a Buddha, when so much of it is about making the Buddha seem like a real teacher. We are very visceral creatures in the end, and a historic person can indeed feel very far away. Various yogas can get us past this misconception.
Another way to think of the "heart of practice vs. tradition" issue could be this:
Let's say a boy and girl were married in the Buddha's time--the boy is 18 and the girl 16. The boy asks the Buddha for advice on relationships, and the Buddha answers, "Be kind to your wife."
Is the Buddha promoting underage marriage? Is the point of his answer to deliver a commentary on the proper age for marriage? I would say not, any more than the burning-finger statement represented his urging us to self-mutilate.
In fact, his comment on burning fingers was aimed at explaining the importance of reading the Lotus Sutra, and specifically to say that reading the Lotus Sutra is a better act of devotion than burning a finger.
It may well have been (and seems to have been) that burning ones finger or toe was a culturally-accepted form of devotion at the time; that has now changed. The Buddha didn't tell us to marry 16 year olds or burn our fingers; imo, he said to be kind and read sutras.
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
My point exactly.
My point was that we simply don't know.
My point is that everything we know about how the universe works tells us no, he didn't. And it's wrong to expect people to believe such a thing happened without extraordinary proof. Should we say "well anything's possible?" No. Not when we have rational explanations and that is the people who told the story tacked on those miracles. Every religion is sprinkled with miracles, including Buddhism. Those miracles always happened back then and witnessed by people now dead, and somehow verified miracles on that scale don't happen anymore. But just because it's written that a holy man walked on water or raised someone from the dead and rational people today can dispute it really happened, that doesn't make the entire sacred writing invalid.
I don't even know what supernatural means... If something happens, it happens naturally so if Buddha and then Jesus walked on water then I agree that our knowledge is lacking there.
OK, "supernatural" is an odd word. Perhaps it's better to talk about things beyond our current experience. It's one thing to be skeptical ( I often am myself! ) but that can sometimes slip into a kind of arrogance - the attitude of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist!" I've seen some things which I can't easily explain, so I tend to keep an open mind and allow for possibilities.
And it's wrong to expect people to believe such a thing happened without extraordinary proof. Should we say "well anything's possible?" No. Not when we have rational explanations and that is the people who told the story tacked on those miracles.
But you don't know that people tacked on the miracles - it sounds more like wishful thinking. And saying "everything's possible" is not atall the same as expecting people to believe things - it just means keeping an open mind.
And it's wrong to expect people to believe such a thing happened without extraordinary proof. Should we say "well anything's possible?" No. Not when we have rational explanations and that is the people who told the story tacked on those miracles.
But you don't know that people tacked on the miracles - it sounds more like wishful thinking. And saying "everything's possible" is not atall the same as expecting people to believe things - it just means keeping an open mind.
Sure, if someone manages to walk on water tomorrow under controlled conditions where people who know how magic tricks are done say it's real, then my open mind means I'll believe. And it will be an exciting discovery and open entire knew fields of scientific study and transform the world.
But it's not going to happen. What I believe is that, in spite of how miraculous the human mind is, the universe operates according to physical laws and we now understand enough of those laws to know with a certaintly that given a certain mass and surface area and gravity and temperature, we can calculate what the surface tension of water is capable of supporting and that's not much at all. That's as universal and unavoidable a law as karma. It is karma. The consequences of a person stepping onto a body of water is, that person sinks and gets wet.
Here is how Skeptical Buddhism works, if I read in the suttas a story about Buddha walking on water. What are the logical conclusions? Either it happened as described, or something happened that got embellished and distorted and eventually this story developed. Do we have evidence for people walking on water? No. Do we have evidence of stories being passed around that prove to be exaggerated or completely made up when researched? Oh yes. Just check the list of urban myths. So this is evidence that the literature was written by people who are subject to creating and believing stories of miracles being performed by special people as a sign of their divinity. It shows the people are so impressed with this person that they've elevated him beyond normal people. So I make note of that and continue reading. I don't believe the Buddha actually walked on water. I believe the people writing the sutta think this man is so special, he is capable of doing such a thing.
Another way to think of the "heart of practice vs. tradition" issue could be this:
Let's say a boy and girl were married in the Buddha's time--the boy is 18 and the girl 16. The boy asks the Buddha for advice on relationships, and the Buddha answers, "Be kind to your wife."
Is the Buddha promoting underage marriage? Is the point of his answer to deliver a commentary on the proper age for marriage? I would say not, any more than the burning-finger statement represented his urging us to self-mutilate.
In fact, his comment on burning fingers was aimed at explaining the importance of reading the Lotus Sutra, and specifically to say that reading the Lotus Sutra is a better act of devotion than burning a finger.
It may well have been (and seems to have been) that burning ones finger or toe was a culturally-accepted form of devotion at the time; that has now changed. The Buddha didn't tell us to marry 16 year olds or burn our fingers; imo, he said to be kind and read sutras.
Sure, if someone manages to walk on water tomorrow under controlled conditions where people who know how magic tricks are done say it's real, then my open mind means I'll believe. .....But it's not going to happen.
I'm not sure that an open mind is consistent with "But it's not going to happen".
Am I allowed to be skeptical about skeptical Buddhism?
Sure, if someone manages to walk on water tomorrow under controlled conditions where people who know how magic tricks are done say it's real, then my open mind means I'll believe. .....But it's not going to happen.
I'm not sure that an open mind is consistent with "But it's not going to happen".
Am I allowed to be skeptical about skeptical Buddhism?
Sure. You're allowed to use whatever helps in your practice. There are more extreme skeptics out there who see belief and pretty much all religion as some cancer of the mind that, if eradicated somehow, would lead us to a golden age of rational peace. They confuse the symptom for the disease, in my own opinion. They mean well, but it's total nonsense to say belief even without proof is bad. Belief is just another part of the skandhas, as normal as emotion or thought. My own beliefs are my own, nothing more. My nature, my inability to believe some things doesn't prove anything.
After all, belief that a life without suffering is possible is what started our Buddhism, and a skeptic looks around and finds scant evidence of that, certainly.
I just came across this old thread but it's something i have been curious about. I have heard that in certain Buddhist schools, the teachers manifest wrathfulness to clear the students' negative karma. They will scream at students and even beat them. I have not seen this myself but have read about it and it is meant to be from the compassion of the teacher that this is done. What do people think about this?
There is a huge body of sutras that do not quote the Buddha, but contain insights and dharma writings by later monks. [...]
It appears (and please correct me if my observations are off) this is where the "line" is often drawn. Suttas (Pali Cannon) represent The Buddha's words, and Sutras are assigned, as you say, to the Dharma of Monks later on in the history of Buddhism, giving birth to the many traditions which followed Theravada.
Or is that a bit too simplistic?
Really? Wow. I learned that sutta and sutra were just different spellings of the same word like karma and kamma.
I made a post on here when I first joined explaining that sutta(pali) and sutra(Sanskrit) are different translations with the same meaning and someone else also posted this concept that sutta = word of the buddha and sutra = later additions. I had never heard that before coming to this forum.
I personally believe that the extra added meaning to the two words was created in a divisive way in the old theravada(the lesser vehicle teachings) vs mahayana(the made up teachings) battle. I can see someone making that extra distinction for this reason.
as for the burning off of fingers thing.. for me personally I'd say anything even remotely like this falls into the realm of self mortification, ie outside the middle way and unskillful action if the goal is nibbana.
Comments
Are you going to verify his teachings with your 5 aggregates?
You cant verify nirvana so are you going to assume its not true.either?
You can verify nirvana as much as you can verify walking on water.
Also to judge things around based on the laws of"reality" "ie" samsara was considered materalistic,and based on the views of a false reality to begin with.
Ill look up that sutta for you,its the one where the guy doesnt think the afterlife and thr supernatural dont exist,cause he cant prove it based on his 5 aggregates in this world,i think you will like it,the Buddha leys him know just because he cant SEE the gods or afterlife doesnt make them not real,and that judgeing things based purely on this "reality" means ur simply baseing ur understanding of Buddhism upon samsara and the 5 aggregates.
Those of us who now say there is no merit to gain by mutilation or suicide by fire aren't rejecting the sutras, only the literal interpretation of this element. We accept the metaphorical message just fine. Likewise, those of us who shake our heads at talk of hell and heaven realms and past lives don't reject the sutras, we readily accept the metaphorical message.
The only point I'm trying to make is that we all do this to some extent or another and only differ on what we put into each catagory. "That is their understanding, this is mine." is the only valid answer when asked who is right or wrong.
First it doesnt say to burn ur finger off
Second read last post page 1he turned his body into fire and voluntarily took rebirth.thats not suicide.
And they suttas/sutras were wrote literal in truth it takes a major strech to make them metophorical.
The issue seems to be about people not being comfortable with some of the teachings contained in the suttas. That's fine, it's understandable, but IMO it's not productive to try and rewrite the suttas just so that they conform to our current belief set.
I really believe a Buddhism that stopped changing when the Buddha died and with a record that consisted only of his words and history would have died out quickly, like many other cults. In fact, it did die out in it's mother country. As it found new minds, some practices and beliefs didn't work out and were eventually put aside, new ones adopted and some of those also got put aside.
So can we discuss two views of the dharma? In one view the dharma is a precious thing held in Buddha's hand, a jewel of great value that must not be cut upon and crammed into new settings, or it stops being the jewel that Buddha created. The other view sees the dharma as a living thing, like a Bonsai tree perhaps, always growing and needing nurturing and trimming and responding to your own vision, passed from generation to generation. What the tree looked like when first planted is not what you want or expect today.
Both visions have their points.
Let's just say people have believed in all manner of Gods and Heavens and Hells and Afterlifes throughout the million or so years of our species. The only thing they have in common is that each is guaranteed to be different and conform to the culture that worshipped and believed. So what makes the particular set of beliefs included with Buddhism more authentic than the God Jehova with his particular system of eternal reward and punishment and souls having one turn to get it right? Only belief that my own tribe must be right.
I'd be flaberghasted if Buddhism did not include a pantheon and belief in some afterlife when it was being formed, because the people who developed Buddhism into a complete religion held their own beliefs. What amazes me is that the Buddha told people those beliefs were irrelevant when it came to living a spiritual life. That is a profound and true statement proven by looking around at the world and examining its history, yet a statement that true believers everywhere can't allow themselves to even consider. That is what a closed mind is all about.
There's no wisdom in basing a new tradition on war with its predecessor. If one doesn't like certain traditions, we are free simply to abandon them and nurture another. We can have an entire forest of Buddhism, descended from the original tree--we don't have to actively destroy some seedlings in order to grow others.
There is a poster on another forum who has the (what seems to me very sad) signature, “It is difficult for the correct dharmas to manifest if the erroneous ones are not destroyed." The quote is attributed to Xuanzang; I haven't looked into it yet, but I find it chilling and not at all what I feel Buddhism is about.
This is what I see as a great difficulty in talks of Western reform--so often the discussion turns not to fostering new traditions for ourselves, but doing away with those being used by others.
It's natural to vicariously fear the existence of things we personally choose not to participate in, or outright disapprove of; that sad fact is at the root of many religious wars.
Clearly Buddhism is adapting to western culture, like it has to many other cultures and times, and that's as it should be. But I sometimes wonder whether we have the experience and knowledge to clearly distinguish between baby and bathwater.
I suppose the other possibility is that the Buddha made it up himself, but again I don't find that a convincing theory.
Just because someone believes something deeply and passionately and sincerely doesn't mean it's true. We all have to believe something. People kill each other over trying to prove who has the true beliefs.
But if you're asking why would the old monks put words into the Buddha's mouth? Because they had the best of intentions, and as messages get passed around, one of the first things that happens is, the author of the message becomes some authority from the past, since profound sayings must have come from profound people. Then the message itself gets slightly embellished, speculation becomes conviction, etc. It happens to all inspirational writing, then and now. That's not theory. It's modern scholarship.
Personally I think people have made things more complicated over time, not being satisfied with the simple message of suffering and the cessation of suffering. As long as the Four Noble Truths (with Noble Eightfold Path) survive, we should be in good shape. Those are really the foundation that everything else is built upon.
For me if a sutta, suttra or even a discourse is out of tune with my understanding of the Four noble truths along with the Eightfold path it will either help my understanding or it will be disregarded as wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of a lesson.
If it is out of tune with imperical evidence then I either take it as a metaphore or disregard until a proper metaphore fits.
I would rather be ignorant than have faith in something that doesn't make any sense to me.
I also want to say that I rather enjoyed that Pepsi commercial, lol.
When I was a kid and I heard that Jesus walked on water I automatically dismissed it. My inner b.s. detector went off like Spiderman. It doesn't really help any that the idea has been done before because it still defies the way of things and that's the very way Buddha taught.
I've spent quite a lot of time reading the suttas, and I think they do provide a reasonably accurate account of what the Buddha taught. So when people attempt to cast doubt on their validity, is it an objective questioning or does it really stem from those people being uncomfortable with certain aspects of the Buddha's teaching?
It doesn't move the story forward but only embellishes on the charactor of the messenger as if the validity of the message depends on the grade of the messenger.
It's all just so much whistles and bells... Ribbons and bows... Signs and wonders.
Buddhism truly comes alive when we see it as a product of normal people doing something remarkable. If we don't insist on perfection in the teachings or the teacher or even ourselves, we begin to see with a clear mind, because perfection is an illusion.
Because, in my opinion, the Buddha attempted to distill much of his philosophy down to very important, basic tenets, I believe it's absolutely implied that they are meant to be applied--in other words, mean to be "adapted." By adapted we don't mean changed at it's heart, but rather applied over and over and over to different situations--which may make it look different on the surface, but is not changing the heart of the teaching, and in fact is doing exactly as the teaching intended.
I think we can confuse adaptation with change; what really matters is whether the heart of the tenet is actually being applied--not whether we are teaching in Tibetan or English or Sanskrit. (If the Buddha said certain sounds were sacred, though, I am inclined to honor that view and think that there is something inherently important in certain mantras, for example, but that's subject to debate and analysis--as it should be).
This is a very common discussion in religion throughout the ages--to what extent and in what ways is it okay to adapt it, and what is the difference between applying, adapting, or actually changing the heart of a particular tenet?
My point exactly. A trivial point to be sure so why include it?
It doesn't move the story forward but only embellishes on the charactor of the messenger as if the validity of the message depends on the grade of the messenger.
It's all just so much whistles and bells... Ribbons and bows... Signs and wonders.
I respectfully disagree that we don't know but that has nothing to do with why I said what I said.
I said what I said because performing miracles has nothing to do with the dharma.
More generally I'd suggest that we actually know far less than we think we do.
I just don't find these tales condusive to the Noble Truths or Eightfold path but that's just my own opinion. I find that to see Buddha in this way is to put him out of reach however I have never been able to see him in that way without suspending my disbelief so who am I to say?
One important reason to me, for doing guru yoga, is training or reminding my brain that the Buddha was a real flesh and blood peron. I think people sometimes feel guru yoga is about making the teacher seem like a Buddha, when so much of it is about making the Buddha seem like a real teacher. We are very visceral creatures in the end, and a historic person can indeed feel very far away. Various yogas can get us past this misconception.
Let's say a boy and girl were married in the Buddha's time--the boy is 18 and the girl 16. The boy asks the Buddha for advice on relationships, and the Buddha answers, "Be kind to your wife."
Is the Buddha promoting underage marriage? Is the point of his answer to deliver a commentary on the proper age for marriage? I would say not, any more than the burning-finger statement represented his urging us to self-mutilate.
In fact, his comment on burning fingers was aimed at explaining the importance of reading the Lotus Sutra, and specifically to say that reading the Lotus Sutra is a better act of devotion than burning a finger.
It may well have been (and seems to have been) that burning ones finger or toe was a culturally-accepted form of devotion at the time; that has now changed. The Buddha didn't tell us to marry 16 year olds or burn our fingers; imo, he said to be kind and read sutras.
It's one thing to be skeptical ( I often am myself! ) but that can sometimes slip into a kind of arrogance - the attitude of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist!" I've seen some things which I can't easily explain, so I tend to keep an open mind and allow for possibilities.
But it's not going to happen. What I believe is that, in spite of how miraculous the human mind is, the universe operates according to physical laws and we now understand enough of those laws to know with a certaintly that given a certain mass and surface area and gravity and temperature, we can calculate what the surface tension of water is capable of supporting and that's not much at all. That's as universal and unavoidable a law as karma. It is karma. The consequences of a person stepping onto a body of water is, that person sinks and gets wet.
Here is how Skeptical Buddhism works, if I read in the suttas a story about Buddha walking on water. What are the logical conclusions? Either it happened as described, or something happened that got embellished and distorted and eventually this story developed. Do we have evidence for people walking on water? No. Do we have evidence of stories being passed around that prove to be exaggerated or completely made up when researched? Oh yes. Just check the list of urban myths. So this is evidence that the literature was written by people who are subject to creating and believing stories of miracles being performed by special people as a sign of their divinity. It shows the people are so impressed with this person that they've elevated him beyond normal people. So I make note of that and continue reading. I don't believe the Buddha actually walked on water. I believe the people writing the sutta think this man is so special, he is capable of doing such a thing.
Am I allowed to be skeptical about skeptical Buddhism?
After all, belief that a life without suffering is possible is what started our Buddhism, and a skeptic looks around and finds scant evidence of that, certainly.
Or is that a bit too simplistic?
Really? Wow. I learned that sutta and sutra were just different spellings of the same word like karma and kamma.
I made a post on here when I first joined explaining that sutta(pali) and sutra(Sanskrit) are different translations with the same meaning and someone else also posted this concept that sutta = word of the buddha and sutra = later additions. I had never heard that before coming to this forum.
I personally believe that the extra added meaning to the two words was created in a divisive way in the old theravada(the lesser vehicle teachings) vs mahayana(the made up teachings) battle. I can see someone making that extra distinction for this reason.
as for the burning off of fingers thing.. for me personally I'd say anything even remotely like this falls into the realm of self mortification, ie outside the middle way and unskillful action if the goal is nibbana.