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.
One thing that one could question is why the Buddha and his monks would blindly take on the idea of rebirth, while all other things are investigated and doubted. Even the existence of a self is challenged, something that was also core to Brahman faith. Also casts were set aside by the Buddha, he placed women on equal ability, which was also very challenging at that time. He didn't belief his own teachers, and even had a totally different understanding of how rebirth was seen and how it occured, where it would go, what enlightenment is, on the gods, etc etc.
Its because the Buddha in his enlightened state, saw what was and what was not. And he mentioned rebirth as 'happening' .....
Buddhism developed within the framework of existing beliefs and those beliefs influenced the monks that wrote the sutras. Obvious.
I don't think it's obvious atall. First there was a formalised oral tradition with groups of monks checking each other for consistency and accuracy, eventually things were written down with the same attention to detail. And I think it's very unlikely that monks made things up in the way you suggest. So IMO the likelihood is that the suttas are a broadly accurate account of what the Buddha taught. Obviously we can't be sure, but an objective appraisal is bound to be hindered by either blind belief or skepticism.
I tend to side with Cinorher here in that it only takes the shading of a word here or there (not to mention translation issues) to begin to change meanings.
You're right, and translation is tricky because the meaning of words is always dependent on context. But I do think it's important to read the suttas with an open mind, rather than with a mind which is constantly objecting to certain ideas and wanting to impose metaphor where it wasn't intended.
One thing that one could question is why the Buddha and his monks would blindly take on the idea of rebirth, while all other things are investigated and doubted. Even the existence of a self is challenged, something that was also core to Brahman faith. Also casts were set aside by the Buddha, he placed women on equal ability, which was also very challenging at that time. He didn't belief his own teachers, and even had a totally different understanding of how rebirth was seen and how it occured, where it would go, what enlightenment is, on the gods, etc etc. Its because the Buddha in his enlightened state, saw what was and what was not. And he mentioned rebirth as 'happening' .....
I agree. In the suttas the Buddha doesn't come across as somebody who would just accept these ideas without personal validation, or as somebody who would make things up in order to reach a wider audience.
I agree. In the suttas the Buddha doesn't come across as somebody who would just accept these ideas without personal validation, or as somebody who would make things up in order to reach a wider audience.
Well, that's exactly my point. He didn't take it on just because it was a common view at the time, like some suggest.
You're right, and translation is tricky because the meaning of words is always dependent on context. But I do think it's important to read the suttas with an open mind, rather than with a mind which is constantly objecting to certain ideas and wanting to impose metaphor where it wasn't intended.
The thing is, you can't make complete ontological statements about mind, only limited metaphorical ones.
So, practice tells us before we even read certain suttas or sutras that they must be speaking metaphorically.
I would say the tendency is to impose ontological interpretations, similar to the way Creationists view the Bible, because the conventions of understanding religious texts written in ancient styles are not as familiar as they once were. Rather we are coming to religion with materialist expectations of 'statements that are about the self-existent world and are true'.
Note that the Buddha makes it clear that his teachings include both ontological, or at least literal, and metaphorical explanations. (If anyone remembers the sutta, that would be cool... the one where he says some people interpret when he means stuff literally and some people take stuff literally when it's metaphorical. He must have facepalmed a few times over the years...)
Note that the Buddha makes it clear that his teachings include both ontological, or at least literal, and metaphorical explanations.
Yes, there is both ontology and metaphor, but similes are clearly labelled as such. Many suttas are straightforwardly descriptive, and trying to impose a metaphorical interpretation is unecessary and inappropriate.
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
And people ask me why I like to keep it soooooo simple..... :rolleyes:
Because I find, in the end, there's no need to complicate matters any further. And actually, Buddhism really isn't complicated. Yet we seem to delight in making it so....in fact, with some, it's almost a need... if it isn't complicated, it can't be meaningful....
And people ask me why I like to keep it soooooo simple..... :rolleyes:
Because I find, in the end, there's no need to complicate matters any further. And actually, Buddhism really isn't complicated. Yet we seem to delight in making it so....in fact, with some, it's almost a need... if it isn't complicated, it can't be meaningful....
I think that is our egos attempting to delay or distract (ego self-preservation). If it is simple, then there is more of a reason to just do it
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
I think the very best reason to do it, is precisely because it IS so simple.
This is off topic but federica I m New to Buddhism and a lot of it completely loses me , could you in anyway tell me your simple version , pretty please x
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
Yes: Simply, it is to study the Nobility and deep meaning of the 4 Noble Truths and realise that no matter what interpretations many may put upon them, the basic simple truth is that Pain may be inevitable, but Suffering is optional. We can alleviate the Pain of our transitory existence, through diligent study of the 8Fold path, and implementing what each 'spoke of the wheel' teaches us, mindfully and skilfully, every day. The 4 and the 8 are further echoed and illustrated in the guidance to laypeople of the 5 Precepts: voluntary suggestions which nevertheless serve us well to adhere to and abide by.
Remember this, and you can't go wrong: All teachings come back to the 4 and the 8. Every teaching the Buddha subsequently gave, can be finely traced within the intricate subtle message of the 8fold path.
The Dhammapada is said to be a tightly condensed précis or summary of everything the Buddha ever taught. Worth reading.
And the Dhamma Seals sum up our practice and vocation:
All compounded things are impermanent. All stained emotions (feelings and thoughts conditioned by selfish attachment, or by hate, greed and ignorance) are painful. All phenomena are empty. Nibbana is peace.
HH the DL proposes that Buddhism is a science of mind. He was aware of Popper and his views on this. I can find no reason not to call Buddhism a science, although it is of course more than this. Empiricism is where it all begin and ends for both disciplines.
The real problem, it seems to me, is that academic philosophy has been so useless for so long that physicists have almost given up on philosophy and don't have the tools to deal with Buddhism. One science site I visit has just closed its philosophy section as being a waste of time. One is not allowed to mention metaphysics. My impression is that scientists don't like to use logic and reason as a contraint on their theories, or only when it suits them. Hence they do not bother to understand metaphysics and regularly pin their hopes on theories that contradict logic. It's really a bit pathetic when Joe Bloggs knows more about philosophy than many professional physicists.
I could rant for England on this one. Paul Davies is one scientist who seems unafraid of thinking clearly, and his book Mind of God says much that is relevant here.
I don't think Buddhism is complicated, but our minds are. So, the remedy isn't complicated, but figuring out how to apply it is--getting the simply remedy past all the habituated tricks our mind uses to resist what's in its long-term best interest.
It's like saying to two boys who've been fighting all their lives: "It's simple: don't punch." But their habitual pattern of provoking and punching each other is incredibly strong. Figuring out how to break that pattern and get them to establish a new one is not simple, even though the message is.
Comments
Its because the Buddha in his enlightened state, saw what was and what was not.
And he mentioned rebirth as 'happening'
You're right, and translation is tricky because the meaning of words is always dependent on context. But I do think it's important to read the suttas with an open mind, rather than with a mind which is constantly objecting to certain ideas and wanting to impose metaphor where it wasn't intended.
So, practice tells us before we even read certain suttas or sutras that they must be speaking metaphorically.
I would say the tendency is to impose ontological interpretations, similar to the way Creationists view the Bible, because the conventions of understanding religious texts written in ancient styles are not as familiar as they once were. Rather we are coming to religion with materialist expectations of 'statements that are about the self-existent world and are true'.
Note that the Buddha makes it clear that his teachings include both ontological, or at least literal, and metaphorical explanations. (If anyone remembers the sutta, that would be cool... the one where he says some people interpret when he means stuff literally and some people take stuff literally when it's metaphorical. He must have facepalmed a few times over the years...)
Because I find, in the end, there's no need to complicate matters any further.
And actually, Buddhism really isn't complicated. Yet we seem to delight in making it so....in fact, with some, it's almost a need... if it isn't complicated, it can't be meaningful....
Simply, it is to study the Nobility and deep meaning of the 4 Noble Truths and realise that no matter what interpretations many may put upon them, the basic simple truth is that Pain may be inevitable, but Suffering is optional.
We can alleviate the Pain of our transitory existence, through diligent study of the 8Fold path, and implementing what each 'spoke of the wheel' teaches us, mindfully and skilfully, every day.
The 4 and the 8 are further echoed and illustrated in the guidance to laypeople of the 5 Precepts: voluntary suggestions which nevertheless serve us well to adhere to and abide by.
Remember this, and you can't go wrong:
All teachings come back to the 4 and the 8. Every teaching the Buddha subsequently gave, can be finely traced within the intricate subtle message of the 8fold path.
The Dhammapada is said to be a tightly condensed précis or summary of everything the Buddha ever taught. Worth reading.
And the Dhamma Seals sum up our practice and vocation:
All compounded things are impermanent.
All stained emotions (feelings and thoughts conditioned by selfish attachment, or by hate, greed and ignorance) are painful.
All phenomena are empty.
Nibbana is peace.
Simple.
The real problem, it seems to me, is that academic philosophy has been so useless for so long that physicists have almost given up on philosophy and don't have the tools to deal with Buddhism. One science site I visit has just closed its philosophy section as being a waste of time. One is not allowed to mention metaphysics. My impression is that scientists don't like to use logic and reason as a contraint on their theories, or only when it suits them. Hence they do not bother to understand metaphysics and regularly pin their hopes on theories that contradict logic. It's really a bit pathetic when Joe Bloggs knows more about philosophy than many professional physicists.
I could rant for England on this one. Paul Davies is one scientist who seems unafraid of thinking clearly, and his book Mind of God says much that is relevant here.
It's like saying to two boys who've been fighting all their lives: "It's simple: don't punch." But their habitual pattern of provoking and punching each other is incredibly strong. Figuring out how to break that pattern and get them to establish a new one is not simple, even though the message is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy
Seems to be a blending of science and a Buddhist approach (effective, I might add).
I didn't think we evolved from apes? I thought we just shared a common ancestor?
Correct me if I'm wrong please. I hated science at school and avoided it at all costs.
I think I was referring to the fact that many people not at all well-versed in science or evolution think that evolution says man evolved from apes.