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.
@robot, a monastery that teaches non-believers burn in some imagined hell is a monastery I will avoid, thank you very kindly.
did I miss something... who said this?
The O/P said it to Vinlyn when he said he didn't believe in rebirth.
Unless I totally misunderstood the intent behind his ire for differing views.
@vinlyn Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO. But then again: Well so be it...
I read this the first time and did not see where "hell" came from, but now after reading it again I guess all the imagery insinuates hell yes. I'm not really sure of the "non-believers" term used, I'd question what is meant there. My interpretation of this statement is that we suffer because we don't see the reality of things, not that Bhikkhu was saying if you don't believe in rebirth you go to hell. But I see your interpretation as a valid one and cannot argue it.
Well I think all of the OP goes without saying, except for the Adultery utterly destroying lives (it can happen, though. it depends on the character of the couple) and the incest thing. It weirds me out, personally. As long as no children are born from the union I see no real harm, so long as both attendees are of age, and 100% consenting. However I do not consider, say, laying with someone who is "related" purely through marriage to be incest whatsoever, as there is absolutely 0% blood relation (EX: Step-siblings, 'cousins' whom are only a cousin of your step parent or sibling and so on and so forth) Though apparently society still frowns on that sort of thing.
@robot, a monastery that teaches non-believers burn in some imagined hell is a monastery I will avoid, thank you very kindly.
did I miss something... who said this?
The O/P said it to Vinlyn when he said he didn't believe in rebirth.
Unless I totally misunderstood the intent behind his ire for differing views.
@vinlyn Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO. But then again: Well so be it...
I read this the first time and did not see where "hell" came from, but now after reading it again I guess all the imagery insinuates hell yes. I'm not really sure of the "non-believers" term used, I'd question what is meant there. My interpretation of this statement is that we suffer because we don't see the reality of things, not that Bhikkhu was saying if you don't believe in rebirth you go to hell. But I see your interpretation as a valid one and cannot argue it.
That type of imagery is pretty standard fare in Buddhist literature in my experience. Shantideva's work is full of it. Temples in Asia are full of it to. Horrendous scenes of people being tortured by demons.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'd have to agree if he had said it the way you did but the way he said it, I took it to mean that believing in rebirth was the only way to be a compassionate and wise person. As if we are inherently evil and need to be conformed as opposed to being ignorant with a means of waking up.
@robot, a monastery that teaches non-believers burn in some imagined hell is a monastery I will avoid, thank you very kindly.
did I miss something... who said this?
The O/P said it to Vinlyn when he said he didn't believe in rebirth.
Unless I totally misunderstood the intent behind his ire for differing views.
@vinlyn Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO. But then again: Well so be it...
I read this the first time and did not see where "hell" came from, but now after reading it again I guess all the imagery insinuates hell yes. I'm not really sure of the "non-believers" term used, I'd question what is meant there. My interpretation of this statement is that we suffer because we don't see the reality of things, not that Bhikkhu was saying if you don't believe in rebirth you go to hell. But I see your interpretation as a valid one and cannot argue it.
That type of imagery is pretty standard fare in Buddhist literature in my experience. Shantideva's work is full of it. Temples in Asia are full of it to. Horrendous scenes of people being tortured by demons.
Yes the hell and deva realms are part of the mythos going back to the beginning for sure. I just don't see a lot of christian-like " ooh don't do this or you go to hell" type stuff in the pali suttas, although there are some suttas where the buddha discusses hell and how you get there.
I'd have to agree if he had said it the way you did but the way he said it, I took it to mean that believing in rebirth was the only way to be a compassionate and wise person. As if we are inherently evil and need to be conformed as opposed to being ignorant with a means of waking up.
hah well if that were the case(which even in the original texts the Buddha says stuff like even if there is no rebirth the practice brings benefit here and now)... then I'd be screwed as well because I'm agnostic on the matter LOL.
I read it just about the same as @ourself did- It came across with a whole boatload of derision and religious superiority - without any understanding or compassion for any other view. And it was clearly presented as a personal opinion... no scriptures involved.
To ascribe to the wrong view: "Hell does not exist" is therefore a distinct feature that defines one as a non-Buddhist = 'outsider'. Why so? As the Buddha indeed verifiable have spoken extensively about the Hells, what one in effect is postulating is: "What the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha have said (about hell) is wrong, is not so..." This amounts to postulating that the Buddha is not Perfectly Enlightened... This amounts to postulating that the Buddha is not a Buddha... This amounts to breaking ones Sangha-Entry: "I hereby take refuge in the Buddha" which implicitly recognizes the Buddha as a Buddha = Perfectly Enlightened... Never have it been reported for then last 91 eons = universal cycles = ~ 91x100 billions years that any Buddha EVER have stated even a SINGLE NON-FACT... NEVER will it EVER be reported that a SammasamBuddha either deliberate lies or states a non-fact. Being Perfectly Self Enlightened is thus indeed a certificate for infallibility. Skeptical Doubt (Vicikicchā): in that fact is a mental hindrance: This obstacle often induces spiritual stagnation: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Barren_Stagnation.htm http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Doubt_and_Uncertainty.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/How_to_Overcome_Doubt.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Curing_Doubt_and_Uncertainty.htm
B: Being a Bhikkhu is NOT a certificate for infallibility.. (agreed)
C: Disrespect towards either the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, the discipline of morality, or meditation is disadvantageous and should not be done.
Finally to dispel the deep, deep sadness over this utterly non-Buddhist dialogue, and for those who still have their sense of humor and self-irony intact let me then dare to share this with you:
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Thanks for the chuckle and that's all fine and good but who said hell does not exist?
To ascribe to the wrong view: "Hell does not exist" is therefore a distinct feature that defines one as a non-Buddhist = 'outsider'
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Has the OP mentioned sex with animals? Is that wrong too? I think I need to be told. I sometimes find myself attracted to my dog, it's not my fault, it's my dogs; he's just too god-damned sexy. If it's consenting would that be okay?
And with regards women, I can carry a woman against her will for over 300 yards..., nope, it's okay, I've read that that's wrong. Ignore that one.
Anyway, is the OP telling us, or is he reminding himself?
Hopefully needless to say: Not to understand the real risk of rebirth in hell, which truly is catastrophic beyond any imagination: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html is the single largest risk factor of actually winding up there. Why so? Then there is no "fear of wrongdoing" (otappa): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.002.wlsh.html The hedonist then is tempted to think that being is a free lunch and that there is is no long-term consequences of his actions, that there is no karmic moral efficacy... That gives a free steroid-run of greed, hate and ignorance related mental states. Under influence of that ultimately wrong view he performs actions that indeed accumulates karmic probabilities of having to do barbecue time later... Trying to warn friend @vinlyn (admittedly somewhat hard-handed) of that VERY common Samsaric mistake of all mistakes was (& is still) not appreciated at all...!, though this actually was motivated by a (maybe & apparently in this case naive) attempt to save other beings from extreme pain...
To me one of the problems with the earlier post by samahita is that very statement. I think it's an exaggeration to say that adultery "destroys lives". I know many people whose husbands or wives were unfaithful, most went on and their marriage survived, a few divorced. But all got over it. I think it's a very poor choice of words.
With respect... I personally do not take offense at what the Buddha (reportedly) preached, or taught. I don't take offense that you are religious and have a strong (almost maniacal) faith in the non-secular side of Buddhism. That is your calling, that is your way. However, where I do take exception is how a man such as yourself, a learned man, well schooled in the compassion and understanding that is at the very core of Buddhism along with all those 'rules and regulations' can - in so many words - say:
"Ha-ha! I will sit, point and laugh as you 'non-believers' scream in everlasting pain and suffering... after you've been told, but didn't listen .... like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire... somewhat pathetic IMHO. But then again: Well so be it... "
Others have asked for clarification, but either there was none, or I missed it... What do you mean by "non-believers'? Do you mean secular Buddhists? Do you mean any Buddhist, secular or not, who doesn't believe in "hell" or how one would end up there? I'm not sure what you meant by non-believers. What you said seemed totally without reason and compassion no matter what you meant by the term "non-believers." But I'm curious just the same....
PS; I would really appreciate more of a conversation than a listing of links to click in order to read more scriptures. I'm not very interested in reading more Buddha sayings or scriptures, I'm interested in talking with you.
Man! I thought we had long since established that hell is a metaphorical teaching tool in Buddhism. And Christianity for that matter. Give your head a shake!
I wouldn't say that it's been "established", but I'd say that it's one of two common beliefs.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2013
Also, disagreeing with an interpretation of the dharma is a far cry from disagreeing with Buddha.
Has the OP mentioned sex with animals? Is that wrong too? I think I need to be told. I sometimes find myself attracted to my dog, it's not my fault, it's my dogs; he's just too god-damned sexy. If it's consenting would that be okay?
And with regards women, I can carry a woman against her will for over 300 yards..., nope, it's okay, I've read that that's wrong. Ignore that one.
Anyway, is the OP telling us, or is he reminding himself?
kind of hard for an animal to give consent, so it falls into a grey area.
Before we go too far with this concept of saying that holy men deserve total respect and are always right, let's keep in mind:
Not all Buddhist holy men belong to the same sect, so at any one time a majority are not quite "right" in their teachings.
There are plenty of monks (at least in Thailand, and I imagine elsewhere) who have been disrobed for their "wrongness".
If Buddhist holy men are "right", then the holy men of all other religions are "wrong". I Christian holy men are "right", then Buddhist holy men are "wrong".
> I'm not very interested in reading more Buddha sayings or scriptures, That's thee problem... Since Buddhism is defined by these scriptures.
>I'm interested in talking with you. Monks are not allowed to 'chat', but only speak Dhamma. Sorry, but it does not really appear as like U R genuinely interested in Buddhism, what the Buddha taught or thus the Dhamma... Needless to say: That is ALSO an active CHOICE delineating a particular set of futures...
Cherry-picking among the Buddhist teachings a la: "I like this sweet one, so I accept that one..." "I dislike this sour one, so I reject that one..." is plain folly since ALL what Buddha actually said is just TRUE! One will not come home safe and sound with such deliberately incomplete strategy...
BTW: A queen reported in the Tipitaka to have accepted a single intercourse with her dog, had to spend one week in hell. That time was only so short because she had done A LOT of compensating good too.
Sex with animals (zoophilia) is thus NOT in the gray area, but clearly wrong sexual behaviour...
> I'm not very interested in reading more Buddha sayings or scriptures, That's thee problem... Since Buddhism is defined by these scriptures.
>I'm interested in talking with you. Monks are not allowed to 'chat', but only speak Dhamma. Sorry, but it does not really appear as like U R genuinely interested in Buddhism, what the Buddha taught or thus the Dhamma... Needless to say: That is ALSO an active CHOICE delineating a particular set of futures...
Cherry-picking among the Buddhist teachings a la: "I like this sweet one, so I accept that one..." "I dislike this sour one, so I reject that one..." is plain folly since ALL what Buddha actually said is just TRUE! One will not come home safe and sound with such deliberately incomplete strategy...
... And this is why I purposely stay out of the Dharma Drops room. There is no discussing nor conversing with a book (of dogma). There is no purpose to questioning professors, priests, monks or other "religiously trained" people if they can't speak any other common language outside of their bibles, nor respond to any other viewpoint or doubt with a sense of respect or understanding...
I wonder how well received the DL would be if he answered all questions and doubts from "non-believers" with nothing else but scripture references and bible thumping. Not very well I would imagine. I wonder how Jesus or the Buddha managed to preach and teach without "chatting" in a common language, and without books and links to click to? ::SMH:::
To me one of the problems with the earlier post by samahita is that very statement. I think it's an exaggeration to say that adultery "destroys lives". I know many people whose husbands or wives were unfaithful, most went on and their marriage survived, a few divorced. But all got over it. I think it's a very poor choice of words.
Personally, I think attachment to particular words is more of a problem than the words themselves. Preferring one particular word over another particular word. Squabbling about particular words misses the whole point of the message. That breaking precepts is destructive, unskillful, unwise, wrong, evil, leads to bad results, etc, etc, etc. In this context, all of that means the same thing. It just means "Don't do that!"
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Cherry-picking among the Buddhist teachings a la: "I like this sweet one, so I accept that one..." "I dislike this sour one, so I reject that one..." is plain folly since ALL what Buddha actually said is just TRUE! One will not come home safe and sound with such deliberately incomplete strategy...
This is a straw man, though. Nobody is saying Buddha said things that were untrue but that doesn't mean his words could not be misunderstood or interpreted in different ways. Some of his teachings could be metaphorical while others are literal.
Some believe the hell realms are actual other places (which to me implies dualistic thinking and more illusion) and some believe a hell realm is a state of mind.
It is up to the discerning mind to see what works and what doesn't.
Why do you think there are so many different sects using the same suttas?
Well, for one, they're not sects. They're lineages - teaching and practice - that trace themselves back by lineage holder and not what separates them, doctrinally, from others lineages.
You can certainly view them as sects - that's up to your "discerning mind", but pouring syrup on a pile of rocks doesn't make it a stack of pancakes.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I wonder how well received the DL would be if he answered all questions and doubts from "non-believers" with nothing else but scripture references and bible thumping. Not very well I would imagine. I wonder how Jesus or the Buddha managed to preach and teach without "chatting" in a common language, and without books and links to click to? ::SMH:::
That's the whole thing in a nut shell. It's hard to tell if somebody really has a handle on the teachings if they just post scripture. It's when they talk freely that their understanding or lack of understanding is revealed.
Thich Nhat Hanh, The Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron and most other monks and nuns that I've come across sure have the element of chat in their books and dharma teachings.
Maybe I'm projecting but it sure seems like they enjoy chatting about their views of the dharma.
Thich Nhat Hanh, The Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron and most other monks and nuns that I've come across sure have the element of chat in their books and dharma teachings.
That's because, more often than not, their books are actually transcriptions of oral teachings. That gives the books a conversational feel.
The only Buddhist teacher I know of that actually "writes" his books is Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche.
Samahita reminds me of my (late) father. We had energetic discussions when I was young. He used to say that he didn’t give his opinions but what he said was the truth. He didn’t have opinions he just expressed the truth as it was handed down to us in the Bible. My father was a hopeless case in my opinion and I was a hopeless case in his opinion. When we both realized this we stopped arguing.
Samahita claims to express the Dhamma. There’s no arguing against it. It is (in his mind) the truth. He’s a hopeless case.
Well, for one, they're not sects. They're lineages - teaching and practice - that trace themselves back by lineage holder and not what separates them, doctrinally, from others lineages.
You can certainly view them as sects - that's up to your "discerning mind", but pouring syrup on a pile of rocks doesn't make it a stack of pancakes.
Definition of sect: "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."
I know you'll jump on the phrase "typically regarded as heretical", which does not apply here. Furthermore, "typically" does not mean always.
But, a sewage plant by any other name is still a sewage plant.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Well, for one, they're not sects. They're lineages - teaching and practice - that trace themselves back by lineage holder and not what separates them, doctrinally, from others lineages.
You can certainly view them as sects - that's up to your "discerning mind", but pouring syrup on a pile of rocks doesn't make it a stack of pancakes.
That's priceless. The dictionary is your friend.
Sect--A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
--Merriam Webster.
And Wiki says this about sectarian divisions within Buddhism;
"Schools of Buddhism refers to the various institutional and doctrinal divisions of Buddhism that have existed from ancient times up to the present. The classification and nature of various doctrinal, philosophical or cultural facets or schools of Buddhism is vague and has been interpreted in many different ways, often due to the sheer number (perhaps thousands) of different sects, subsects, movements, etc. that have made up or currently make up the whole of Buddhist traditions. The sectarian and conceptual divisions of Buddhist thought are part of the modern framework of Buddhist studies, as well as comparative religion in Asia."
You may want to quit while you're behind.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Thich Nhat Hanh, The Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron and most other monks and nuns that I've come across sure have the element of chat in their books and dharma teachings.
That's because, more often than not, their books are actually transcriptions of oral teachings. That gives the books a conversational feel.
The only Buddhist teacher I know of that actually "writes" his books is Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche.
That's not my problem. Pema Chodron writes her own books, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche writes his own books... The Dalai Lama gives dharma talks in English and chats away like a bridge player while doing so and Thich Nhat Hanh chatted with Oprah.
Just because something appears in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.
A webster definition is always tainted with a very western bias.
If it's up to our discerning mind .....
But if we must use wikipedia, lets look at the term "sectarianism":
Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.
A Buddhist could have very well written that ....
I don't see an awful lot of bigotry, discrimination, or hatered between lineages or traditions in Buddhism. There are differences to be sure, because different groupings rely on different teachings as they've been handed down since the time of the Buddha. However, in the groups I've come in contact with, there's been little/no mention of the differences. They simply teach what they teach. When they do mention it in teaching they're usually fairly neutral and even charitable and in yet other cases point to other traditions as the source of their teaching, such as Gampopa's incorporating the Kadampa tradition into those teachings (Mahamudra, etc) passed to him by Milarepa, which marked the beginnings of the Takpo Kagyu.
There are, of course, exceptions. You'll see videos from certain groups actively disparaging other traditions, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
Maybe we could have a marker like "Insightful" and "Awesome" called "Boring" (yawning icon) and if the thread gets more than 3 Yawns it's automatically closed/locked without Mod action.
My mate, er, Dave, wants to know if there's any Sutras that ban you from having sex with rubber blow up dolls?
As I say, I'm just asking for a mate.
Personally, I think the principle of non-harming should be applicable in all our affairs (and not just in that type of 'affair'). Or is that a bit too simplistic?
It's also easier for me as a 43 year old male to be smarter on issues of sex; that wasn't the case in my youth when it just consumed me.
My mate, er, Dave, wants to know if there's any Sutras that ban you from having sex with rubber blow up dolls?
I think that would fall under the sexual misconduct precept.
That said, I don't think that there were blow-up sex dolls in the Buddha's time, so maybe ........ Nope. Definitely not going there!
So tell errrr ..... Dave ..... yeah, Dave..... if he doesn't trash the sex dolls we'll come and take back his Super Secret Vajra Decoder Ring. And his birthday, too.
For the record: :hair: I am clutching my pearls. I have never seen/heard sarcastic yawning and blow up sex dolls be brought up in a group setting/teaching with a Monk, Buddhist Nun, Priest, Chaplin, A Catholic Nun, or a Zen Master. Call me old fashioned or a fundie, if you want...I have never seen stuff like this. I'm not saying the subjects or the questions...but there is a time and place for everything. No, it's not a monastery...but we are here to learn about Buddhism. Oh well, guess I'm just a square...hahaha
I read the Daily Drops before and will continue to read them. Gratitude for sharing them and the links that expand it. _/\_
I have never seen/heard sarcastic yawning and blow up sex dolls be brought up in a group setting/teaching with a Monk, Buddhist Nun, Priest, Chaplin, A Catholic Nun, or a Zen Master. Call me old fashioned or a fundie, if you want...I have never seen stuff like this. I'm not saying the subjects or the questions...but there is a time and place for everything. No, it's not a monastery...but we are here to learn about Buddhism. Oh well, guess I'm just a square...hahaha
I apologise for my own sarcasm. I think the original post came across as preachy and egg sucking. Of course we know that adultery, incest, and paedophilia is harmful. We're not medieval illiterate yak farmers.
I also sometimes forget that Buddhism is a religion too.
I think that let the hot air out of your argument.
If you say so ....
I was thinking ..... yes I sometimes fixate on things ... that I find the use of things like sex dolls to be really .... creepy. I don't think I'm alone. I've always thought of myself as being very open-minded about sex, but I guess I draw the line at dolls. Just too creepy.
Maybe there should be a precept that discourages engaging in activities that the Sangha will find "creepy".
My mate, er, Dave, wants to know if there's any Sutras that ban you from having sex with rubber blow up dolls?
As I say, I'm just asking for a mate.
Personally, I think the principle of non-harming should be applicable in all our affairs (and not just in that type of 'affair'). Or is that a bit too simplistic?
It's also easier for me as a 43 year old male to be smarter on issues of sex; that wasn't the case in my youth when it just consumed me.
even sexual attachment to blow up dolls is enough to keep us in the round of samsara :P
For the record: :hair: I am clutching my pearls. I have never seen/heard sarcastic yawning and blow up sex dolls be brought up in a group setting/teaching with a Monk, Buddhist Nun, Priest, Chaplin, A Catholic Nun, or a Zen Master. Call me old fashioned or a fundie, if you want...I have never seen stuff like this. I'm not saying the subjects or the questions...but there is a time and place for everything. No, it's not a monastery...but we are here to learn about Buddhism. Oh well, guess I'm just a square...hahaha
I read the Daily Drops before and will continue to read them. Gratitude for sharing them and the links that expand it. _/\_
Bhikkhu Samahita's drops fit more in a place like dhammawheel then here perhaps(I am also on the theravada buddhism facebook group where he posts). As someone who is fairly well versed in the suttas I find them beneficial and take no sense of guilt or " thou shalt not" from them or Bhikkhu Samahita.
there are many on here who still have aversion to their experiences growing up in a christian/catholic setting and anything that happens that they perceive is remotely close to that can trigger responses. I should know as I too had much aversion and even a slight hatred of the church at one point. Thankfully the practice has helped me with that.
anyways, I would love to see a conversation like this happen in a room, rather then virtually LOL, that would be a youtube video worth watching.
I don't think you're a 'square' or a fundie But let's admit we don't all view any singular topic only one way. We are as diverse a group of "Buddhists" and non-Buddhists, and almost-Buddhists, and might-want-to-be-Buddhists as we can be.
We are also from different cultures and countries and speak different languages. Questions are normal, clarification is needed (quite often) to make things understood from one perspective or another, and occasional disagreements are to be expected (IMO).
Geeze Louise, I bet someone couldn't post a comment loud and proud about "How blue the sky is today" without at least 3 people coming forward and reveling in the fact that they see the sky more 'azure' than blue, or more robin's egg blue than sky blue, or not blue at all! (And I'm not saying I would never be one of them!) That is just result of the dynamics of a diverse group.
I've noticed more than once that as soon as (some) 'discussions' seem to be leaning to one side or the other, someone on the 'losing' side inevitably starts calling into question the meaning of common, singular words. Suddenly, nothing is of common understanding, everything is fractured into tedious, sometimes outlandish "misinterpretations" -- and by golly! then the Dictionary needs to come out! (thankfully)
This is a discussion forum. All , ok, most of us are here to participate in discussion. I know I am. 95% of the time I really enjoy conversing with people (all you people) and learning something about each of you - and sometimes myself - every day. Buddhism is our common interest, passion or however you classify it. But I don't come here to specifically 'learn about Buddhism', though that does happen now and again.
I totally clutched MY pearls when samahita got all evangelical and frankly a bit rude and insulting in his attempt to "speak the Dharma" to us as a group. I had a teeny tiny bone to pick with the OP on two minor points... but before I could say "Amen!" I was reading how I was wrong and disrespectful to be questioning samahita - "our resident Bhikkhu".
Well, ok, but I still think he was out of line. Sorry. Several tried conversing with him; he replied with links and scriptures. I asked him a question to clarify his rant, again, more links/scriptures, and then tells me "Monks don't chat, only speak the Dharma..." All well and good, perhaps that should have been remembered before he insulted me and a few others on this forum with his mocking and fire and brimstone "humble OPINION"... Just sayin'.
Samahita reminds me of my (late) father. We had energetic discussions when I was young. He used to say that he didn’t give his opinions but what he said was the truth. He didn’t have opinions he just expressed the truth as it was handed down to us in the Bible. My father was a hopeless case in my opinion and I was a hopeless case in his opinion. When we both realized this we stopped arguing.
Samahita claims to express the Dhamma. There’s no arguing against it. It is (in his mind) the truth. He’s a hopeless case.
Agreed! A hopeless case! But at the same time, this could easily be a good thing as a stream-winner has unwavering faith in the Buddha's dharma and no longer questions one bit of it. All of it is true! Skeptical doubting (vicikiccha) is considered a fetter of the mind to be abandoned. Because someone has abandoned it, this could very well be a good thing because the more fetters you cut, the closer to enlightenment you are.
Humpty dumpty said that words mean what I say they mean. When someone speaks they are trying to find the meaning to express their opinion. Remember there weren't any dictionaries until the printing press. So you have to find the meaning of the other person (rather than webster) if you are having a discussion.
If you are just trying to 'win' then it is a pointless bickering.
AFAIK this is not a general forum...Buddhist, right?.... So, all I'm sayin' is yes, some are here for the preachy. Challenging the sermon would be alot for a 'beginner' to take in...I think. ...especially when you walked up to the mount. ..... Are you expecting not one fundie here?... C'mon...we need some legit people in the diverse mix to at least keep us on the NB path. And yes...he's the resident one, right? I know we ha-ha, and he-he, but that's why I made the point of time and place. Start threads...give me a sermon of yours
I feel weird now...adding to what I'm complaining about...and I burnt the pizza in the oven bec i was typing the last post lololololol Gotta go...
It's also a breaking of the Bodhisattva vows both to hinder a Bodhisattva in their teaching and also to tear down a hinayana practitioners faith. Hinayana was found to be a harsh word so fundamental yana is a better word nowadays. I would extend, and I think big B would have agreed, that it is also better not to tear down anyone's faith including a secular Buddhist's. Of course there are also vows against heretic practice so everyone all around needs to examine themselves. The Christian verse about removing the mote of dust in their fellows eye before removing the beam in their own eye applies. There are five families of Buddhas: incorrigible who mistake right from wrong (these take a LONG time to reach a human birth let alone Nirvana), the solitary realizers (could be secular or non), hinayana (seeking self enlightenment), mahayana (seeking everyone's enlightenment), and those who take on the character of whoever their teacher is. Incidentally I am a hinayana/fundamental practitioner even though my sangha is mahayana and my teacher studied vajrayana(secret).
I realize that for many my analysis doesn't apply to their system of beliefs, but I throw it out there nonetheless.
Of course I expect the occasional 'fundie' here and there.... but I also expect fundies to be called out now and then too. In my mind, there is little to praise about a fundie. Otherwise, if we never question, never critique, we are all just what- blind followers without critical thinking skills or the aptitude to think for ourselves?
But are [fundamentalists] schooled and studied? Seems so- Absolutely. Always Wise? Not necessarily. Always to be respected? Depends. Flawless? No.
How many times have people in this forum chimed in with really harsh (and mostly very unfair) criticisms about the DL and other monks and teachers? Plenty of times.
I think the time and place for this particular OP would have been in the usual spot these sorts of Dharma announcement posts are found here at NB- in "Dharma Drops". (JMO) As soon as I saw it (here), I thought it had been posted here in "Buddhism for Beginners" by accident. ::: shrugs::: Actually, I still think it might have been posted here by accident. It sure follows script and font/format of all the other Dharma Drop posts I've glanced at. But whatever.... DON'T BURN THE PIZZA!! :eek:
FWIW: Other than a few times when I first joined NB, I don't click Dharma Drops "topics" to read, comment or discuss anything. I'm a secular Buddhist, so I have no interest in the religious side of Buddhism. But I also realize that - out of respect for others - I shouldn't go there and find myself tempted to "disrupt" things with skepticism, questions or disagreements. I don't purposely go anywhere to stir the pot and cause trouble.
In this thread I was responding to samahita's OP prior to be told who he was.... I had no clue it was the same person who regularly posts the Dharma Drops. And I also had no clue that samahita was a monk either. Like I said, I've totally ignored all the Dharma Drop posts all along.
I was a little ashamed and taken aback that I was somewhat disregarding his credentials, and I thought about my being disrespectful - for a bit. Then his follow up posts hit the board and I decided his credentials didn't do enough to sweeten the bitter taste his posts left. So... just so we're all clear that I did not intend to 'butt heads' with samahita personally because of who or what he is. It just turned out that way.
whats wrong with being a fundamentalist? It has taken on a pretty negative term the last 20 years I know, but when speaking about Buddhism, I see nothing wrong with it.
I pretty much consider myself a fundamentalist in that I learn from only the oldest teachings, the 4 nikayas, as do many monastics I call teacher, like Ajahn Brahm and Bhante G.
The type of fundamentalism we view as negative, is not seen there..
of course that doesn't mean I never learn anything from other monastics and traditions, but my core study is there and I do not follow much of the added cultural additions of much of Theravada, let alone Mahayana/vajriana. The core teachings of the Buddha are my guide, and they have yet to steer me wrong.
so I guess I can be called a fundie with a clear mind lol, perhaps even proudly, with this ego of mine still mired in the three roots as it is.
Comments
That type of imagery is pretty standard fare in Buddhist literature in my experience. Shantideva's work is full of it.
Temples in Asia are full of it to. Horrendous scenes of people being tortured by demons.
I'd have to agree if he had said it the way you did but the way he said it, I took it to mean that believing in rebirth was the only way to be a compassionate and wise person. As if we are inherently evil and need to be conformed as opposed to being ignorant with a means of waking up.
That type of imagery is pretty standard fare in Buddhist literature in my experience. Shantideva's work is full of it.
Temples in Asia are full of it to. Horrendous scenes of people being tortured by demons.
Yes the hell and deva realms are part of the mythos going back to the beginning for sure. I just don't see a lot of christian-like " ooh don't do this or you go to hell" type stuff in the pali suttas, although there are some suttas where the buddha discusses hell and how you get there.
hah well if that were the case(which even in the original texts the Buddha says stuff like even if there is no rebirth the practice brings benefit here and now)... then I'd be screwed as well because I'm agnostic on the matter LOL.
I read it just about the same as @ourself did- It came across with a whole boatload of derision and religious superiority - without any understanding or compassion for any other view.
And it was clearly presented as a personal opinion... no scriptures involved.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
The Buddha spoken extensively on the 8 major Hells (136 hells in total)
in the Divine Messengers Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html
To ascribe to the wrong view: "Hell does not exist" is therefore a distinct feature that defines one as a non-Buddhist = 'outsider'. Why so? As the Buddha indeed verifiable have spoken extensively about the Hells, what one in effect is postulating is:
"What the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha have said (about hell) is wrong, is not so..."
This amounts to postulating that the Buddha is not Perfectly Enlightened...
This amounts to postulating that the Buddha is not a Buddha...
This amounts to breaking ones Sangha-Entry: "I hereby take refuge in the Buddha"
which implicitly recognizes the Buddha as a Buddha = Perfectly Enlightened...
Never have it been reported for then last 91 eons = universal cycles =
~ 91x100 billions years that any Buddha EVER have stated even a SINGLE
NON-FACT... NEVER will it EVER be reported that a SammasamBuddha either deliberate lies or states a non-fact. Being Perfectly Self Enlightened is thus indeed a certificate
for infallibility. Skeptical Doubt (Vicikicchā): in that fact is a mental hindrance:
This obstacle often induces spiritual stagnation:
http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Barren_Stagnation.htm
http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Doubt_and_Uncertainty.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/How_to_Overcome_Doubt.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Curing_Doubt_and_Uncertainty.htm
B: Being a Bhikkhu is NOT a certificate for infallibility.. (agreed)
C: Disrespect towards either the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, the discipline of morality, or meditation is disadvantageous and should not be done.
Thanks for the chuckle and that's all fine and good but who said hell does not exist?
(Not dissing my American friends, just a play on words)
And with regards women, I can carry a woman against her will for over 300 yards..., nope, it's okay, I've read that that's wrong. Ignore that one.
Anyway, is the OP telling us, or is he reminding himself?
Not to understand the real risk of rebirth in hell, which truly is catastrophic beyond any imagination: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html
is the single largest risk factor of actually winding up there. Why so?
Then there is no "fear of wrongdoing" (otappa):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.002.wlsh.html
The hedonist then is tempted to think that being is a free lunch and that there is
is no long-term consequences of his actions, that there is no karmic moral efficacy...
That gives a free steroid-run of greed, hate and ignorance related mental states.
Under influence of that ultimately wrong view he performs actions that indeed accumulates karmic probabilities of having to do barbecue time later...
Trying to warn friend @vinlyn (admittedly somewhat hard-handed) of that VERY common Samsaric mistake of all mistakes was (& is still) not appreciated at all...!, though this actually was motivated by a (maybe & apparently in this case naive) attempt to save other beings from extreme pain...
About what the (infallible remember!) Buddha have spoken on the minute fraction
of beings who get a good rebirth (=human or above) please friends see:
http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/IV/Few_are_Fine.htm
Somewhat chilling IMHO ... ("secular" or not...)
With respect... I personally do not take offense at what the Buddha (reportedly) preached, or taught. I don't take offense that you are religious and have a strong (almost maniacal) faith in the non-secular side of Buddhism. That is your calling, that is your way.
However, where I do take exception is how a man such as yourself, a learned man, well schooled in the compassion and understanding that is at the very core of Buddhism along with all those 'rules and regulations' can - in so many words - say:
"Ha-ha! I will sit, point and laugh as you 'non-believers' scream in everlasting pain and suffering... after you've been told, but didn't listen .... like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire... somewhat pathetic IMHO.
But then again: Well so be it... "
Others have asked for clarification, but either there was none, or I missed it...
What do you mean by "non-believers'?
Do you mean secular Buddhists?
Do you mean any Buddhist, secular or not, who doesn't believe in "hell" or how one would end up there?
I'm not sure what you meant by non-believers.
What you said seemed totally without reason and compassion no matter what you meant by the term "non-believers." But I'm curious just the same....
PS; I would really appreciate more of a conversation than a listing of links to click in order to read more scriptures. I'm not very interested in reading more Buddha sayings or scriptures, I'm interested in talking with you.
Just saying...
Not all Buddhist holy men belong to the same sect, so at any one time a majority are not quite "right" in their teachings.
There are plenty of monks (at least in Thailand, and I imagine elsewhere) who have been disrobed for their "wrongness".
If Buddhist holy men are "right", then the holy men of all other religions are "wrong". I Christian holy men are "right", then Buddhist holy men are "wrong".
>or I missed it...
Right on there.
> I'm not very interested in reading more Buddha sayings or scriptures,
That's thee problem... Since Buddhism is defined by these scriptures.
>I'm interested in talking with you.
Monks are not allowed to 'chat', but only speak Dhamma.
Sorry, but it does not really appear as like U R genuinely
interested in Buddhism, what the Buddha taught or thus
the Dhamma... Needless to say: That is ALSO an active
CHOICE delineating a particular set of futures...
Cherry-picking among the Buddhist teachings a la:
"I like this sweet one, so I accept that one..."
"I dislike this sour one, so I reject that one..."
is plain folly since ALL what Buddha actually said is just TRUE!
One will not come home safe and sound with such deliberately
incomplete strategy...
A queen reported in the Tipitaka to have accepted
a single intercourse with her dog, had to spend one
week in hell. That time was only so short because
she had done A LOT of compensating good too.
Sex with animals (zoophilia) is thus NOT in the gray area,
but clearly wrong sexual behaviour...
There is no discussing nor conversing with a book (of dogma).
There is no purpose to questioning professors, priests, monks or other "religiously trained" people if they can't speak any other common language outside of their bibles, nor respond to any other viewpoint or doubt with a sense of respect or understanding...
I wonder how well received the DL would be if he answered all questions and doubts from "non-believers" with nothing else but scripture references and bible thumping. Not very well I would imagine. I wonder how Jesus or the Buddha managed to preach and teach without "chatting" in a common language, and without books and links to click to? ::SMH:::
Some believe the hell realms are actual other places (which to me implies dualistic thinking and more illusion) and some believe a hell realm is a state of mind.
It is up to the discerning mind to see what works and what doesn't.
Why do you think there are so many different sects using the same suttas?
You can certainly view them as sects - that's up to your "discerning mind", but pouring syrup on a pile of rocks doesn't make it a stack of pancakes.
Thich Nhat Hanh, The Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron and most other monks and nuns that I've come across sure have the element of chat in their books and dharma teachings.
Maybe I'm projecting but it sure seems like they enjoy chatting about their views of the dharma.
The only Buddhist teacher I know of that actually "writes" his books is Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche.
My father was a hopeless case in my opinion and I was a hopeless case in his opinion. When we both realized this we stopped arguing.
Samahita claims to express the Dhamma. There’s no arguing against it. It is (in his mind) the truth.
He’s a hopeless case.
You can certainly view them as sects - that's up to your "discerning mind", but pouring syrup on a pile of rocks doesn't make it a stack of pancakes.
Definition of sect: "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."
I know you'll jump on the phrase "typically regarded as heretical", which does not apply here. Furthermore, "typically" does not mean always.
But, a sewage plant by any other name is still a sewage plant.
Sect--A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
--Merriam Webster.
And Wiki says this about sectarian divisions within Buddhism;
"Schools of Buddhism refers to the various institutional and doctrinal divisions of Buddhism that have existed from ancient times up to the present. The classification and nature of various doctrinal, philosophical or cultural facets or schools of Buddhism is vague and has been interpreted in many different ways, often due to the sheer number (perhaps thousands) of different sects, subsects, movements, etc. that have made up or currently make up the whole of Buddhist traditions. The sectarian and conceptual divisions of Buddhist thought are part of the modern framework of Buddhist studies, as well as comparative religion in Asia."
You may want to quit while you're behind.
Accept your assertions after you dismiss mine?
Just because something appears in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.
A webster definition is always tainted with a very western bias.
If it's up to our discerning mind .....
But if we must use wikipedia, lets look at the term "sectarianism": A Buddhist could have very well written that ....
I don't see an awful lot of bigotry, discrimination, or hatered between lineages or traditions in Buddhism. There are differences to be sure, because different groupings rely on different teachings as they've been handed down since the time of the Buddha. However, in the groups I've come in contact with, there's been little/no mention of the differences. They simply teach what they teach. When they do mention it in teaching they're usually fairly neutral and even charitable and in yet other cases point to other traditions as the source of their teaching, such as Gampopa's incorporating the Kadampa tradition into those teachings (Mahamudra, etc) passed to him by Milarepa, which marked the beginnings of the Takpo Kagyu.
There are, of course, exceptions. You'll see videos from certain groups actively disparaging other traditions, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
As I say, I'm just asking for a mate.
Personally, I think the principle of non-harming should be applicable in all our affairs (and not just in that type of 'affair'). Or is that a bit too simplistic?
It's also easier for me as a 43 year old male to be smarter on issues of sex; that wasn't the case in my youth when it just consumed me.
That said, I don't think that there were blow-up sex dolls in the Buddha's time, so maybe ........ Nope. Definitely not going there!
So tell errrr ..... Dave ..... yeah, Dave..... if he doesn't trash the sex dolls we'll come and take back his Super Secret Vajra Decoder Ring. And his birthday, too.
I have never seen/heard sarcastic yawning and blow up sex dolls be brought
up in a group setting/teaching with a Monk, Buddhist Nun, Priest, Chaplin, A Catholic Nun, or a Zen Master.
Call me old fashioned or a fundie, if you want...I have never seen stuff like
this. I'm not saying the subjects or the questions...but there is a time and
place for everything. No, it's not a monastery...but we are here to learn about
Buddhism. Oh well, guess I'm just a square...hahaha
I read the Daily Drops before and will continue to read them.
Gratitude for sharing them and the links that expand it.
_/\_
I also sometimes forget that Buddhism is a religion too.
I was thinking ..... yes I sometimes fixate on things ... that I find the use of things like sex dolls to be really .... creepy. I don't think I'm alone. I've always thought of myself as being very open-minded about sex, but I guess I draw the line at dolls. Just too creepy.
Maybe there should be a precept that discourages engaging in activities that the Sangha will find "creepy".
there are many on here who still have aversion to their experiences growing up in a christian/catholic setting and anything that happens that they perceive is remotely close to that can trigger responses. I should know as I too had much aversion and even a slight hatred of the church at one point. Thankfully the practice has helped me with that.
anyways, I would love to see a conversation like this happen in a room, rather then virtually LOL, that would be a youtube video worth watching.
I don't think you're a 'square' or a fundie
But let's admit we don't all view any singular topic only one way. We are as diverse a group of "Buddhists" and non-Buddhists, and almost-Buddhists, and might-want-to-be-Buddhists as we can be.
We are also from different cultures and countries and speak different languages. Questions are normal, clarification is needed (quite often) to make things understood from one perspective or another, and occasional disagreements are to be expected (IMO).
Geeze Louise, I bet someone couldn't post a comment loud and proud about "How blue the sky is today" without at least 3 people coming forward and reveling in the fact that they see the sky more 'azure' than blue, or more robin's egg blue than sky blue, or not blue at all! (And I'm not saying I would never be one of them!) That is just result of the dynamics of a diverse group.
I've noticed more than once that as soon as (some) 'discussions' seem to be leaning to one side or the other, someone on the 'losing' side inevitably starts calling into question the meaning of common, singular words.
Suddenly, nothing is of common understanding, everything is fractured into tedious, sometimes outlandish "misinterpretations" -- and by golly! then the Dictionary needs to come out! (thankfully)
This is a discussion forum.
All , ok, most of us are here to participate in discussion. I know I am.
95% of the time I really enjoy conversing with people (all you people) and learning something about each of you - and sometimes myself - every day.
Buddhism is our common interest, passion or however you classify it. But I don't come here to specifically 'learn about Buddhism', though that does happen now and again.
I totally clutched MY pearls when samahita got all evangelical and frankly a bit rude and insulting in his attempt to "speak the Dharma" to us as a group. I had a teeny tiny bone to pick with the OP on two minor points... but before I could say "Amen!" I was reading how I was wrong and disrespectful to be questioning samahita - "our resident Bhikkhu".
Well, ok, but I still think he was out of line. Sorry.
Several tried conversing with him; he replied with links and scriptures. I asked him a question to clarify his rant, again, more links/scriptures, and then tells me "Monks don't chat, only speak the Dharma..."
All well and good, perhaps that should have been remembered before he insulted me and a few others on this forum with his mocking and fire and brimstone "humble OPINION"... Just sayin'.
If you are just trying to 'win' then it is a pointless bickering.
is yes, some are here for the preachy. Challenging the sermon would
be alot for a 'beginner' to take in...I think. ...especially when you walked
up to the mount.
C'mon...we need some legit people in the diverse mix to at least
keep us on the NB path. And yes...he's the resident one, right?
I know we ha-ha, and he-he, but that's why I made the point of
time and place. Start threads...give me a sermon of yours
I feel weird now...adding to what I'm complaining about...and I
burnt the pizza in the oven bec i was typing the last post lololololol
Gotta go...
I realize that for many my analysis doesn't apply to their system of beliefs, but I throw it out there nonetheless.
Of course I expect the occasional 'fundie' here and there.... but I also expect fundies to be called out now and then too. In my mind, there is little to praise about a fundie.
Otherwise, if we never question, never critique, we are all just what- blind followers without critical thinking skills or the aptitude to think for ourselves?
But are [fundamentalists] schooled and studied? Seems so- Absolutely.
Always Wise? Not necessarily.
Always to be respected? Depends.
Flawless? No.
How many times have people in this forum chimed in with really harsh (and mostly very unfair) criticisms about the DL and other monks and teachers? Plenty of times.
I think the time and place for this particular OP would have been in the usual spot these sorts of Dharma announcement posts are found here at NB- in "Dharma Drops". (JMO)
As soon as I saw it (here), I thought it had been posted here in "Buddhism for Beginners" by accident. ::: shrugs:::
Actually, I still think it might have been posted here by accident.
It sure follows script and font/format of all the other Dharma Drop posts I've glanced at. But whatever.... DON'T BURN THE PIZZA!!
:eek:
Other than a few times when I first joined NB, I don't click Dharma Drops "topics" to read, comment or discuss anything.
I'm a secular Buddhist, so I have no interest in the religious side of Buddhism.
But I also realize that - out of respect for others - I shouldn't go there and find myself tempted to "disrupt" things with skepticism, questions or disagreements.
I don't purposely go anywhere to stir the pot and cause trouble.
In this thread I was responding to samahita's OP prior to be told who he was....
I had no clue it was the same person who regularly posts the Dharma Drops. And I also had no clue that samahita was a monk either. Like I said, I've totally ignored all the Dharma Drop posts all along.
I was a little ashamed and taken aback that I was somewhat disregarding his credentials, and I thought about my being disrespectful - for a bit. Then his follow up posts hit the board and I decided his credentials didn't do enough to sweeten the bitter taste his posts left. So... just so we're all clear that I did not intend to 'butt heads' with samahita personally because of who or what he is. It just turned out that way.
I pretty much consider myself a fundamentalist in that I learn from only the oldest teachings, the 4 nikayas, as do many monastics I call teacher, like Ajahn Brahm and Bhante G.
The type of fundamentalism we view as negative, is not seen there..
of course that doesn't mean I never learn anything from other monastics and traditions, but my core study is there and I do not follow much of the added cultural additions of much of Theravada, let alone Mahayana/vajriana. The core teachings of the Buddha are my guide, and they have yet to steer me wrong.
so I guess I can be called a fundie with a clear mind lol, perhaps even proudly, with this ego of mine still mired in the three roots as it is.