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.
I finally figured out that if we didn't have some fundamentalist Buddhists here this would be no more than a prolonged bullshit session.
So on this forum anyone who is a serious or committed Buddhist is regarded as a sutta-thumping fundamentalist? :-/
If they tell us we will go to some land of torment if we disagree with them then yes...
Is that so unreasonable?
It wouldn't be if that was what he said. That is only what you heard. I thought even the most unconventional Buddhist accepts the 4nt. You yourself said that you know people living in a land of torment.
Lol... Somehow I doubt they got there by disagreeing with a monk about rebirth.
Is that the way you read that? My point is that you agree that it is possible to be in hell. The Buddha has outlined a path away from that outcome. We agree so far? Samahita said that to doubt the Buddhas teaching on rebirth is to doubt the Buddha. The result is failure to attain liberation. That is the way I understand his position. He later admitted that he had erred in his handling of the issue that arose with vinlyn, here:
"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... "
Also, in a previous post had admitted to regret about the way the debate had turned and tried to make light of it. And you accepted the olive branch.
But the vitriol continues. Now he is a "sutta thumping fundamentalist" in your view Some members, including you, have it in their teeth and won't let it go.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Off the top of my head I know that the Nichiren sub-sects all disagree on the meaning of the Lotus Sutra.
As for the rest of your post, you should attribute the proper posts to the proper posters. Though I would ask what the point would be of worrying about karma aside from being mindful of causation.
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Off the top of my head I know that the Nichiren sub-sects all disagree on the meaning of the Lotus Sutra.
Which ones? How do they differ?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Is that the way you read that? My point is that you agree that it is possible to be in hell. The Buddha has outlined a path away from that outcome. We agree so far? Samahita said that to doubt the Buddhas teaching on rebirth is to doubt the Buddha. The result is failure to attain liberation. That is the way I understand his position. He later admitted that he had erred in his handling of the issue that arose with vinlyn, here:
"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... "
How he personally handled it isn't the issue. The issue is that he is saying that disagreeing with the notion of rebirth will land you in a hell realm, suffering in torment. As if disagreeing with rebirth makes a person less compassionate somehow. Somebody show me where Buddha said exactly this without any need for personal interpretation.
Also, in a previous post had admitted to regret about the way the debate had turned and tried to make light of it. And you accepted the olive branch.
But the vitriol continues. Now he is a "sutta thumping fundamentalist" in your view Some members, including you, have it in their teeth and won't let it go.
I didn't see an olive branch but don't see why one would be offered. We are not at war, we just disagree, lmao.
Is that the way you read that? My point is that you agree that it is possible to be in hell. The Buddha has outlined a path away from that outcome. We agree so far? Samahita said that to doubt the Buddhas teaching on rebirth is to doubt the Buddha. The result is failure to attain liberation. That is the way I understand his position. He later admitted that he had erred in his handling of the issue that arose with vinlyn, here:
"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... "
How he personally handled it isn't the issue. The issue is that he is saying that disagreeing with the notion of rebirth will land you in a hell realm, suffering in torment. As if disagreeing with rebirth makes a person less compassionate somehow. Somebody show me where Buddha said exactly this without any need for personal interpretation.
Also, in a previous post had admitted to regret about the way the debate had turned and tried to make light of it. And you accepted the olive branch.
But the vitriol continues. Now he is a "sutta thumping fundamentalist" in your view Some members, including you, have it in their teeth and won't let it go.
I didn't see an olive branch but don't see why one would be offered. We are not at war, we just disagree, lmao.
Robot explained how he viewed bhante's comments, as i read it the same way. Bhante(whos first language isnt english btw) used the term non-believers in a way that can be easily misconstrued to mean faith belief, ie if you dont believe in god you go to hell.
But as Robot explained, i believe the intent behind the comment was that since we fail to see things as they truely are, we cannot rise above our current situation and remain stuck.
Much of this battle is one of symantics and definition... Such a silly thing to become disputatious over.
How about we agree that we all(including bhante) were right, but not correct, and at the same time we were correct, but not right, and let it die here. Ajahn Chah knows how to end disputes haha.
Is that the way you read that? My point is that you agree that it is possible to be in hell. The Buddha has outlined a path away from that outcome. We agree so far? Samahita said that to doubt the Buddhas teaching on rebirth is to doubt the Buddha. The result is failure to attain liberation. That is the way I understand his position. He later admitted that he had erred in his handling of the issue that arose with vinlyn, here:
"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... "
How he personally handled it isn't the issue. The issue is that he is saying that disagreeing with the notion of rebirth will land you in a hell realm, suffering in torment. As if disagreeing with rebirth makes a person less compassionate somehow. Somebody show me where Buddha said exactly this without any need for personal interpretation.
Also, in a previous post had admitted to regret about the way the debate had turned and tried to make light of it. And you accepted the olive branch.
But the vitriol continues. Now he is a "sutta thumping fundamentalist" in your view Some members, including you, have it in their teeth and won't let it go.
I didn't see an olive branch but don't see why one would be offered. We are not at war, we just disagree, lmao.
It wouldn't be if that was what he said. That is only what you heard. I thought even the most unconventional Buddhist accepts the 4nt. You yourself said that you know people living in a land of torment.
I thought most here rejected the concept of hell as a punishment. Yet that is what he suggested.
Just because you do not eliminate all your suffering does not mean that you end up in hell.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Off the top of my head I know that the Nichiren sub-sects all disagree on the meaning of the Lotus Sutra.
Which ones? How do they differ?
All of them. As for how, if you don't believe me you can look it up easy enough. Pure Land Buddhism also sees it differently. I'm on my phone so can't link at the moment and it really isn't all that important to my point so...
But some people think "Taking refuge" means "fundamentalism", but it actually doesn't!
I take refuge but am not a fundamentalist nor do I dislike fundamentalists. I just personally prefer to be discerning on what there is exactly to take refuge in. It isn't somebody elses faith, that's for sure.
That's a good question. What does it really mean to "take refuge"? A question worthy of it's own thread I think!
Buddha said to question that which doesn't make sense to us, not to be fearful of things we don't believe.
He said it doesn't matter if he said it or someone else.
To not have the ability to question your faith means that even if it were proven untrue, you would go on believing it anyways. That's a kind of delusion.
Yes he did. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of this: What about when your faith has already been proven true? Is it still proper to question it? I don't think so. If you continue to question it, that means it really just hasn't been proven true yet. Although, I am speaking in the context of keeping or breaking the precepts here, the subject of the OP. The skillfulness and unskillfulness of keeping them or breaking them can be personally verified. After you have personally verified it, found it to be unequivocally true, why would you need to continue to question it? That does not make any sense to me!
I thought most here rejected the concept of hell as a punishment.
They do and rightfully so. The so-called "Hell Realm" isn't taught as punishment. Just the same it isn't a very nice place and there is no possibility of being able to practice the Dharma. It's a product of cause and affect. Karma. If you accumulate certain Karma, you won't have a precious human birth next time around (so to speak).
Yet that is what he suggested.
Yep. Isn't amazing that there are still imperfect beings in the world? I am CONSTANTLY amazed ........
I also find that Buddhist monastics still being human is a real pisser. I thought they'd be PERFECT in every way
Just because you do not eliminate all your suffering does not mean that you end up in hell.
You might come back as your neighbor's dog, or the next Charles Manson, or maybe as a god, or maybe in hell. Maybe you be born in a Pure Land where you'll finish the Bhumis and the Paths. None of that's to be seen as punishment or reward. It's just how your karma may influence your next birth. I believe that I stand a good chance of taking birth as an intestinal parasite. And look at Lobster! He took birth as, well, whatever ever he is ......
The key – in my mind – is that the facts decide about the validity of a factual statement. When we disagree about facts it doesn’t matter where the statement comes from; the facts decide.
The fundamentalism – again in my mind – starts where the source of the statement is decisive. If it is in the Bible or the Sutra’s or if it comes from a respected monk; it must be true. Not so. The Bible / the Buddha can be wrong. The facts decide that; not religious enthusiasm.
The Buddha is not above the facts, he can be wrong, and so we can disagree with what he said and discuss the Dhamma. Taking refuge in the Dhamma is not accepting some dogma; it is taking refuge in the never ending search for truth and the never ending attempt to cut through delusions.
Yes he did. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of this: What about when your faith has already been proven true? Is it still proper to question it? I don't think so. If you continue to question it, that means it really just hasn't been proven true yet. Although, I am speaking in the context of keeping or breaking the precepts here, the subject of the OP. The skillfulness and unskillfulness of keeping them or breaking them can be personally verified. After you have personally verified it, found it to be unequivocally true, why would you need to continue to question it? That does not make any sense to me!
"your faith" -- said as if it is one block of solid marble.
To be really mindful, every circumstance that pops up and is somewhat different that previous circumstances one has been in ought to lead one to rethink how one confronts the situation.
Thinking is not meant to be like a skipping phonograph record.
"your faith" -- said as if it is one block of solid marble.
Yes, my faith that "killing is wrong" is a solid block of marble. To be really mindful, one needs to remember that killing, stealing, is wrong, etc, etc. After all that is what the Buddhas "right mindfulness" really means, to remember what is appropriate, inappropriate, etc.
"your faith" -- said as if it is one block of solid marble.
Yes, my faith that "killing is wrong" is a solid block of marble. To be really mindful, one needs to remember that killing, stealing, is wrong, etc, etc. After all that is what the Buddhas "right mindfulness" really means, to remember what is appropriate, inappropriate, etc.
I'm not clear that anyone is arguing that.
For months I have argued that the Precepts are not just training rules. But, in some cases, Precepts can logically be interpreted differently, often depending on the situation.
@seeker242 You are deliberately playing with words, and not in a clever way. You are deflecting.
I think it's time to look up the word "faith". In the context of religion- It's not about adherence, it's about belief in the INTANGIBLE. In what you CAN'T see... what you have no "proof" of... in words you have only been TOLD are the 'true words' of a savior/sage/buddha/messiah, etc...
To believe in hell realms, nirvana, rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, and yes, even Karma is to have FAITH that they are real; factual; actual. We don't even know for SURE that 'enlightenment' is real... at least not the way it's explained in the most surreal, religiously blissful ideal. Again, that would be FAITH that would lead you to believe all these intangibles are ultimately 'real' and attainable...
Because you know "killing is wrong" or that "following the precepts reduces suffering" that is not FAITH. You can see, and feel, and acknowledge the results of those actions - sometimes immediately.
FAITH comes into play when all is said and done and you leave this earthly body... as a "good Buddhist" I imagine you hope your FAITH holds true to become the next reality you will find yourself in... nirvana, reincarnated, etc. But then again, "you" are only an illusion, only ego, only impermanent. "You" will not be the "you" coming back, or going anywhere else... so would it matter anyway?
Unshakable or unwavering faith doesn't guarantee ANYONE that it's anything more than faith. Militant, fundamentalist, maniacal faith - when all is said and done - isn't going to make what can't ever be proven, seen, heard or felt any more real-- if it isn't.
^^ that's ridiculous. I'm speaking English, you're speaking English, Buddhism does not change the definition of English words. There is an acceptable English definition to Faith. Look it up.
No, it's not ridiculous. The Buddha did not speak English. The scriptures were not written in English. Some translators don't even use the english word faith to translate it. Some translators deliberately choose not to use that word as it may give people the wrong impression. The reason why is because it means something different than the typical Judeo-Christian idea of faith. We are not speaking english, we are speaking translated pali or translated chinese, or translated sanskrit or something like that.
Very few of us are fluent in Pali or Chinese. So, we are using words common to our language. However, if you write a Pali word here in English, we can probably understand it and the nuanced difference. What Pali word/words are you thinking of?
^^ that's ridiculous. I'm speaking English, you're speaking English, Buddhism does not change the definition of English words. There is an acceptable English definition to Faith. Look it up.
No, it's not ridiculous. The Buddha did not speak English. The scriptures were not written in English. Some translators don't even use the english word faith to translate it. Some translators deliberately choose not to use that word as it may give people the wrong impression. The reason why is because it means something different than the typical Judeo-Christian idea of faith. We are not speaking english, we are speaking translated pali or translated chinese, or translated sanskrit or something like that.
The word is "saddha" which is translated as "confidence" or "conviction" and sometimes "faith" is used instead because it challenges implication.
The Christian definition of faith is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Niether view is "blind" faith, although you see that everywhere, even among those inclined to a secular lifestyle.
The word is "saddha" which is translated as "confidence" or "conviction" and sometimes "faith" is used instead because it challenges implication.
The Christian definition of faith is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Niether view is "blind" faith, although you see that everywhere, even among those inclined to a secular lifestyle.
This is different than the Buddhist view.
That's interesting, Chaz. And thank you for actually offering the word (not The Word ).
I see a difference between faith and blind faith. The former often being healthy, and the latter usually being the path down a wrong road.
I also see "confidence" as being different. For example, "I have confidence that the dam will hold, despite the heavy rainfall." Which is different than having "blind faith" that the dam will hold despite the heavy rainfall. In fact, there are "levels of confidence" in the scientific world.
Conviction. Hmmmm. A trickier word, in my view. To some, their convictions can change over time, or even immediately. To others they will still to their convictions, no matter what.
Hell isn't a punishment, rather it is the cause of staying attached to a life, a being, and a lifespan. It's only a potential result; you could also enter a heaven realm.
So is there a link between wrong view of sexual misconduct and attachment? Well what state of mind is someone in when they cheat on their spouse? Are they experiencing attachment to the point where they ignore the harm done to their spouse? Getting over getting cheated on took me years to feel better from. It's not just a minor thing. Do you believe that hurting others via wrong view does not risk belief in the lower realm? Well if you don't believe in karmic realms, even psychological, then in your beliefs the karma doesn't matter.
@seeker242 You are deliberately playing with words, and not in a clever way. You are deflecting.
I think it's time to look up the word "faith". In the context of religion- It's not about adherence, it's about belief in the INTANGIBLE. In what you CAN'T see... what you have no "proof" of... in words you have only been TOLD are the 'true words' of a savior/sage/buddha/messiah, etc...
To believe in hell realms, nirvana, rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, and yes, even Karma is to have FAITH that they are real; factual; actual. We don't even know for SURE that 'enlightenment' is real... at least not the way it's explained in the most surreal, religiously blissful ideal. Again, that would be FAITH that would lead you to believe all these intangibles are ultimately 'real' and attainable...
Because you know "killing is wrong" or that "following the precepts reduces suffering" that is not FAITH. You can see, and feel, and acknowledge the results of those actions - sometimes immediately.
FAITH comes into play when all is said and done and you leave this earthly body... as a "good Buddhist" I imagine you hope your FAITH holds true to become the next reality you will find yourself in... nirvana, reincarnated, etc. But then again, "you" are only an illusion, only ego, only impermanent. "You" will not be the "you" coming back, or going anywhere else... so would it matter anyway?
Unshakable or unwavering faith doesn't guarantee ANYONE that it's anything more than faith. Militant, fundamentalist, maniacal faith - when all is said and done - isn't going to make what can't ever be proven, seen, heard or felt any more real-- if it isn't.
In Buddhism there are several words translated as faith. One meaning is sradda, which means to put in practice the dharma rather than just finding it interesting.
When two people communicate the important thing is the meaning that one of those holds rather than what a dictionary says. Conversations are to exchange understanding and are very positive. Squabbles focus on who 'wins' and only agitate people which affects the peace of mind and meditation.
Faith might not be about rewards after death. It can also be faith in the nature of our minds and nature of others minds. There is a great joy to experience when you abandon 'winning'. I say this from personal experience as a person who has gradually walked away from 'winning'.
I also see "confidence" as being different. For example, "I have confidence that the dam will hold, despite the heavy rainfall." Which is different than having "blind faith" that the dam will hold despite the heavy rainfall. In fact, there are "levels of confidence" in the scientific world.
I used to work in a archaeological lab. I had hands-on experience with Carbon 14 dating. Results of c14 tests came with three sets of results and a level of confidence in the accuracy of the test. It was a good way to say, we're not 100% certain, but we do have this much confidence in our results.
I have 100% confidence that my wife won't meet the man of her dreams and leave me for him. I have exactly no proof to support this, yet, having known this woman for 30 years, I think my level of confidence is not unjustified.
I have a similar level of confidence in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, based entirely on my experience studying and practicing. I don't need science to show the way, just like I don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing.
Your mileage may differ.
And it makes no difference to me
Conviction. Hmmmm. A trickier word, in my view. To some, their convictions can change over time, or even immediately. To others they will still to their convictions, no matter what.
Everything changes over time. Everything. Nothing stays the same. Some people will cling to their convictions as if it was life itself, while others tend to cling less. Regardless, things will change. be patient.
Back in the day, I was involved with a traveling evangelical christian group. I played bass in the house band. Our leader and lead guitarist had some very tightly held ideas about what music we'd play and that we'd never play anything as "worldly" as the stuff we all played before we were saved. Today that guy is a pastor of one of a mega-churche in Wisconsin. He plays guitar in his son's blues band on weekends. He posts videos on Facebook he finds of the great rock bands and musicians of our youth. Everything changes.
I once asked my Guru what the phrase "Genuine Devotion" meant. (Common phrase in the Takpo Kagyu). He said, simply,
Everything changes over time. Everything. Nothing stays the same. Some people will cling to their convictions as if it was life itself, while others tend to cling less. Regardless, things will change.
Does this mean that one day your wife might cheat on you?
Poptart you said Jesus said: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
Well yes. And I'm sure the Buddha would agree. Action is born from intention or lack of it. As the Catholic prayer says...I firmly resolve to sin no more and to avoid whatever leads me to sin." Or "to avoid the near occasions of sin." Because of the love of God. Or for a Buddhist because of your love for others. No I am not a Catholic or ever was but I am a fundamentalist Buddhist and proud to be, although I don't have a shrine. I do avoid whatever might lead me to sin-such as close relations with women I am attracted to. I have never been unfaithful. As the song 'Sleeping Sun' says 'loss of faith makes a crime.' Just don't fall. Keep your vows. Keep faith with yourself. How can you have self respect or cultivate joy if you don't respect your own vows? mtgby
6:59AM Flag ourself said: I'd like to say that was a good attempt at obscuring the point but it wasn't really. It does nothing to change the fact that different sects
Traditions and lineages
use the same suttas but with differing interpretations. Y'know I hear that a lot.
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Well yes I could, but rather than, I will refer you to a lineage that teaches all of the major lineages and expounds on their differences on key ideas: that is The Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism." by Dudjom Rinpoche. I believe this is the Dalai Lama's root lineage and it is fine because it is inclusive and accepting and definitive. That is essentially why their are different lineages. They teach and emphasize different aspects of the Buddha's teachings. Sometimes they differ on key ideas from the same sutra like rebirth, karma and full enlightenment. mtgby
Well yes I could, but rather than, I will refer you to a lineage that teaches all of the major lineages and expounds on their differences on key ideas: that is The Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism." by Dudjom Rinpoche.
Dudjom Rinpoche is one of a number of lineage holders of the Nyingma. The actual head of the lineage is His Eminence Kyabje Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche.
Simply pointing to this lineage doesn't answer my question which is to cite two lineages or traditions and explain how they differ on sutra.
I believe this is the Dalai Lama's root lineage
Nope. The Dalai Lama is Gelug as was every Dalai Lama before him. Gelug is not Nyingma.
I was 16 when 2 girls, sisters of friends of mine who lived opposite me were raped and murdered by one man and not found until 48 hours later but within 2 miles of their home. Rape is a weapon of war… Paedophilia - is unacceptable. Adultery - is sad
This post - leads nowhere it just highlights the suffering that exists
We are generally the cause of our own suffering, don't you know.
@chaz, what about the rangtong versus shentong disagreement? Doesn't each camp interpret scripture as supporting their view?
The only place I've ever seen any disagreement is online, by people who cling to one view exclusively.
Kagyu teaches both. Same for Nyingma in my experience. I've read the Dalai Lama teaching both without reference for one view over the other. I was taught Rangtong and Shentong as being complimentary, but maybe I'm missing something.
@Chaz, Both rangtong and shentong are helpful. Just practicing shravaka (skhandas empty) is helpful. But my teacher favors shentong over rangtong. She published a book of her doctoral thesis called 'the Buddha Within'. In that book are all the polemics of her view of shentong as a subtler view than rangtong. That said, her teacher has given instruction on rangtong and shentong in his book Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.
Perhaps @Chaz, people feel unable to say what they want to say in a physical Sangha, despite the openness that is proffered.
You can still be your virtuous self online, but capable of letting those tensions go in a virtual Sangha such as this without feeling tethered to dogmatic views.
Perhaps @Chaz, people feel unable to say what they want to say in a physical Sangha, despite the openness that is proffered.
You can still be your virtuous self online, but capable of letting those tensions go in a virtual Sangha such as this without feeling tethered to dogmatic views.
Some people don't belong in a physical sangha. There's no right or wrong to it, just their Karma.
I think of them as wanting to be some kind of latter-day urban yogi. Sometimes that works, but most of the time it doesn't. Karma.
@Chaz, Both rangtong and shentong are helpful. Just practicing shravaka (skhandas empty) is helpful. But my teacher favors shentong over rangtong. She published a book of her doctoral thesis called 'the Buddha Within'. In that book are all the polemics of her view of shentong as a subtler view than rangtong. That said, her teacher has given instruction on rangtong and shentong in his book Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.
Khenpo Rinpoche is awesome. He's my Guru's Root Guru. Progressive Stages is a masterpiece.
I'd wager that your teacher wouldn't go near a right vs wrong discussion of Rangtong and Shentong.
People will gravitate towards philosophical schools depending on their karmic disposition and capacity. I connect well with Madhyamika, but that doesn't mean that I think Yogacara is shite. There's nothing really to argue about. Same applies to Rangtong and Shentong, and our lineage teachers know this well. Monastic debates on such topics are merely excercise. My Guru was in a debate in shedra where he took the position that God exists. He won the debate, but that changes nothing.
The fact that there is a lot of debate about these things would suggest to me that a good course of action is to keep things simple. The fewer the complications the better. For me anyway.
Well yes I could, but rather than, I will refer you to a lineage that teaches all of the major lineages and expounds on their differences on key ideas: that is The Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism." by Dudjom Rinpoche.
Dudjom Rinpoche is one of a number of lineage holders of the Nyingma. The actual head of the lineage is His Eminence Kyabje Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche. Yes you are correct but only recently so. His Holiness Dudjom also called, Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje, has been dead for some time now 1987, until then he was considered the spiritual head of the Nyngma Tradition.
Simply pointing to this lineage doesn't answer my question which is to cite two lineages or traditions and explain how they differ on sutra. I can do this but it requires quite a bit of detailed work. That is why I pointed to a 2 volume set that goes into detail on MOST of the spiritual deviations between major lineages.
I believe this is the Dalai Lama's root lineage
Nope. The Dalai Lama is Gelug as was every Dalai Lama before him. Gelug is not Nyingma. That is correct but the original lineage from Sanskrit into Tibetan was the Nyingma. It is the Nyingma which makes the delineations you requested. And it is the Nyingma which is the root of the Gelug, Kadampa and Gagyu if I am not mistaken. Because of this I referred you to the books. These books go into detailed explanations of the differences in views between the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
It seems you are taking unnecessary exceptions to comments, which I made in an effort to be helpful. If you want you may discover for yourself in the books. It is not really very interesting to me to follow disagreements into the realms of proof. If one demonstration will suffice I will make one for you. How about the views on Nihilism? Let me know if you are interested and I will transcribe the data for you. My time is valuable to me so If you are just presenting argumentation please-let us not. respond to this comment and I will act accordingly. Best, Dennis
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes he did. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of this: What about when your faith has already been proven true? Is it still proper to question it? I don't think so. If you continue to question it, that means it really just hasn't been proven true yet. Although, I am speaking in the context of keeping or breaking the precepts here, the subject of the OP. The skillfulness and unskillfulness of keeping them or breaking them can be personally verified. After you have personally verified it, found it to be unequivocally true, why would you need to continue to question it? That does not make any sense to me!
If a matter of faith has been proven true in a subjective sense such as whether or not the precepts have merit then of course there would be no need to question it. If a matter of faith has been proven true in an empirical sense then it is no longer a matter of faith.
However, all of this seems like an obscuration of the actual point of debate here which is whether or not a person would be reborn in a hell realm simply for disbelieving in rebirth. That doesn't mean denying the possibility but simply not believing for a lack of evidence.
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
What evidence can you provide that the here and now is anything other than a projection of your mind? Is there someone else in there with you who can confirm that it's not?
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
The psychological interpretation of the realms has become popular, but I've read the suttas extensively and haven't come across anything which supports this idea. The suttas consistently describe kamma in terms of beings reborn in different realms according to their actions. My point is that somebody who takes the suttas at face value or favours a traditional interpretation isn't automatically a "fundamentalist" or a "sutta thumper" . There is really no need for this dismissive and patronising language.
Comments
My point is that you agree that it is possible to be in hell. The Buddha has outlined a path away from that outcome. We agree so far? Samahita said that to doubt the Buddhas teaching on rebirth is to doubt the Buddha. The result is failure to attain liberation. That is the way I understand his position.
He later admitted that he had erred in his handling of the issue that arose with vinlyn, here:
"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... "
Also, in a previous post had admitted to regret about the way the debate had turned and tried to make light of it. And you accepted the olive branch.
But the vitriol continues. Now he is a "sutta thumping fundamentalist" in your view
Some members, including you, have it in their teeth and won't let it go.
As for the rest of your post, you should attribute the proper posts to the proper posters. Though I would ask what the point would be of worrying about karma aside from being mindful of causation.
Which ones? How do they differ?
Robot explained how he viewed bhante's comments, as i read it the same way. Bhante(whos first language isnt english btw) used the term non-believers in a way that can be easily misconstrued to mean faith belief, ie if you dont believe in god you go to hell.
But as Robot explained, i believe the intent behind the comment was that since we fail to see things as they truely are, we cannot rise above our current situation and remain stuck.
Much of this battle is one of symantics and definition... Such a silly thing to become disputatious over.
How about we agree that we all(including bhante) were right, but not correct, and at the same time we were correct, but not right, and let it die here. Ajahn Chah knows how to end disputes haha.
You know what I mean. But no problem, carry on.
Just because you do not eliminate all your suffering does not mean that you end up in hell.
All of them. As for how, if you don't believe me you can look it up easy enough. Pure Land Buddhism also sees it differently. I'm on my phone so can't link at the moment and it really isn't all that important to my point so...
That's a good question. What does it really mean to "take refuge"? A question worthy of it's own thread I think!
I also find that Buddhist monastics still being human is a real pisser. I thought they'd be PERFECT in every way You might come back as your neighbor's dog, or the next Charles Manson, or maybe as a god, or maybe in hell. Maybe you be born in a Pure Land where you'll finish the Bhumis and the Paths. None of that's to be seen as punishment or reward. It's just how your karma may influence your next birth. I believe that I stand a good chance of taking birth as an intestinal parasite. And look at Lobster! He took birth as, well, whatever ever he is ......
When we disagree about facts it doesn’t matter where the statement comes from; the facts decide.
The fundamentalism – again in my mind – starts where the source of the statement is decisive.
If it is in the Bible or the Sutra’s or if it comes from a respected monk; it must be true.
Not so. The Bible / the Buddha can be wrong. The facts decide that; not religious enthusiasm.
The Buddha is not above the facts, he can be wrong, and so we can disagree with what he said and discuss the Dhamma. Taking refuge in the Dhamma is not accepting some dogma; it is taking refuge in the never ending search for truth and the never ending attempt to cut through delusions.
To be really mindful, every circumstance that pops up and is somewhat different that previous circumstances one has been in ought to lead one to rethink how one confronts the situation.
Thinking is not meant to be like a skipping phonograph record.
For months I have argued that the Precepts are not just training rules. But, in some cases, Precepts can logically be interpreted differently, often depending on the situation.
You are deliberately playing with words, and not in a clever way. You are deflecting.
I think it's time to look up the word "faith".
In the context of religion- It's not about adherence, it's about belief in the INTANGIBLE. In what you CAN'T see... what you have no "proof" of... in words you have only been TOLD are the 'true words' of a savior/sage/buddha/messiah, etc...
To believe in hell realms, nirvana, rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, and yes, even Karma is to have FAITH that they are real; factual; actual. We don't even know for SURE that 'enlightenment' is real... at least not the way it's explained in the most surreal, religiously blissful ideal. Again, that would be FAITH that would lead you to believe all these intangibles are ultimately 'real' and attainable...
Because you know "killing is wrong" or that "following the precepts reduces suffering" that is not FAITH. You can see, and feel, and acknowledge the results of those actions - sometimes immediately.
FAITH comes into play when all is said and done and you leave this earthly body... as a "good Buddhist" I imagine you hope your FAITH holds true to become the next reality you will find yourself in... nirvana, reincarnated, etc. But then again, "you" are only an illusion, only ego, only impermanent.
"You" will not be the "you" coming back, or going anywhere else... so would it matter anyway?
Unshakable or unwavering faith doesn't guarantee ANYONE that it's anything more than faith.
Militant, fundamentalist, maniacal faith - when all is said and done - isn't going to make what can't ever be proven, seen, heard or felt any more real-- if it isn't.
LOL and on that note... time to run some errands.... Later taters!
The Christian definition of faith is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Niether view is "blind" faith, although you see that everywhere, even among those inclined to a secular lifestyle.
This is different than the Buddhist view.
I see a difference between faith and blind faith. The former often being healthy, and the latter usually being the path down a wrong road.
I also see "confidence" as being different. For example, "I have confidence that the dam will hold, despite the heavy rainfall." Which is different than having "blind faith" that the dam will hold despite the heavy rainfall. In fact, there are "levels of confidence" in the scientific world.
Conviction. Hmmmm. A trickier word, in my view. To some, their convictions can change over time, or even immediately. To others they will still to their convictions, no matter what.
Nuances can be difficult.
So is there a link between wrong view of sexual misconduct and attachment? Well what state of mind is someone in when they cheat on their spouse? Are they experiencing attachment to the point where they ignore the harm done to their spouse? Getting over getting cheated on took me years to feel better from. It's not just a minor thing. Do you believe that hurting others via wrong view does not risk belief in the lower realm? Well if you don't believe in karmic realms, even psychological, then in your beliefs the karma doesn't matter.
This is what I am getting from this thread.
When two people communicate the important thing is the meaning that one of those holds rather than what a dictionary says. Conversations are to exchange understanding and are very positive. Squabbles focus on who 'wins' and only agitate people which affects the peace of mind and meditation.
Faith might not be about rewards after death. It can also be faith in the nature of our minds and nature of others minds. There is a great joy to experience when you abandon 'winning'. I say this from personal experience as a person who has gradually walked away from 'winning'.
I have 100% confidence that my wife won't meet the man of her dreams and leave me for him. I have exactly no proof to support this, yet, having known this woman for 30 years, I think my level of confidence is not unjustified.
I have a similar level of confidence in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, based entirely on my experience studying and practicing. I don't need science to show the way, just like I don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing.
Your mileage may differ.
And it makes no difference to me Everything changes over time. Everything. Nothing stays the same. Some people will cling to their convictions as if it was life itself, while others tend to cling less. Regardless, things will change. be patient.
Back in the day, I was involved with a traveling evangelical christian group. I played bass in the house band. Our leader and lead guitarist had some very tightly held ideas about what music we'd play and that we'd never play anything as "worldly" as the stuff we all played before we were saved. Today that guy is a pastor of one of a mega-churche in Wisconsin. He plays guitar in his son's blues band on weekends. He posts videos on Facebook he finds of the great rock bands and musicians of our youth. Everything changes.
I once asked my Guru what the phrase "Genuine Devotion" meant. (Common phrase in the Takpo Kagyu). He said, simply,
An Open Heart.
That's the key.
To everything.
Clearly he thought intention was more important than the act itself.
Well yes. And I'm sure the Buddha would agree. Action is born from intention or lack of it. As the Catholic prayer says...I firmly resolve to sin no more and to avoid whatever leads me to sin." Or "to avoid the near occasions of sin." Because of the love of God. Or for a Buddhist because of your love for others. No I am not a Catholic or ever was but I am a fundamentalist Buddhist and proud to be, although I don't have a shrine.
I do avoid whatever might lead me to sin-such as close relations with women I am attracted to. I have never been unfaithful. As the song 'Sleeping Sun' says 'loss of faith makes a crime.' Just don't fall. Keep your vows. Keep faith with yourself. How can you have self respect or cultivate joy if you don't respect your own vows? mtgby
ChazChaz Member
6:59AM Flag
ourself said:
I'd like to say that was a good attempt at obscuring the point but it wasn't really. It does nothing to change the fact that different sects
Traditions and lineages
use the same suttas but with differing interpretations.
Y'know I hear that a lot.
Can you offer two traditions/lineages using the same sutta/sutra with different interpretations and outline those differences?
Well yes I could, but rather than, I will refer you to a lineage that teaches all of the major lineages and expounds on their differences on key ideas: that is The Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism." by Dudjom Rinpoche. I believe this is the Dalai Lama's root lineage and it is fine because it is inclusive and accepting and definitive. That is essentially why their are different lineages. They teach and emphasize different aspects of the Buddha's teachings. Sometimes they differ on key ideas from the same sutra like rebirth, karma and full enlightenment. mtgby
Simply pointing to this lineage doesn't answer my question which is to cite two lineages or traditions and explain how they differ on sutra. Nope. The Dalai Lama is Gelug as was every Dalai Lama before him. Gelug is not Nyingma.
Paedophilia - is unacceptable.
Adultery - is sad
This post - leads nowhere it just highlights the suffering that exists
We are generally the cause of our own suffering, don't you know.
There is an end to suffering, believe it or not.
There are a number of ways we can end it… right….
Kagyu teaches both. Same for Nyingma in my experience. I've read the Dalai Lama teaching both without reference for one view over the other. I was taught Rangtong and Shentong as being complimentary, but maybe I'm missing something.
You have teachings to offer?
You can still be your virtuous self online, but capable of letting those tensions go in a virtual Sangha such as this without feeling tethered to dogmatic views.
Just a thought - 'gone'
I think of them as wanting to be some kind of latter-day urban yogi. Sometimes that works, but most of the time it doesn't. Karma.
I'd wager that your teacher wouldn't go near a right vs wrong discussion of Rangtong and Shentong.
People will gravitate towards philosophical schools depending on their karmic disposition and capacity. I connect well with Madhyamika, but that doesn't mean that I think Yogacara is shite. There's nothing really to argue about. Same applies to Rangtong and Shentong, and our lineage teachers know this well. Monastic debates on such topics are merely excercise. My Guru was in a debate in shedra where he took the position that God exists. He won the debate, but that changes nothing.
That is correct but the original lineage from Sanskrit into Tibetan was the Nyingma. It is the Nyingma which makes the delineations you requested. And it is the Nyingma which is the root of the Gelug, Kadampa and Gagyu if I am not mistaken. Because of this I referred you to the books. These books go into detailed explanations of the differences in views between the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
It seems you are taking unnecessary exceptions to comments, which I made in an effort to be helpful. If you want you may discover for yourself in the books. It is not really very interesting to me to follow disagreements into the realms of proof. If one demonstration will suffice I will make one for you. How about the views on Nihilism? Let me know if you are interested and I will transcribe the data for you. My time is valuable to me so If you are just presenting argumentation please-let us not. respond to this comment and I will act accordingly. Best, Dennis
However, all of this seems like an obscuration of the actual point of debate here which is whether or not a person would be reborn in a hell realm simply for disbelieving in rebirth. That doesn't mean denying the possibility but simply not believing for a lack of evidence.
Is there someone else in there with you who can confirm that it's not?
My point is that somebody who takes the suttas at face value or favours a traditional interpretation isn't automatically a "fundamentalist" or a "sutta thumper" . There is really no need for this dismissive and patronising language.