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.
Which is fine, @How. And there ought to be a formal structure to Buddhism (although with all the different schools there really isn't).
But even the formal structure shouldn't punish people who have a different viewpoint.
Let's face it, the vast majority of Buddhists may read Buddhist books or listen to Buddhist sermons. And then, as with most members of most other religions, they go out and live their lives.
And for those who feel that everyone should conform, why? Siddhartha didn't.
If there is a school that does not agree with the four seals, then tell me.
If you can't, then that is the agreed upon form amongst the various Buddhist schools to determine what is Buddhist and what is not.
If you have a view that does not hold with those 4 seals then fine for you.
Just don't say it's Buddhist. That is not punishment, it's just clarity.
&
I do not think there is anything wrong with a Buddhist holding other views as long as he does not represent them as Buddhist.
That's not what my response was about. It was about the difference between the formal structure of Buddhism (or any religion), and the every day practice by adherents to that religion. And if we need evidence of that, do we all agree on rebirth? No. The DL? No. Eating meat? No. Karma? No.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
And I forgot to add that in relation to your comment that, "Buddhism views the existence of God as totally inconsequential, and not worth pondering" is not the way that I was taught by monks.
Rather, their position was that in regard to human suffering and its elimination, we are going to deal with what we know, and that is what we find in the Buddhist scriptures. That is not to say there are not things outside the Buddhist scriptures that we cannot be aware of or understand. God may or may not exist. Since we can't know, we will start on "this side" of that possibility and deal with what we can verify.
(bold added by me) This is a very handy clarification, very well stated. I was attempting to explain (to a Christian, no less) the Buddhist's view of the existence of a god, gods or God, and wished I had this wording instead of the blathering I laid on that poor fellow.
However, this 'doctrine' of one's relationship to a supreme being of supernatural nature is quite incompatible with SOME Abrahamic/monotheistic religious doctrines (regarding one's personal relationship with God). The person I was explaining the Buddhist-ish doctrine to was a bit stunned, and though he was online, I could 'see' his face puckering up, as I know him to be a traditional monotheistic Christian.
Besides that chasm of a difference (perspective matters), Buddhism places 'value' on the individual self in a way that contradicts the Christian doctrine of mankind having an essentially sinful, 'fallen' nature. The Christian regards their 'fleshly nature' not to be trustworthy, and are therefore compelled to 'obey' an objective standard (set by God, or at least inspired by God).
That the structure agreed upon by all but the most obscure of Buddhist schools, to determine what is Buddhist teaching and what isn't, are those four seals. Unless someone pops up here to school me differently.
Ah okay. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. You are talking about "formal Buddhism" as defined by various councils over the years. I am talking about "everyday people Buddhism". Two very different things, both very interesting.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said:
federica I wasn't implying that you said, or thought any of those things. I was just "speaking" in general.
That's cool. I just addressed your points as if you were. No problem.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said:
I agree, Earthninja, but we have at least 3 members of the definition police who say differently.
If you're referring to me as a member of that 'force', you are, once again, totally mistaken.
@karasti said:> I think God is rejected more fully in some sects of Buddhism than in others.
I can't think of any sects of Buddhism where God is accepted. TNH has written a book about Christ and Buddha, but then TNH is from a Zen tradition and I'm pretty sure Zennies don't believe in God!
And here I thought some Buddhists gave gods their own realm to live within until they were ready to hear the Dharma.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@windfall said:
Federica, that's funny to think someone has control over you. You Brilliant, certainly not for thinking someone has control over you. Personally you can kick me off this site again but not before I say one last thing. How many teachers did you have in grade school?
There is no monotheistic Abrahamic-style God in Buddhism, which is the one that westerners are most likely to cling to. It's strange really, western Buddhists can get all sceptical about Buddhist cosmology and yet still cling to a childhood belief in God.
4
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said:
Ah okay. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. You are talking about "formal Buddhism" as defined by various councils over the years. I am talking about "everyday people Buddhism". Two very different things, both very interesting.
Could you delineate the difference?
Sometimes discussing things with you, it's hard to know which one you are either referring to, or adhering to.
You're very scathing about my own personal opinion on the skill - or lack thereof - melding different religious traditions, but as you believe in God, and you are on a Buddhist forum, I think it's a pertinent question to ask where you stand, within this framework.... Which Tradition holds your strongest footprint?
@federica
I took Vinlyn's reference to my post to be talking about monastic Buddhists or serious Buddhist meditators as compared to cultural Buddhists.
One refers to folks interested mainly in walking the path directly towards suffering's cessation
where the other
refers to folks mostly interested in feeling comfortable through membership and acceptance within a Buddhist tribe.
Opps....probably putting words in his mouth though.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@how said:
federica
I took Vinlyn's reference to my post to be talking about monastic Buddhism as compared to cultural Buddhism.
One refers to folks interested mainly in walking the path directly towards suffering's cessation
where the other
refers to folks mostly interested in feeling comfortable through membership and acceptance within a Buddhist tribe.
Opps....probably putting words in his mouth though.
Well, yes you are, but I agree with the first part of what you said, and prefer your terminology in terms of "cultural Buddhism", a little less sure of the term "monastic Buddhism". I look, for example, at the Supreme Sangha in Thailand. They bring structure to Thai Buddhism, which is good. They regulate the behavior of monks and abbots, which is sorely needed. They also condone and support a lot of things that are not good (for example, there are members of the Supreme Sangha who go out and bless bomber jets and tanks and the like, or influence political life). Like the concept of the Supreme Sangha, or not, it is that group that participates in world wide Buddhist Councils. The problem is that I'm not very sure that what they do matters to 63.6 million Thai Buddhists. When the Supreme Sangha puts forth a ruling, which often is heavily influenced by the government, the people act as if they are following, but in reality, they do as they like. This is not unlike what happens in the Catholic Church (and probably most religions); what happens in the Vatican is very different than what most Catholics actually do in America.
I hadn't really thought of it this way until now, but I guess what I am exploring is -- which is the real Buddhism? What the ivory tower monastic Buddhists contemplate, or what the mass of the religion -- the everyday people -- actually do?
I think your divisions are actual three.
Political Buddhists.
Monastic Buddhists where what I wanted to say was any Buddhist interested mostly in directly walking towards suffering's cessation.
and
cultural Buddhists who are largely tribal groupies.
Obviously folks can be members of more than one grouping but their motivations usually mark their main camp membership.
@SpinyNorman I didn't mean that some sects of Buddhists accept God. I don't know, either, of any that do. Just that some focus less on it than others. My teacher (Tibetan vajrayana) sometimes gets questions about God because a lot of curious locals attend his teachings, so they ask. He just laughs and says that obviously he doesn't believe in such a God but if they do, that is just fine. They can still come to his teachings as well, that he doesn't have a requirement for letting go of a belief in God. He prefers that it not be a dividing point and believes that everyone can benefit from learning about Buddhism and meditation no matter their background (which falls in line with the study I posted about last night where exposure to Buddhism has positive outcomes for all sorts of people). That is what I was referring to in that thought but I didn't explain it very well, sorry!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
My point is this:
Say you have a job as a Chauffeur.
But you work for two different Dukes.
You therefore work part-time for each one. You can't work full-time for either one of them. It's impossible to 100% devotedly drive for one of them, at precisely the same time that you are 100% devoted in driving for the other one.
The Duke of Chrisendom asks you to work on Thursday morning, but unfortunately, the Duke of Dhamadom, wanted you that day.
What do you do? You're engaged with one, you are unable to divide yourself....Figaro....
And then they both ask you to go full time.
So then, which one do you decide to go work for?
You can only do that by evaluating each employer's attributes, benefits, advantages and perks.
But if you decide to continue working for both, pat-time, then all you will ever do, is be a part-time chauffeur...
And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want to do.
If you're comfortable in that driving seat, good on you.
But don't pretend that you are 100% devoted to one employer, and you can simultaneously be 100% devoted to the other one as well.
@federica said:
vinlyn would you care to address my points and respond...?
Perhaps if you apologized...
Sometimes you choose to be right (in your own mind), instead of being kind. You can't be trusted.
I am the same way, regrettably.
It can undermine any connection that might develop in this type of communication.
@karasti said:> SpinyNorman I didn't mean that some sects of Buddhists accept God. I don't know, either, of any that do. Just that some focus less on it than others. My teacher (Tibetan vajrayana) sometimes gets questions about God because a lot of curious locals attend his teachings, so they ask. He just laughs and says that obviously he doesn't believe in such a God but if they do, that is just fine. They can still come to his teachings as well, that he doesn't have a requirement for letting go of a belief in God.
Sure, and I can't recall any Buddhist teacher saying you have to become an atheist. I think though that Buddhist practice will inevitably challenge a belief in God, or at least create some uncomfortable tensions.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
In that case, @federica, can anyone really be 100% devoted to anything, ever? I am 100% devoted to my family. But right now, I am 100% devoted to typing this post. Prior I was cleaning floors. If our practice tells us to be 100% devoted to whatever moment we are in, then how can we ever be 100% devoted to anything other than the present moment, which might be drenched in Buddhism, or not? Or is being in the moment already 100% of Buddhist practice? Really, being 100% engaged in the present moment is 100% devotion to everything and nothing at the same time. Hmm. I'm mostly just pondering, I don't expect you to answer my smattering of questions, lol.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You're missing my point entirely. It's not about being 100% devoted to doing something while you'e doing it.
It's about being 100% devoted to more than one thing, simultaneously.
@Vinlyin maintains that one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist - practising both faiths wholeheartedly, 100% simultaneously.
I maintain it's not possible.
Your examples of being "100% in the moment WHILE performing a single task, are not the point.
Those are good teachings to remember. Something I suffer with as well.
I usually think though that 95% of the squabbles here would never have happened face to face. The medium itself is the limitation.
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
For my part, I don't see this as a squabble. It's a debate.
It's only when people start launching indiscriminate, ad hominem off-topic attacks that I think it descends into the unreasonable/unacceptable.
And I tend to be on guard more on behalf of and for others, than myself....
@federica I'm not missing your point. I understand it entirely. They are just thoughts I had after reading what you wrote. I just don't entirely agree with your stance. No squabbling and no hard feelings on my side whatsoever. Just sharing thoughts. I just think that if a person can be 100% Christian in one moment and 100% Buddhist in another, that that is possible and it's fine. Whether they are still 100% Christian at the time they are 100% Buddhist doesn't really matter. If they run into tensions and problems because of it (which most would) then it is up to them to resolve that in a way that works for them.
@karasti said:. I just think that if a person can be 100% Christian in one moment and 100% Buddhist in another, that that is possible and it's fine. Whether they are still 100% Christian at the time they are 100% Buddhist doesn't really matter. If they run into tensions and problems because of it (which most would) then it is up to them to resolve that in a way that works for them.
But we're talking about practices here, not identities.
and? I'm not talking about what they label themselves. I'm saying if they can practice one thing at one time, another thing at another, or find a way to bring them together then that is for them to determine and work out. I'm still not clear on why we care if someone thinks they are both fully Christian and fully Buddhist. I won't say anymore, no point, lol.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This thread has gotten interesting despite one argument and one troll.
As an omnitheistic Buddhist who thinks Maitreya will be a mindset rather than a human, I find these views fascinating.
Typically, I have a feeling that Buddha was omnitheistic and had compassion for all gods even if they did not take up any physical space.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
There is no monotheistic Abrahamic-style God in Buddhism, which is the one that westerners are most likely to cling to. It's strange really, western Buddhists can get all sceptical about Buddhist cosmology and yet still cling to a childhood belief in God.
I can't say I ever had an Abrahamic belief system but my idea of what may constitute ultimate being has changed over the years. Sometimes I call it "God" for lack of a better word.
Yes, @karasti. It's like fruits and vegetables. Today we go into the store and buy a set package of most small vegetables and fruits. Some pieces in the pre-packaged container may be unripe and other pieces may be over-ripe or even marginally spoiled. Back in the 1950s, when I grew up, you could go to a farmer's stand, or even in the store, and pick your own "pieces" of fruits and vegetables, leaving what was not entirely suitable for your table.
No one can be 100% Christian and 100% Buddhist. But, while the two religions are parallel in some respects, and divergent in other respects, IMHO that is because they deal with different spheres of life, and like a venn diagram, sometimes those spheres can overlap.
I look at the pillars of Buddhism -- the Four Nobles Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the 5 Basic Precepts -- as being a solution to the reduction or cessation of suffering. And, I attempt to live within those pillars of Buddhism. And, it is my personal belief that the reduction or elimination of suffering is the scope of Buddhism, and that people have attempted to make Buddhism encompass much more of life than it was intended to...because that's what people believe belief systems are supposed to be -- all encompassing. Well, said who?
Therefore, we accept "add-ons" to those basic pillars. Karma. Rebirth. Whether or not it is appropriate to eat meat. And on and on and on. And it is with these "add-ons" that come most of the controversial aspects of Buddhism. Most of us who have some attraction to Buddhism believe in Karma, though we don't agree as to what it is or how it works (and there is tremendous difference between views on Karma from the "old world" to the "West"). While we may be open to the concept of rebirth, we all don't accept it as fact, nor accept it in terms of how it may work or even why it may be. There are wide variations in the matter of eating meat, with most Buddhist cultures eating meat, fish, fowl; even Buddha ate meat; Thai monks generally eat meat. And, a basic problem with the meat eating issue is that we don't all agree on what sentience is.
I've never seen anyone argue with the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path (although there are different interpretations therein), or the 5 Basic Precepts (again, they are open to some interpretation). So I accept those basics and attempt to live by them. Beyond those basic pillars are the things that are nebulous enough to invite debate and discussion. And there we ALL begin to diverge.
Similarly, with Christian concepts, there are things I accept totally, things I could debate (and those debates go on around the world and have for centuries), and things I reject. I won't go into all that because this is a Buddhist forum.
Now, some may accuse me of cherry picking. But really that's a simple mind reducing something which is far more complex, but suffice it to say if they don't like it, they don't have to do it, and if they don't like me doing it, tough shit. For quite a while, SN and I kept "getting into it". Finally, after reflection I decided that SN has every right to conduct his Buddhistic nature as he wants. As do I. And if I allow myself to aggravate myself about his style of Buddhism, tough shit on me. And if he aggravates himself due to his disdain for my views, tough shit on him. He can believe in and do as he wants. I can believe in and do as I want. We're both free and neither of us has to answer to the other.
In my past I was a Republican. Now I am a Democrat. At either point in time I voted for the individual and sometimes crossed party lines. Even as a Democrat today, there are still times I agree with some GOP viewpoints. I can think for myself in politics and in religion. I have that natural freedom. And anyone who says that one must only be Buddhist or only be Christian isn't really saying anything different than ISIS is about Islam. Some people are limited and stress the differences between religions. Other people (like the DL and Thich Nhat Hanh) can see the similarities as well as the differences.
To each his (or her) own.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@ourself said:
This thread has gotten interesting despite one argument and one troll.
Feel free to alert and report. That's what the icon is there for....
As an omnitheistic Buddhist who thinks Maitreya will be a mindset rather than a human, I find these views fascinating.
How so?
Typically, I have a feeling that Buddha was omnitheistic and had compassion for all gods even if they did not take up any physical space.
The Buddha had infinite Compassion for all beings, real, imaginary and anything in between. It's what he did best. That's how he transcended Suffering.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said:
and? I'm not talking about what they label themselves. I'm saying if they can practice one thing at one time, another thing at another, or find a way to bring them together then that is for them to determine and work out. I'm still not clear on why we care if someone thinks they are both fully Christian and fully Buddhist. I won't say anymore, no point, lol.
I would 'pen' a reply, but if you're not saying any more, I'll leave it....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Feel free to alert and report. That's what the icon is there for....
You had already spotted it. Of course they called you by name, lol.
How so?
It just seems like it usually comes down to rigidity when views butt heads. I for one do not think a person could fully practice Christianity and still hold what Buddhists call "Right view" but why would it be important to still be able to hold onto a label?
I honestly think another religion would have to adapt to a Buddhist process more than a Buddhist process could adapt to another religion. Buddhist concepts and practices could certainly be added to Christian practice but I don't think the Christian practice would come out unscathed.
Likewise I think a belief in an all powerful creator deity would add more clouds to the sky and could change a Buddhist process into something else.
Not that these are bad things necessarily.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I agree, on all points.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@ourself said: You had already spotted it. Of course they called you by name, lol.
@ourself said:
I for one do not think a person could fully practice Christianity and still hold what Buddhists call "Right view" but why would it be important to still be able to hold onto a label?
Has "right view" been codified? And if so, by whom and based on what? Or is it up to the individual to determine "right view"?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2015
Well, we do have this. Hopefully you won't dismiss it out of hand....
Edit to add this, as an additional source of instruction....
It seems to be, @Ourself, that "right view" is restricted to the suffering aspect of life. For example, I found the following quote: "And what is right view? Knowledge with reference to suffering, knowledge with reference to the origination of suffering, knowledge with reference to the cessation of suffering, knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering: This is called right view." So beyond causing one's own suffering or causing the suffering of others, where else does "right view" go? For example, if one is open to rebirth, but doesn't currently believe in rebirth, is that "wrong view"?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
No, if you also check out the second link I provided, you'll see more teachings on what is wholesome/unwholesome. It is quite long, but thorough.
(And the name's federica. )
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I was thinking mostly of dependent origination. It rules out any preconceived plan.
At the end of the day, whether one practices Buddhism, Christianity, or both they are skillful means, no more. A raft to be discarded.
For us unawakened, techniques, practices, rituals might even seem like the goal.
Of course you can practice Buddhism and believe in God or Satan or flying noodles.
As long as you are attached to your view, awakening will have to wait.
Fish Gods control my fate.
Comments
Which is fine, @How. And there ought to be a formal structure to Buddhism (although with all the different schools there really isn't).
But even the formal structure shouldn't punish people who have a different viewpoint.
Let's face it, the vast majority of Buddhists may read Buddhist books or listen to Buddhist sermons. And then, as with most members of most other religions, they go out and live their lives.
And for those who feel that everyone should conform, why? Siddhartha didn't.
@vinlyn
If there is a school that does not agree with the four seals, then tell me.
If you can't, then that is the agreed upon form amongst the various Buddhist schools to determine what is Buddhist and what is not.
If you have a view that does not hold with those 4 seals then fine for you.
Just don't say it's Buddhist. That is not punishment, it's just clarity.
&
I do not think there is anything wrong with a Buddhist holding other views as long as he does not represent them as Buddhist.
Where did I dispute the 4 seals?
That's not what my response was about. It was about the difference between the formal structure of Buddhism (or any religion), and the every day practice by adherents to that religion. And if we need evidence of that, do we all agree on rebirth? No. The DL? No. Eating meat? No. Karma? No.
(bold added by me) This is a very handy clarification, very well stated. I was attempting to explain (to a Christian, no less) the Buddhist's view of the existence of a god, gods or God, and wished I had this wording instead of the blathering I laid on that poor fellow.
However, this 'doctrine' of one's relationship to a supreme being of supernatural nature is quite incompatible with SOME Abrahamic/monotheistic religious doctrines (regarding one's personal relationship with God). The person I was explaining the Buddhist-ish doctrine to was a bit stunned, and though he was online, I could 'see' his face puckering up, as I know him to be a traditional monotheistic Christian.
Besides that chasm of a difference (perspective matters), Buddhism places 'value' on the individual self in a way that contradicts the Christian doctrine of mankind having an essentially sinful, 'fallen' nature. The Christian regards their 'fleshly nature' not to be trustworthy, and are therefore compelled to 'obey' an objective standard (set by God, or at least inspired by God).
@vinlyn
there ought to be a formal structure to Buddhism (although with all the different schools there really isn't)..
I am saying that the four seals is the formal structure until I learn differently.
What do you mean, @How?
That the structure agreed upon by all but the most obscure of Buddhist schools, to determine what is Buddhist teaching and what isn't, are those four seals. Unless someone pops up here to school me differently.
Ah okay. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. You are talking about "formal Buddhism" as defined by various councils over the years. I am talking about "everyday people Buddhism". Two very different things, both very interesting.
That's cool. I just addressed your points as if you were. No problem.
If you're referring to me as a member of that 'force', you are, once again, totally mistaken.
I can't think of any sects of Buddhism where God is accepted. TNH has written a book about Christ and Buddha, but then TNH is from a Zen tradition and I'm pretty sure Zennies don't believe in God!
I think we could say what isn't Buddhism.
Why so patronising? I think you mean people who disagree with you.
And here I thought some Buddhists gave gods their own realm to live within until they were ready to hear the Dharma.
"again"...? Ah. Yes, I thought so.
Thanks.
There is no monotheistic Abrahamic-style God in Buddhism, which is the one that westerners are most likely to cling to. It's strange really, western Buddhists can get all sceptical about Buddhist cosmology and yet still cling to a childhood belief in God.
Could you delineate the difference?
Sometimes discussing things with you, it's hard to know which one you are either referring to, or adhering to.
You're very scathing about my own personal opinion on the skill - or lack thereof - melding different religious traditions, but as you believe in God, and you are on a Buddhist forum, I think it's a pertinent question to ask where you stand, within this framework.... Which Tradition holds your strongest footprint?
@federica
I took Vinlyn's reference to my post to be talking about monastic Buddhists or serious Buddhist meditators as compared to cultural Buddhists.
One refers to folks interested mainly in walking the path directly towards suffering's cessation
where the other
refers to folks mostly interested in feeling comfortable through membership and acceptance within a Buddhist tribe.
Opps....probably putting words in his mouth though.
Ah, right. Thanks for your perspective....
Well, yes you are, but I agree with the first part of what you said, and prefer your terminology in terms of "cultural Buddhism", a little less sure of the term "monastic Buddhism". I look, for example, at the Supreme Sangha in Thailand. They bring structure to Thai Buddhism, which is good. They regulate the behavior of monks and abbots, which is sorely needed. They also condone and support a lot of things that are not good (for example, there are members of the Supreme Sangha who go out and bless bomber jets and tanks and the like, or influence political life). Like the concept of the Supreme Sangha, or not, it is that group that participates in world wide Buddhist Councils. The problem is that I'm not very sure that what they do matters to 63.6 million Thai Buddhists. When the Supreme Sangha puts forth a ruling, which often is heavily influenced by the government, the people act as if they are following, but in reality, they do as they like. This is not unlike what happens in the Catholic Church (and probably most religions); what happens in the Vatican is very different than what most Catholics actually do in America.
I hadn't really thought of it this way until now, but I guess what I am exploring is -- which is the real Buddhism? What the ivory tower monastic Buddhists contemplate, or what the mass of the religion -- the everyday people -- actually do?
I think your divisions are actual three.
Political Buddhists.
Monastic Buddhists where what I wanted to say was any Buddhist interested mostly in directly walking towards suffering's cessation.
and
cultural Buddhists who are largely tribal groupies.
Obviously folks can be members of more than one grouping but their motivations usually mark their main camp membership.
I can see that.
@vinlyn would you care to address my points and respond...?
@SpinyNorman I didn't mean that some sects of Buddhists accept God. I don't know, either, of any that do. Just that some focus less on it than others. My teacher (Tibetan vajrayana) sometimes gets questions about God because a lot of curious locals attend his teachings, so they ask. He just laughs and says that obviously he doesn't believe in such a God but if they do, that is just fine. They can still come to his teachings as well, that he doesn't have a requirement for letting go of a belief in God. He prefers that it not be a dividing point and believes that everyone can benefit from learning about Buddhism and meditation no matter their background (which falls in line with the study I posted about last night where exposure to Buddhism has positive outcomes for all sorts of people). That is what I was referring to in that thought but I didn't explain it very well, sorry!
My point is this:
Say you have a job as a Chauffeur.
But you work for two different Dukes.
You therefore work part-time for each one. You can't work full-time for either one of them. It's impossible to 100% devotedly drive for one of them, at precisely the same time that you are 100% devoted in driving for the other one.
The Duke of Chrisendom asks you to work on Thursday morning, but unfortunately, the Duke of Dhamadom, wanted you that day.
What do you do? You're engaged with one, you are unable to divide yourself....Figaro....
And then they both ask you to go full time.
So then, which one do you decide to go work for?
You can only do that by evaluating each employer's attributes, benefits, advantages and perks.
But if you decide to continue working for both, pat-time, then all you will ever do, is be a part-time chauffeur...
And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want to do.
If you're comfortable in that driving seat, good on you.
But don't pretend that you are 100% devoted to one employer, and you can simultaneously be 100% devoted to the other one as well.
Perhaps if you apologized...
Sometimes you choose to be right (in your own mind), instead of being kind. You can't be trusted.
I am the same way, regrettably.
It can undermine any connection that might develop in this type of communication.
Sure, and I can't recall any Buddhist teacher saying you have to become an atheist. I think though that Buddhist practice will inevitably challenge a belief in God, or at least create some uncomfortable tensions.
What do I have to apologise for, precisely?
In that case, @federica, can anyone really be 100% devoted to anything, ever? I am 100% devoted to my family. But right now, I am 100% devoted to typing this post. Prior I was cleaning floors. If our practice tells us to be 100% devoted to whatever moment we are in, then how can we ever be 100% devoted to anything other than the present moment, which might be drenched in Buddhism, or not? Or is being in the moment already 100% of Buddhist practice? Really, being 100% engaged in the present moment is 100% devotion to everything and nothing at the same time. Hmm. I'm mostly just pondering, I don't expect you to answer my smattering of questions, lol.
You're missing my point entirely. It's not about being 100% devoted to doing something while you'e doing it.
It's about being 100% devoted to more than one thing, simultaneously.
@Vinlyin maintains that one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist - practising both faiths wholeheartedly, 100% simultaneously.
I maintain it's not possible.
Your examples of being "100% in the moment WHILE performing a single task, are not the point.
Those are good teachings to remember. Something I suffer with as well.
I usually think though that 95% of the squabbles here would never have happened face to face. The medium itself is the limitation.
For my part, I don't see this as a squabble. It's a debate.
It's only when people start launching indiscriminate, ad hominem off-topic attacks that I think it descends into the unreasonable/unacceptable.
And I tend to be on guard more on behalf of and for others, than myself....
@federica I'm not missing your point. I understand it entirely. They are just thoughts I had after reading what you wrote. I just don't entirely agree with your stance. No squabbling and no hard feelings on my side whatsoever. Just sharing thoughts. I just think that if a person can be 100% Christian in one moment and 100% Buddhist in another, that that is possible and it's fine. Whether they are still 100% Christian at the time they are 100% Buddhist doesn't really matter. If they run into tensions and problems because of it (which most would) then it is up to them to resolve that in a way that works for them.
But we're talking about practices here, not identities.
and? I'm not talking about what they label themselves. I'm saying if they can practice one thing at one time, another thing at another, or find a way to bring them together then that is for them to determine and work out. I'm still not clear on why we care if someone thinks they are both fully Christian and fully Buddhist. I won't say anymore, no point, lol.
This thread has gotten interesting despite one argument and one troll.
As an omnitheistic Buddhist who thinks Maitreya will be a mindset rather than a human, I find these views fascinating.
Typically, I have a feeling that Buddha was omnitheistic and had compassion for all gods even if they did not take up any physical space.
I can't say I ever had an Abrahamic belief system but my idea of what may constitute ultimate being has changed over the years. Sometimes I call it "God" for lack of a better word.
Yes, @karasti. It's like fruits and vegetables. Today we go into the store and buy a set package of most small vegetables and fruits. Some pieces in the pre-packaged container may be unripe and other pieces may be over-ripe or even marginally spoiled. Back in the 1950s, when I grew up, you could go to a farmer's stand, or even in the store, and pick your own "pieces" of fruits and vegetables, leaving what was not entirely suitable for your table.
No one can be 100% Christian and 100% Buddhist. But, while the two religions are parallel in some respects, and divergent in other respects, IMHO that is because they deal with different spheres of life, and like a venn diagram, sometimes those spheres can overlap.
I look at the pillars of Buddhism -- the Four Nobles Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the 5 Basic Precepts -- as being a solution to the reduction or cessation of suffering. And, I attempt to live within those pillars of Buddhism. And, it is my personal belief that the reduction or elimination of suffering is the scope of Buddhism, and that people have attempted to make Buddhism encompass much more of life than it was intended to...because that's what people believe belief systems are supposed to be -- all encompassing. Well, said who?
Therefore, we accept "add-ons" to those basic pillars. Karma. Rebirth. Whether or not it is appropriate to eat meat. And on and on and on. And it is with these "add-ons" that come most of the controversial aspects of Buddhism. Most of us who have some attraction to Buddhism believe in Karma, though we don't agree as to what it is or how it works (and there is tremendous difference between views on Karma from the "old world" to the "West"). While we may be open to the concept of rebirth, we all don't accept it as fact, nor accept it in terms of how it may work or even why it may be. There are wide variations in the matter of eating meat, with most Buddhist cultures eating meat, fish, fowl; even Buddha ate meat; Thai monks generally eat meat. And, a basic problem with the meat eating issue is that we don't all agree on what sentience is.
I've never seen anyone argue with the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path (although there are different interpretations therein), or the 5 Basic Precepts (again, they are open to some interpretation). So I accept those basics and attempt to live by them. Beyond those basic pillars are the things that are nebulous enough to invite debate and discussion. And there we ALL begin to diverge.
Similarly, with Christian concepts, there are things I accept totally, things I could debate (and those debates go on around the world and have for centuries), and things I reject. I won't go into all that because this is a Buddhist forum.
Now, some may accuse me of cherry picking. But really that's a simple mind reducing something which is far more complex, but suffice it to say if they don't like it, they don't have to do it, and if they don't like me doing it, tough shit. For quite a while, SN and I kept "getting into it". Finally, after reflection I decided that SN has every right to conduct his Buddhistic nature as he wants. As do I. And if I allow myself to aggravate myself about his style of Buddhism, tough shit on me. And if he aggravates himself due to his disdain for my views, tough shit on him. He can believe in and do as he wants. I can believe in and do as I want. We're both free and neither of us has to answer to the other.
In my past I was a Republican. Now I am a Democrat. At either point in time I voted for the individual and sometimes crossed party lines. Even as a Democrat today, there are still times I agree with some GOP viewpoints. I can think for myself in politics and in religion. I have that natural freedom. And anyone who says that one must only be Buddhist or only be Christian isn't really saying anything different than ISIS is about Islam. Some people are limited and stress the differences between religions. Other people (like the DL and Thich Nhat Hanh) can see the similarities as well as the differences.
To each his (or her) own.
Feel free to alert and report. That's what the icon is there for....
How so?
The Buddha had infinite Compassion for all beings, real, imaginary and anything in between. It's what he did best. That's how he transcended Suffering.
I would 'pen' a reply, but if you're not saying any more, I'll leave it....
You had already spotted it. Of course they called you by name, lol.
It just seems like it usually comes down to rigidity when views butt heads. I for one do not think a person could fully practice Christianity and still hold what Buddhists call "Right view" but why would it be important to still be able to hold onto a label?
I honestly think another religion would have to adapt to a Buddhist process more than a Buddhist process could adapt to another religion. Buddhist concepts and practices could certainly be added to Christian practice but I don't think the Christian practice would come out unscathed.
Likewise I think a belief in an all powerful creator deity would add more clouds to the sky and could change a Buddhist process into something else.
Not that these are bad things necessarily.
I agree, on all points.
Oh him, yeah.... got that one.....
Has "right view" been codified? And if so, by whom and based on what? Or is it up to the individual to determine "right view"?
Well, we do have this. Hopefully you won't dismiss it out of hand....
Edit to add this, as an additional source of instruction....
It seems to be, @Ourself, that "right view" is restricted to the suffering aspect of life. For example, I found the following quote: "And what is right view? Knowledge with reference to suffering, knowledge with reference to the origination of suffering, knowledge with reference to the cessation of suffering, knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering: This is called right view." So beyond causing one's own suffering or causing the suffering of others, where else does "right view" go? For example, if one is open to rebirth, but doesn't currently believe in rebirth, is that "wrong view"?
No, if you also check out the second link I provided, you'll see more teachings on what is wholesome/unwholesome. It is quite long, but thorough.
(And the name's federica.
)
At the end of the day, whether one practices Buddhism, Christianity, or both they are skillful means, no more. A raft to be discarded.
For us unawakened, techniques, practices, rituals might even seem like the goal.
Of course you can practice Buddhism and believe in God or Satan or flying noodles.
As long as you are attached to your view, awakening will have to wait.
Fish Gods control my fate.
One of the Buddhist 'eight auspicious symbols'
Good Catch!