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.
Again comes the whole semantics and idea of "concepts." We are ingrained with this. What is a practicing Christian. It is (or should be) one who practices the teachings of the Christ. What is a practicing Jew? It is one who practices the Torah. What is a practicing lawyer? One who occupies himself in the law. What is a practicing Buddhist? One who takes the teachings of Buddhism and practices them, does them, rather than just studying them. To set a standard for how much of the dharma one practices as a rule for calling one a "practitioner" seems superfluous to me. I think, humbly, as soon as you set your foot on the path and begin to do what Buddhism teaches rather than study it, or believe it, then you are a practitioner. I studied Buddhism for years, then a friend of mine said "Isn't it time to stop studing and start practicing." Slam, right upside the head. Yes, it was. One should not ever stop studying, I think, but study with practice is like peanut butter without jelly, que no?
Compassion...do not worry too much about sources. The "Buddha" told us to figure things out for ourselves, to not believe anything someone tells us, even if it is HE who tells us this (Pali Canon). Our enlightenment is our responsibility, and only we can find the way. The dharma can be a guiding light, but sooner or later we have to make our own decisions. The whole business about "sources" is a western thing. Christians (of which I was one for most of my life, Catholic and Fundamentalist and Mystical..at different times) are obsessed with sources. Why is anyone else's conclusion any better than the one you arrive at yourself? As one who was once obsessed with labels, and sources, and doctrines, I could go on forever about this. Someone help me out here, I feel like I am running too long.
Somebody earlier said we don't even know if the teachings came from one man known as the Buddha. I am with you there. I think that "Buddhism" qua "Buddhism" is a set of teachings that have come down through the ages as the philosophy grew. I do not think we know any more what the original "Buddha" said than we do what the original "Jesus" said. But is that really important. Isn't what is important whether you accept the body of teaching or not and practice them. And it is not even important that you accept the whole body of teaching. The dharma tells us over and over to think for ourselves. Allegedly one of Siddhartha's biggest missions was to free the people from the teaching (and consequent domination) of the Hindu priests.
Our enlightenment is our job and no-one else's.
Nirvana, I think you are being tongue in cheek, and I am not expert, but I believe Pure Land would work well in Texas. It proposes a savior, Amitba Buddha, through whom salvation through faith can be achieved. As for Samsara, well, Christianity of course teaches this world is a fallen and evil world. It suggests a different path for escaping this.
But we don't know what he taught, we don't even know that he was a singular man - we should be doubtful of all claims and only find clary in that which cannot be doubted, eg the certainty of the noble truths.
I'm glad you're here. But if that is your mindset, I don't entirely understand why you're here.
You seem to wish for a stamp of authentic approval, "Certified Buddhist Doctrine...." which will inevitably be a "lost cause" because there is no authority about these issues.
You seem to have mistaken some other poster for me, Thickpaper. I have not asked for a stamp of authenticity. I'm not even particularly interested in the history of doctrinal transmission.
My posts haven't asked for such a stamp. What I've said is, people who are qualified to adjust the received teaching are those who understand the subject at least as well as the original Teacher.
Compassion, it would be my hope that Christian ideas would not be transferred into Western Buddhism as well. Many of us come from Christian traditions, and the reason we left those traditions was to leave the mysticism and superstitions behind. I know that is why I did. But isn't Pure Land a lot like Christianity-the idea of a saviour who brings us salvation???
Brandon, right next door to you in NM, but I gotta tell ya. I love Texas. Love Fort Worth, Houston, and even Amarillo. My daughter may be looking at work in Austin in about a year, and then Texas may become an option for us.
But I have to say...a Buddhist in Texas...wow..talk about being outnumbered.
\
lol hey there are buddhist in texas...... i think. oh wait nevermind all the temples i went to were empty
I'm glad you're here. But if that is your mindset, I don't entirely understand why you're here.
I would imagine the same as most here, to learn and talk and think more about all kinds of aspects of Buddhism.
I think the Buddha was a skeptic.
I think some of what he taught has been lost or changed, and new teachings added. I don't think this really matters, Dharma is eternal and true. I would imagine most do here too, including you, I assume.
You seem to have mistaken some other poster for me, Thickpaper.
I thought i might have!:) But checked and I don't think so, I was replying to this:
Originally Posted by conradcook
I consider true Buddhism to be what the Buddha taught.
And I replied that we dont know what he talked and that this was signifigant, which it is. But it is only signifigant in regards to claims of this or that is "true buddhism".
I have a friend who is a shinyo en Nun in Japan, her view of Buddhism is radically different to what Therevadan's and probably most other schools consider Dharma.
A few weeks ago I went again to an SGI seminar, they hardly consider the Noble Truths, yet are very "Dharmic" in their ways. As are Ekhart Tolle and Alan Watts, some may call them selves real true buddhists, others not.
I think what is important, to see that there is no true buddhism outside of the indivdial. I think the Buddha, whatever he was, would have wanted each of us to follow our own path, his teahcings and the truths and precepts being sighnposts.
I dont know, I used to get riled up about some of the debates here, about rebirth and all those controversial things. I don't really any more, I guess the only issue I am still attached to is defending the idea that any one type of Buddhism is better than any other.
That's a bogus view, in my view, how about you,?
What I've said is, people who are qualified to adjust the received teaching are those who understand the subject at least as well as the original Teacher.
My point was and is, there is no way can we ever know that and that:)
I think that's a reasonable standpoint.
It is reasonable, sure, to me it adds a pressure to dharma practice that I dont feel the Buddha would have considered Right.
Do you believe the Buddha taught "Question everything, be your own light?" as a teaching?
I would imagine the same as most here, to learn and talk and think more about all kinds of aspects of Buddhism.
And why is it important to you to learn about Buddhism?
I think the Buddha was a skeptic.
I think some of what he taught has been lost or changed, and new teachings added. I don't think this really matters, Dharma is eternal and true. I would imagine most do here too, including you, I assume.
I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not the Buddha was a skeptic. I don't currently have the information available to address the question, and I don't see that it matters.
On your second point... I'm not entirely certain. I'll gloss "Dharma" as "Teaching," to try to get a handle on this; I know it's not an exact translation.
You seem to be talking simultaneously about a transcendant Teaching, which is eternal, and an implemented Teaching, or indeed several implemented Teachings. Are you saying that because we call what a particular person or text says "the Teaching," it must be "eternal and true"?
But yet surely you can imagine someone who does not know what they're talking about opening up a school, providing useless and even damaging instruction, and calling it "Dharma." So I can't imagine you're really claiming that all teachings are equal.
I am therefore at a loss to understand what you can mean. That is, I understand that you're very concerned that Buddhists from different traditions don't argue with each other, and you fear that trying to have a critical mind might lead to this. And I imagine it may well do that.
But what this, which I interpret you to be advocating, is, is a sort of kind-hearted propaganda. It's political correctness.
I have a friend who is a shinyo en Nun in Japan, her view of Buddhism is radically different to what Therevadan's and probably most other schools consider Dharma.
A few weeks ago I went again to an SGI seminar, they hardly consider the Noble Truths, yet are very "Dharmic" in their ways. As are Ekhart Tolle and Alan Watts, some may call them selves real true buddhists, others not.
If you're inviting me to decide whether Tolle, Watts, or your nun friend are "true Buddhists," I categorically decline. That's not my job.
And it's not my job to worry about the history of doctrinal transmission, either. I don't want to learn Pali or do textual scholarship. I want to pick up a reasonably intact set of instructions, and follow them. That's why I don't favor people who do not themselves have a superior degree of insight meddling with the teaching.
I would much rather have a teacher who says, "Ok, I don't understand what this bit is about, but let's go over it because it might be important," than one who teaches a technique that makes him feel warm and fuzzy on alternate Tuesdays as if it were received instruction, "eternal and true," as you say.
If someone wants to innovate, that's fine. If someone has an idiosyncratic interpretation of a particular point, they can teach it with the explicit understanding it's idiosyncratic. If they have a thoroughly new innovation, they can teach it and take credit for it.
Or how about we take someone's point from another thread: to do other than this -- to innovate and teach it as if it were canon -- is a lie.
I think what is important, to see that there is no true buddhism outside of the indivdial. I think the Buddha, whatever he was, would have wanted each of us to follow our own path, his teahcings and the truths and precepts being sighnposts.
I dont know, I used to get riled up about some of the debates here, about rebirth and all those controversial things. I don't really any more, I guess the only issue I am still attached to is defending the idea that any one type of Buddhism is better than any other.
That's a bogus view, in my view, how about you,?
I think that the Buddha, being a compassionate man, would want each of us to do that which effectively leads us to enlightenment. I also think that the Buddha, being an enlightened man, had better judgement about what would be effective than any of us who have not become enlightened. Therefore I think it is better to have a humble attitude toward his teaching.
My point was and is, there is no way can we ever know [what the original teaching was and who is qualified to alter it].
But surely we can say that, unless we look inside ourselves and see we are enlightened, we ought to take the recieved teachings with a humble attitude? That, remember, is the topic of this thread: creating a new school.
It is reasonable, sure, to me it adds a pressure to dharma practice that I dont feel the Buddha would have considered Right.
Seeking out a good teacher and teaching is too much pressure? Or deciding not to teach our own innovations as if they are canon?
It seems to me that discerning whether a given teaching is Right ... is Right.
Do you believe the Buddha taught "Question everything, be your own light?" as a teaching?
I've heard people on here say that; I don't know where it comes from.
But whether he said that or not, I understand that as encouragement to take an experimental attitude, and one of self-reliance, toward the teaching, as opposed to blind faith and dependency on the teacher. That does not amount to telling people who are not spiritually developed themselves to make innovations to the instruction and teach it in his name.
Further, I would argue that "question everything and be your own light" encourages students to discriminate good teachings from bad; which is antithetical to your standpoint, that we should not, because it leads to arguing.
But then, arguing with me at all is antithetical to your standpoint, isn't it? I mean, if all Buddhisms are equal and none are to be challenged, then you have no ground on which you can challenge me.
And we see this in the way you frame the question: Do I believe the Buddha said... You can't yourself claim that he said it, since you're unwilling to say even that he existed.
You're forced by your premises to accept your argument's own antithesis. And that might be very Zen. But from what I can tell, it's not what the Buddha taught.
But surely we can say that, unless we look inside ourselves and see we are enlightened, we ought to take the received teachings with a humble attitude? That, remember, is the topic of this thread: creating a new school.
WOW, what a long post, the one before last, from which I lifted the above quote!
That's not MY understanding of what the OP asks:
I was thinking that people like us are starting a whole new school of Buddhism: A school made of westerners... Tell me what you all think.
To me, it's not a question based on consciously creating a school to fit our needs and suit our tastes. It seems to me that lots of people who have responded are referring to what distinct characteristics Buddhism will take on in the Americas, in the Judaeo-Christian backdrop that dominates. Others on this thread have mentioned how Taoism "flavored" the Buddhism of China, and so forth.
__________ @mr.alfred: OK the Liberal Catholic Church is mystic, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is anything but. Perhaps the Liberal Catholics are a bit too "Preciously" rarified in many ways, too. I've never had dealings with them (and Lord knows how silly people can get when they're playing church.). Transubstantiation smacks more of numina and other things from primitive religions to me. Many scholars of world religions see the mystical expressions of the world religions as really transcending any particular, exclusivist revelations others would hold as crucial.
To me the word mysticism equals panentheistism for the theistic minded and either a state of enlightenment or the steps on the way to enlightenment in the Eastern nontheistic traditions.
WOW, what a long post, the one before last, from which I lifted just one quote!
That's not MY understanding of what the OP asks:
To me, it's not a question based on consciously creating a school to fit our needs and suit our tastes. It seems to me that lots of people who have responded are referring to what distinct characteristics Buddhism will take on in the Americas, in the Judaeo-Christian backdrop that dominates. Others on this thread have mentioned how Taoism "flavored" the Buddhism of China, and so forth.
__________
Interesting interpretation of the OP's question. Maybe some of us got it wrong; I thought he was saying "Let's start a new school of Buddhism, one for Westerners", but I see your point. I could do without Judaeo-Christian influences, though.
And why is it important to you to learn about Buddhism?
To help practice and understanding.
You seem to be talking simultaneously about a transcendant Teaching, which is eternal, and an implemented Teaching, or indeed several implemented Teachings. Are you saying that because we call what a particular person or text says "the Teaching," it must be "eternal and true"?
No. If a teaching can be seen to be eternal and true, that is true in all possible realms and times, then I say it is Dharma. Who came up with the teaching, its lineage and "pedigree" are wholly irrelevant if the teaching is eternal and true.
For example, the Three Marks of Existence and The Four Noble Truths, these are eternal and true. They were true before Buddha and are true now and would be true with or without Buddha in any place anywhere.
But yet surely you can imagine someone who does not know what they're talking about opening up a school, providing useless and even damaging instruction, and calling it "Dharma." So I can't imagine you're really claiming that all teachings are equal.
If they teach Dharma, they teach Dharma. Even if they do so through the medium of Jazz. This doesn't mean that they will be able to teach it well to most, but who are any of us to say that "they are frauds, they don't teach Dharma."
At best we can say "they dont teach Traditional Buddhism".
But this is a very very different statement to the one you allude to, namely "they don't teach what the Buddha taught".
I am therefore at a loss to understand what you can mean. That is, I understand that you're very concerned that Buddhists from different traditions don't argue with each other, and you fear that trying to have a critical mind might lead to this. And I imagine it may well do that.
No, that is not what I mean or have meant:) My only concenr about this issue is any school or doctrine claiming that any other is "wrong dharma".
I know its frowned upon by trad Buddhism but I think debates between Buddhisst about any issue is a good thing, as is having a very critical mind.
But what this, which I interpret you to be advocating, is, is a sort of kind-hearted propaganda. It's political correctness.
Nope:)
If you're inviting me to decide whether Tolle, Watts, or your nun friend are "true Buddhists," I categorically decline. That's not my job.
No I am not, and yes we agree:) It is nobodys job.
And it's not my job to worry about the history of doctrinal transmission, either.
I don't think you should worry about it, it isnt important in the main. The only time it ever becomes important is in claims of a Buddhist orthodoxy, because tehre is none nor can there be one, for more reasons than the lack of facts about what the buddha taught.
That's why I don't favor people who do not themselves have a superior degree of insight meddling with the teaching.
Who are you to judge what is and is not superior in insight or teaching? This is my point. Such statements as that smack of orthodoxy.
one who teaches a technique that makes him feel warm and fuzzy on alternate Tuesdays as if it were received instruction, "eternal and true," as you say.
I think you can see how you misunderstood what I meant by "eternal and true" as explained above.
Having said that, I very much agree how bogus claims peddled as "recieved instruction" are.
Or how about we take someone's point from another thread: to do other than this -- to innovate and teach it as if it were canon -- is a lie.
Hummm, doesnt that put most of Buddhism as lies? Most of Buddhism is composed of innovations and approaches created after the Buddha's death.
I think that the Buddha, being a compassionate man, would want each of us to do that which effectively leads us to enlightenment. I also think that the Buddha, being an enlightened man, had better judgement about what would be effective than any of us who have not become enlightened. Therefore I think it is better to have a humble attitude toward his teaching.
Yes I agree. But again, if there are new ways to explain the noble truths or to guide the path that were not said by the Buddha (Ie most of Buddhism) then I dont see its wrong to use those ways.
But surely we can say that, unless we look inside ourselves and see we are enlightened, we ought to take the recieved teachings with a humble attitude? That, remember, is the topic of this thread: creating a new school.
I dont think the OP or anyone else has considered the idea of a "new school" as being about new noble truths, new paths to the paths etc Rather just different ways to teach and share our experiences and understandings. In the same was as Zen is a demonstrably new way, as is SGI and Shinyo En etc.
But whether he said that or not, I understand that as encouragement to take an experimental attitude, and one of self-reliance, toward the teaching, as opposed to blind faith and dependency on the teacher.
Agree.
That does not amount to telling people who are not spiritually developed themselves to make innovations to the instruction and teach it in his name.
Sure, but again, if it is the teaching of Dharma then it is that, however its wrapped up. Dharma is before Buddha. Buddha discovered Dharma.
Further, I would argue that "question everything and be your own light" encourages students to discriminate good teachings from bad;
Exactly. And not just teachings, scriptures and experinces too.
which is antithetical to your standpoint, that we should not, because it leads to arguing.
As said, you have mistaken my standpoint. Im all for debate!:)
I mean, if all Buddhisms are equal and none are to be challenged, then you have no ground on which you can challenge me.
I would have on two points (But I dont):
1) If you say "this is authentic Buddhism and that is not" I would have a clear point to challenge on, ie the claim to authenticity.
2) If you taught something which was clearly nondharmic, like that greed can lead to happiness if there is enough capacity to acquire, then I would have a point to argue with you about. As would all Buddhists, I would imagine.
And we see this in the way you frame the question: Do I believe the Buddha said... You can't yourself claim that he said it, since you're unwilling to say even that he existed.
You misquote me there. I didn't say "said", I said "taught". I think he probably taught that because its evident in the Kalama Suttra and other texts.
I am happy to doubt that he said that, or taught it, it doesn't change that it is profound guidance of incomparable wisdom and insight. Someone said it, I have even seen it on a T-Shirt.
And that might be very Zen. But from what I can tell, it's not what the Buddha taught.
Buddha clearly didn't teach Koans and much else that I understand is in the Zen School. But he taught the Eightfold Path and, as I understand it, Zen is a very effective (for some not all) way to follow that path.
"And why is it important to you to learn about Buddhism?"
To help practice and understanding.
Now you're being coy. Why is practicing and understanding Buddhism important to you? What do you want to gain from it?
Who are you to judge what is and is not superior in insight or teaching? This is my point. Such statements as that smack of orthodoxy.
"Who am I"? I have a right and a duty to do my best to follow good teaching. Who do you imagine I need to be?
Teachings are not of uniform quality. I have a limited ability to discern good teaching from bad teaching. Therefore I don't want people who don't know what they're doing introducing bad teaching into a body of work.
If you do want that, feel free to pursue your study and practice on that basis. But please do not act as if you are an authority if you are not one.
1) If you say "this is authentic Buddhism and that is not" I would have a clear point to challenge on, ie the claim to authenticity.
"Authentic" is something you're hung up on; not me. I've only used the term in response to you.
From the beginning I have said I would consider the teaching of any being equally enlightened as the Buddha to have equal authority.
2) If you taught something which was clearly nondharmic, like that greed can lead to happiness if there is enough capacity to acquire, then I would have a point to argue with you about. As would all Buddhists, I would imagine.
Right. So it should be clear that teachings that are unclearly nondharmic, and which we don't know by looking are as bad as teaching that greed leads to happiness, will set their students back more.
Hummm, doesnt that put most of Buddhism as lies? Most of Buddhism is composed of innovations and approaches created after the Buddha's death.
If a person gives a teaching he has invented as if it were canon, then he is lying. Or simply wrong.
You seem to want very badly that I pass judgement on different forms of Buddhism.
I talked to a Zen Master who was a very proud man. He said what you have said: that he wasn't even sure if the Buddha existed.
It's very cosmopolitan and modern. And anyone who wants to study teachings without any pressure to consider their origins might find that satisfying. And they can "contribute" their own teachings too, maybe, and bring the message even further out, so that those who come after are even more uncertain whether the original teacher, who the teaching gets its name from, even existed.
I don't know if that's how things are done in Zen, or if it's just the one guy I was talking to. My impression is that different people in Zen do things differently. I hope they all become enlightened. People who aren't in Zen, too.
I think this is something you're insecure about. You're not really worried that people are passing judgement on different schools. You're worried that people are passing judgement on you, as someone who doesn't believe in the Buddha, just as you once were insecure about people passing judgement on you because you didn't believe in reincarnation. And I have faith that, just as you got over that, you'll get over this.
I'm insecure about following bad teaching. Indeed, I'm fearful of it. I've already squandered years that way. Some day I, too, might get over that. I hope I do.
I dont really consider it relevant to the OP or our chat:) But with worry to digress more...
Why is practicing and understanding Buddhism important to you? What do you want to gain from it?
I have been a Buddhist for a while and have found it has changed my life in wonderful ways. I think I have a pretty good grasp on it, though know I have much more to learn about its practice and the ways it can be expressed.
"Who am I"? I have a right and a duty to do my best to follow good teaching. Who do you imagine I need to be?
Sure, but we are not talking about you and following good teaching, we are talking about you saying that such and such a teaching is not worthy of someone else following.
Either you have a yardstick or you don't. I believe nobody does, at least when it comes to what the Buddha taught. The noble truths are their own yardstick, as it were.
Teachings are not of uniform quality. I have a limited ability to discern good teaching from bad teaching. Therefore I don't want people who don't know what they're doing introducing bad teaching into a body of work.
But what is bad for you may be good for another, and if it is Dharma teaching then again, you have no claim on its bad application, nobody does.
If you do want that, feel free to pursue your study and practice on that basis. But please do not act as if you are an authority if you are not one.
Again you misrepresent me. The only thing I wish to claim any authority on when it comes to Buddhism is the claim that there is no authority in Buddhism.
You are the one with allusions to an authority it seems.
"Authentic" is something you're hung up on; not me. I've only used the term in response to you.
I use the term against your claims such "what the buddha taught" and "true buddhism". Such claims speak as if there is an authority, when there is none.
From the beginning I have said I would consider the teaching of any being equally enlightened as the Buddha to have equal authority.
And from the beginning I have said that notion implies you can judge who is sufficiently enlightened etc. Do you not see this?
Right. So it should be clear that teachings that are unclearly nondharmic, and which we don't know by looking are as bad as teaching that greed leads to happiness, will set their students back more.
It isnt hard to see if a teaching is not dharma. I would imagine that most such teachings dont lead to the kind of happiness and peace offered by dharma, but I may well be wrong on that.
I think this is something you're insecure about. You're not really worried that people are passing judgement on different schools. You're worried that people are passing judgement on you, as someone who doesn't believe in the Buddha, just as you once were insecure about people passing judgement on you because you didn't believe in reincarnation. And I have faith that, just as you got over that, you'll get over this.
I am not sure why you want to bring this down down down to a discussion about my insecurities. I am even less sure about how you know about them.
I truly care not what people think about me, especially in regards to Buddhism. These kinds of attachments are not the hardest ones to extinguish.
But for the record, you would come over better in future without the personal attacks in what has been an impersonal discussion.
I'm insecure about following bad teaching. Indeed, I'm fearful of it. I've already squandered years that way. Some day I, too, might get over that. I hope I do.
I doubt the Buddha would have considered those wasted years squandering. They all lead up to where you are going. As for future worries about bad teaching, (I am a real Kalama Suttra bore, btw) I think the KS specifies perfectly how you should deal with all teachings.
I mentioned what I thought were your insecurities only because I thought it might be true and helpful. I guess it was neither. I'm sorry for the mistake.
Many of the things you claim I'm saying, I haven't said. And I've tried to put across what I am trying to say more than once. I guess I'm not able to make them clear now.
Re-reading my prior post, I feel I should add something. I was pretty shocked when the Zen Master told me he didn't believe the Buddha positively existed. But on the other hand, the instruction he gave me was correct.
I have no doubt that squandered effort in useless instruction does lead to where I'm going; but it is of the utmost importance to me that where I'm going is the right place, and not someplace else.
I don't believe that non-attachment entails an abandonment of standards.
I think the schools of Pure Land Buddhism will definitely heavily influence the American Buddhist scene. This will be true, especially, because there are so many parallels between Pure Land and Christianity.
To my mind, Pure Land takes a real short-cut through all this endless and dated samsara stuff that the West will not be able to appropriate.
Honen and Shinran in the Japan of the 12th & 13th centuries taught that people should rely on the compassion of Amida Buddha and realize that their own efforts alone were not sufficient. By complete reliance on the grace of Amida Buddha, the hope of salvation could be assured, they taught. Salvation in one lifetime and then Nirvana —or Pure Land— simply by calling on the name of Amida and putting all one's trust in him (to do the thing for you).
Also, the Origianl Vow of Amida and the bodhisattvas' vows are potent vehicles of what the Christians call grace. The Buddhist believer identifies himself with Amida Buddha, allowing Amida's words to move through him. This is similar to the Christian's belief that Christ acts through and moves in him.
I posted a similar answer earlier today on another thread.
Overall, I am also drawn to a more western version of buddhism incorporating Buddhas teachings, The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path but also reflecting Western values in terms of democracy, freedom of speech, equality, etc.
I am going to look into the Western Buddhist Order which several others have mentioned. It is not that I wish to reject the likes of Tibetan etc traditions but rather would like to see something that reflects western values and could well have its roots back in European/American interest in Buddhism that started in the 19th century.
The Buddha in his previous life as a practising Bodhisattva, told the lie out of compassion for both the rabbit and the hunter. Once while the Buddha was meditating in the woods, it happened that a rabbit was shot by a hunter. The hunter who was chasing the rabbit stopped to ask the Buddha, "Did you see my rabbit?". Buddha told a compassionate lie to the hunter that the rabbit had gone towards that direction.
Once when the Buddha was cultivating his practice in a past life as a bodhisattva, he chanced to run into a bandit who was about to rob and kill five hundred merchants passing by. When the Buddha found this out, he killed the bandit without any hesitation. In the mind of the Buddha, he would rather accept the bad karma of taking a life than letting five hundred innocent people lose their lives. The Buddha would not lie to deceive others, but the Buddha also would weigh the different sides of the issue before acting accordingly.
How do we practice the precepts? Suzuki Roshi, speaking of the precepts, once said that our way is to keep the precepts without being bound by them. A visitor once asked Soen Sa Nim about breaking the precepts. In answer, Soen Sa Nim said, "If you are in the woods and a rabbit runs by with a hunter chasing it, and the hunter asks you to point the direction the rabbit ran, what will you do? If you tell the truth, the rabbit will die. Sometimes lying is the action of a Bodhisattva. Specific actions are neither good or bad. The important point is - why? Is this action done to help others or only for some selfish motive?'' I think Suzuki Roshi's and Soen Sa Nim's words are an injunction to keep the precepts effortlessly, in other words, to keep a clear mind.
According to Buddhism, good and bad are just thinking, enlightened and unenlightened are empty names. Why keep the precepts? This morning, Soen Sa Nim told us a story about Zen Master Mang Gong. Mang Gong lived in Korea during that country's occupation by the Japanese. At that time, many Japanese priests and monks went to Korea to establish their style of Buddhism. At a conference to which thirty-one of the foremost leaders in Korean Buddhism were called, Mang Gong among them, the Japanese announced that from then on, Korean monks could marry, drink alcohol, and eat meat, as is done in Japan. Thirty of the Korean leaders were willing to obey their overlords, but Mang Gong rejected the Japanese suggestion. Quoting the Amithaba Sutra, he said, "If one person encourages a monk to break his vows, this person will go to hell." Then he continued, "There are 7,000 monks in Korea. Where will all of you go? The original is clear and empty. Why did the mountains and rivers appear? If you understand this, breaking the vows is no hindrance, if you do not understand, and break vows, you will go to hell like an arrow. What can you do?''
In practicing the precepts, we will break them many times. It is important not to give up. Breaking the precepts is like falling down when you're walking. The thing to do is to get up and start walking again, and if you fall again, get up again, keep on trying.
*munches on some popcorn, with real butter not that synthetic stuff*
The real stuff *munch* is the only way to go, Cloud.
So, I take it that a new Western school of Buddhism might look *shudder* like this page. Is this what we really want? is it worth it? I'm exhausted already!
Wow, you may be right. I can't exactly find on that site what this school does teach (and what it doesn't) compared to the other traditions. Interesting that link says at the bottom that they may "fuck it up". haha
I sent them an e-mail to see if they'll respond with what exactly they do teach. If it's just the Four Noble Truths + Noble Eightfold Path, then they're very close to what I already practice.
^^^ The founder, Noah Levine, studied under Jack Kornfield.
I'm kinda curious, however, as to what it is about traditional Buddhisms that they are suspicious of.
Anyway, it's a nice organization. They have TWO centers and several events weekly.
Read paragraph 2 of their statement again, they explain what it is about some traditional Buddhisms they're opposed to. For one thing, they mention accountability; this refers to accountability with regard to teachers' behavior toward students. They've instituted Kornfield's guidelines in that regard (see their "teacher ethics" statement). This org. is an outgrowth of Spirit Rock and other dharma centers' efforts to address teacher abuses, a good sign. And they seem to have affiliates around the country.
They finally got back to my e-mail (Against the Stream, that is). Not very detailed in their reply, but here it is:
"Hi Cloud,
Thanks for your note. We are primarily in the Theravadan tradition with a lineage coming from the Thai Forest Tradition. This is pretty straightforward, no-frills Buddhist practice. We try to adhere to what the Buddha taught as much as can we possibly can.
Comments
Compassion...do not worry too much about sources. The "Buddha" told us to figure things out for ourselves, to not believe anything someone tells us, even if it is HE who tells us this (Pali Canon). Our enlightenment is our responsibility, and only we can find the way. The dharma can be a guiding light, but sooner or later we have to make our own decisions. The whole business about "sources" is a western thing. Christians (of which I was one for most of my life, Catholic and Fundamentalist and Mystical..at different times) are obsessed with sources. Why is anyone else's conclusion any better than the one you arrive at yourself? As one who was once obsessed with labels, and sources, and doctrines, I could go on forever about this. Someone help me out here, I feel like I am running too long.
Somebody earlier said we don't even know if the teachings came from one man known as the Buddha. I am with you there. I think that "Buddhism" qua "Buddhism" is a set of teachings that have come down through the ages as the philosophy grew. I do not think we know any more what the original "Buddha" said than we do what the original "Jesus" said. But is that really important. Isn't what is important whether you accept the body of teaching or not and practice them. And it is not even important that you accept the whole body of teaching. The dharma tells us over and over to think for ourselves. Allegedly one of Siddhartha's biggest missions was to free the people from the teaching (and consequent domination) of the Hindu priests.
Our enlightenment is our job and no-one else's.
Nirvana, I think you are being tongue in cheek, and I am not expert, but I believe Pure Land would work well in Texas. It proposes a savior, Amitba Buddha, through whom salvation through faith can be achieved. As for Samsara, well, Christianity of course teaches this world is a fallen and evil world. It suggests a different path for escaping this.
I'm glad you're here. But if that is your mindset, I don't entirely understand why you're here.
You seem to have mistaken some other poster for me, Thickpaper. I have not asked for a stamp of authenticity. I'm not even particularly interested in the history of doctrinal transmission.
My posts haven't asked for such a stamp. What I've said is, people who are qualified to adjust the received teaching are those who understand the subject at least as well as the original Teacher.
I think that's a reasonable standpoint.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
lol hey there are buddhist in texas...... i think. oh wait nevermind all the temples i went to were empty
Do you say this with a voice of "tolerance"?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I would imagine the same as most here, to learn and talk and think more about all kinds of aspects of Buddhism.
I think the Buddha was a skeptic.
I think some of what he taught has been lost or changed, and new teachings added. I don't think this really matters, Dharma is eternal and true. I would imagine most do here too, including you, I assume.
I thought i might have!:) But checked and I don't think so, I was replying to this:
And I replied that we dont know what he talked and that this was signifigant, which it is. But it is only signifigant in regards to claims of this or that is "true buddhism".
I have a friend who is a shinyo en Nun in Japan, her view of Buddhism is radically different to what Therevadan's and probably most other schools consider Dharma.
A few weeks ago I went again to an SGI seminar, they hardly consider the Noble Truths, yet are very "Dharmic" in their ways. As are Ekhart Tolle and Alan Watts, some may call them selves real true buddhists, others not.
I think what is important, to see that there is no true buddhism outside of the indivdial. I think the Buddha, whatever he was, would have wanted each of us to follow our own path, his teahcings and the truths and precepts being sighnposts.
I dont know, I used to get riled up about some of the debates here, about rebirth and all those controversial things. I don't really any more, I guess the only issue I am still attached to is defending the idea that any one type of Buddhism is better than any other.
That's a bogus view, in my view, how about you,?
My point was and is, there is no way can we ever know that and that:)
It is reasonable, sure, to me it adds a pressure to dharma practice that I dont feel the Buddha would have considered Right.
Do you believe the Buddha taught "Question everything, be your own light?" as a teaching?
Thank you and likewise.
And why is it important to you to learn about Buddhism?
I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not the Buddha was a skeptic. I don't currently have the information available to address the question, and I don't see that it matters.
On your second point... I'm not entirely certain. I'll gloss "Dharma" as "Teaching," to try to get a handle on this; I know it's not an exact translation.
You seem to be talking simultaneously about a transcendant Teaching, which is eternal, and an implemented Teaching, or indeed several implemented Teachings. Are you saying that because we call what a particular person or text says "the Teaching," it must be "eternal and true"?
But yet surely you can imagine someone who does not know what they're talking about opening up a school, providing useless and even damaging instruction, and calling it "Dharma." So I can't imagine you're really claiming that all teachings are equal.
I am therefore at a loss to understand what you can mean. That is, I understand that you're very concerned that Buddhists from different traditions don't argue with each other, and you fear that trying to have a critical mind might lead to this. And I imagine it may well do that.
But what this, which I interpret you to be advocating, is, is a sort of kind-hearted propaganda. It's political correctness.
If you're inviting me to decide whether Tolle, Watts, or your nun friend are "true Buddhists," I categorically decline. That's not my job.
And it's not my job to worry about the history of doctrinal transmission, either. I don't want to learn Pali or do textual scholarship. I want to pick up a reasonably intact set of instructions, and follow them. That's why I don't favor people who do not themselves have a superior degree of insight meddling with the teaching.
I would much rather have a teacher who says, "Ok, I don't understand what this bit is about, but let's go over it because it might be important," than one who teaches a technique that makes him feel warm and fuzzy on alternate Tuesdays as if it were received instruction, "eternal and true," as you say.
If someone wants to innovate, that's fine. If someone has an idiosyncratic interpretation of a particular point, they can teach it with the explicit understanding it's idiosyncratic. If they have a thoroughly new innovation, they can teach it and take credit for it.
Or how about we take someone's point from another thread: to do other than this -- to innovate and teach it as if it were canon -- is a lie.
I think that the Buddha, being a compassionate man, would want each of us to do that which effectively leads us to enlightenment. I also think that the Buddha, being an enlightened man, had better judgement about what would be effective than any of us who have not become enlightened. Therefore I think it is better to have a humble attitude toward his teaching.
But surely we can say that, unless we look inside ourselves and see we are enlightened, we ought to take the recieved teachings with a humble attitude? That, remember, is the topic of this thread: creating a new school.
Seeking out a good teacher and teaching is too much pressure? Or deciding not to teach our own innovations as if they are canon?
It seems to me that discerning whether a given teaching is Right ... is Right.
I've heard people on here say that; I don't know where it comes from.
But whether he said that or not, I understand that as encouragement to take an experimental attitude, and one of self-reliance, toward the teaching, as opposed to blind faith and dependency on the teacher. That does not amount to telling people who are not spiritually developed themselves to make innovations to the instruction and teach it in his name.
Further, I would argue that "question everything and be your own light" encourages students to discriminate good teachings from bad; which is antithetical to your standpoint, that we should not, because it leads to arguing.
But then, arguing with me at all is antithetical to your standpoint, isn't it? I mean, if all Buddhisms are equal and none are to be challenged, then you have no ground on which you can challenge me.
And we see this in the way you frame the question: Do I believe the Buddha said... You can't yourself claim that he said it, since you're unwilling to say even that he existed.
You're forced by your premises to accept your argument's own antithesis. And that might be very Zen. But from what I can tell, it's not what the Buddha taught.
Thanks!
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
WOW, what a long post, the one before last, from which I lifted the above quote!
That's not MY understanding of what the OP asks:
To me, it's not a question based on consciously creating a school to fit our needs and suit our tastes. It seems to me that lots of people who have responded are referring to what distinct characteristics Buddhism will take on in the Americas, in the Judaeo-Christian backdrop that dominates. Others on this thread have mentioned how Taoism "flavored" the Buddhism of China, and so forth.
__________
@mr.alfred: OK the Liberal Catholic Church is mystic, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is anything but. Perhaps the Liberal Catholics are a bit too "Preciously" rarified in many ways, too. I've never had dealings with them (and Lord knows how silly people can get when they're playing church.). Transubstantiation smacks more of numina and other things from primitive religions to me. Many scholars of world religions see the mystical expressions of the world religions as really transcending any particular, exclusivist revelations others would hold as crucial.
To me the word mysticism equals panentheistism for the theistic minded and either a state of enlightenment or the steps on the way to enlightenment in the Eastern nontheistic traditions.
To help practice and understanding.
No. If a teaching can be seen to be eternal and true, that is true in all possible realms and times, then I say it is Dharma. Who came up with the teaching, its lineage and "pedigree" are wholly irrelevant if the teaching is eternal and true.
For example, the Three Marks of Existence and The Four Noble Truths, these are eternal and true. They were true before Buddha and are true now and would be true with or without Buddha in any place anywhere.
If they teach Dharma, they teach Dharma. Even if they do so through the medium of Jazz. This doesn't mean that they will be able to teach it well to most, but who are any of us to say that "they are frauds, they don't teach Dharma."
At best we can say "they dont teach Traditional Buddhism".
But this is a very very different statement to the one you allude to, namely "they don't teach what the Buddha taught".
No, that is not what I mean or have meant:) My only concenr about this issue is any school or doctrine claiming that any other is "wrong dharma".
I know its frowned upon by trad Buddhism but I think debates between Buddhisst about any issue is a good thing, as is having a very critical mind.
Nope:)
No I am not, and yes we agree:) It is nobodys job.
I don't think you should worry about it, it isnt important in the main. The only time it ever becomes important is in claims of a Buddhist orthodoxy, because tehre is none nor can there be one, for more reasons than the lack of facts about what the buddha taught.
Who are you to judge what is and is not superior in insight or teaching? This is my point. Such statements as that smack of orthodoxy.
I think you can see how you misunderstood what I meant by "eternal and true" as explained above.
Having said that, I very much agree how bogus claims peddled as "recieved instruction" are.
Hummm, doesnt that put most of Buddhism as lies? Most of Buddhism is composed of innovations and approaches created after the Buddha's death.
Yes I agree. But again, if there are new ways to explain the noble truths or to guide the path that were not said by the Buddha (Ie most of Buddhism) then I dont see its wrong to use those ways.
I dont think the OP or anyone else has considered the idea of a "new school" as being about new noble truths, new paths to the paths etc Rather just different ways to teach and share our experiences and understandings. In the same was as Zen is a demonstrably new way, as is SGI and Shinyo En etc.
Agree.
Sure, but again, if it is the teaching of Dharma then it is that, however its wrapped up. Dharma is before Buddha. Buddha discovered Dharma.
Exactly. And not just teachings, scriptures and experinces too.
As said, you have mistaken my standpoint. Im all for debate!:)
I would have on two points (But I dont):
1) If you say "this is authentic Buddhism and that is not" I would have a clear point to challenge on, ie the claim to authenticity.
2) If you taught something which was clearly nondharmic, like that greed can lead to happiness if there is enough capacity to acquire, then I would have a point to argue with you about. As would all Buddhists, I would imagine.
You misquote me there. I didn't say "said", I said "taught". I think he probably taught that because its evident in the Kalama Suttra and other texts.
I am happy to doubt that he said that, or taught it, it doesn't change that it is profound guidance of incomparable wisdom and insight. Someone said it, I have even seen it on a T-Shirt.
Buddha clearly didn't teach Koans and much else that I understand is in the Zen School. But he taught the Eightfold Path and, as I understand it, Zen is a very effective (for some not all) way to follow that path.
namaste
Now you're being coy. Why is practicing and understanding Buddhism important to you? What do you want to gain from it?
"Who am I"? I have a right and a duty to do my best to follow good teaching. Who do you imagine I need to be?
Teachings are not of uniform quality. I have a limited ability to discern good teaching from bad teaching. Therefore I don't want people who don't know what they're doing introducing bad teaching into a body of work.
If you do want that, feel free to pursue your study and practice on that basis. But please do not act as if you are an authority if you are not one.
"Authentic" is something you're hung up on; not me. I've only used the term in response to you.
From the beginning I have said I would consider the teaching of any being equally enlightened as the Buddha to have equal authority.
Right. So it should be clear that teachings that are unclearly nondharmic, and which we don't know by looking are as bad as teaching that greed leads to happiness, will set their students back more.
If a person gives a teaching he has invented as if it were canon, then he is lying. Or simply wrong.
You seem to want very badly that I pass judgement on different forms of Buddhism.
I talked to a Zen Master who was a very proud man. He said what you have said: that he wasn't even sure if the Buddha existed.
It's very cosmopolitan and modern. And anyone who wants to study teachings without any pressure to consider their origins might find that satisfying. And they can "contribute" their own teachings too, maybe, and bring the message even further out, so that those who come after are even more uncertain whether the original teacher, who the teaching gets its name from, even existed.
I don't know if that's how things are done in Zen, or if it's just the one guy I was talking to. My impression is that different people in Zen do things differently. I hope they all become enlightened. People who aren't in Zen, too.
I think this is something you're insecure about. You're not really worried that people are passing judgement on different schools. You're worried that people are passing judgement on you, as someone who doesn't believe in the Buddha, just as you once were insecure about people passing judgement on you because you didn't believe in reincarnation. And I have faith that, just as you got over that, you'll get over this.
I'm insecure about following bad teaching. Indeed, I'm fearful of it. I've already squandered years that way. Some day I, too, might get over that. I hope I do.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I dont really consider it relevant to the OP or our chat:) But with worry to digress more...
I have been a Buddhist for a while and have found it has changed my life in wonderful ways. I think I have a pretty good grasp on it, though know I have much more to learn about its practice and the ways it can be expressed.
Sure, but we are not talking about you and following good teaching, we are talking about you saying that such and such a teaching is not worthy of someone else following.
Either you have a yardstick or you don't. I believe nobody does, at least when it comes to what the Buddha taught. The noble truths are their own yardstick, as it were.
But what is bad for you may be good for another, and if it is Dharma teaching then again, you have no claim on its bad application, nobody does.
Again you misrepresent me. The only thing I wish to claim any authority on when it comes to Buddhism is the claim that there is no authority in Buddhism.
You are the one with allusions to an authority it seems.
I use the term against your claims such "what the buddha taught" and "true buddhism". Such claims speak as if there is an authority, when there is none.
And from the beginning I have said that notion implies you can judge who is sufficiently enlightened etc. Do you not see this?
It isnt hard to see if a teaching is not dharma. I would imagine that most such teachings dont lead to the kind of happiness and peace offered by dharma, but I may well be wrong on that.
I am not sure why you want to bring this down down down to a discussion about my insecurities. I am even less sure about how you know about them.
I truly care not what people think about me, especially in regards to Buddhism. These kinds of attachments are not the hardest ones to extinguish.
But for the record, you would come over better in future without the personal attacks in what has been an impersonal discussion.
I doubt the Buddha would have considered those wasted years squandering. They all lead up to where you are going. As for future worries about bad teaching, (I am a real Kalama Suttra bore, btw) I think the KS specifies perfectly how you should deal with all teachings.
namaste
I mentioned what I thought were your insecurities only because I thought it might be true and helpful. I guess it was neither. I'm sorry for the mistake.
Many of the things you claim I'm saying, I haven't said. And I've tried to put across what I am trying to say more than once. I guess I'm not able to make them clear now.
Re-reading my prior post, I feel I should add something. I was pretty shocked when the Zen Master told me he didn't believe the Buddha positively existed. But on the other hand, the instruction he gave me was correct.
I have no doubt that squandered effort in useless instruction does lead to where I'm going; but it is of the utmost importance to me that where I'm going is the right place, and not someplace else.
I don't believe that non-attachment entails an abandonment of standards.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
namaste:)
To my mind, Pure Land takes a real short-cut through all this endless and dated samsara stuff that the West will not be able to appropriate.
Honen and Shinran in the Japan of the 12th & 13th centuries taught that people should rely on the compassion of Amida Buddha and realize that their own efforts alone were not sufficient. By complete reliance on the grace of Amida Buddha, the hope of salvation could be assured, they taught. Salvation in one lifetime and then Nirvana —or Pure Land— simply by calling on the name of Amida and putting all one's trust in him (to do the thing for you).
Also, the Origianl Vow of Amida and the bodhisattvas' vows are potent vehicles of what the Christians call grace. The Buddhist believer identifies himself with Amida Buddha, allowing Amida's words to move through him. This is similar to the Christian's belief that Christ acts through and moves in him.
Overall, I am also drawn to a more western version of buddhism incorporating Buddhas teachings, The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path but also reflecting Western values in terms of democracy, freedom of speech, equality, etc.
I am going to look into the Western Buddhist Order which several others have mentioned. It is not that I wish to reject the likes of Tibetan etc traditions but rather would like to see something that reflects western values and could well have its roots back in European/American interest in Buddhism that started in the 19th century.
Clavain
The Buddha in his previous life as a practising Bodhisattva, told the lie out of compassion for both the rabbit and the hunter. Once while the Buddha was meditating in the woods, it happened that a rabbit was shot by a hunter. The hunter who was chasing the rabbit stopped to ask the Buddha, "Did you see my rabbit?". Buddha told a compassionate lie to the hunter that the rabbit had gone towards that direction.
Once when the Buddha was cultivating his practice in a past life as a bodhisattva, he chanced to run into a bandit who was about to rob and kill five hundred merchants passing by. When the Buddha found this out, he killed the bandit without any hesitation. In the mind of the Buddha, he would rather accept the bad karma of taking a life than letting five hundred innocent people lose their lives. The Buddha would not lie to deceive others, but the Buddha also would weigh the different sides of the issue before acting accordingly.
How do we practice the precepts? Suzuki Roshi, speaking of the precepts, once said that our way is to keep the precepts without being bound by them. A visitor once asked Soen Sa Nim about breaking the precepts. In answer, Soen Sa Nim said, "If you are in the woods and a rabbit runs by with a hunter chasing it, and the hunter asks you to point the direction the rabbit ran, what will you do? If you tell the truth, the rabbit will die. Sometimes lying is the action of a Bodhisattva. Specific actions are neither good or bad. The important point is - why? Is this action done to help others or only for some selfish motive?'' I think Suzuki Roshi's and Soen Sa Nim's words are an injunction to keep the precepts effortlessly, in other words, to keep a clear mind.
According to Buddhism, good and bad are just thinking, enlightened and unenlightened are empty names. Why keep the precepts? This morning, Soen Sa Nim told us a story about Zen Master Mang Gong. Mang Gong lived in Korea during that country's occupation by the Japanese. At that time, many Japanese priests and monks went to Korea to establish their style of Buddhism. At a conference to which thirty-one of the foremost leaders in Korean Buddhism were called, Mang Gong among them, the Japanese announced that from then on, Korean monks could marry, drink alcohol, and eat meat, as is done in Japan. Thirty of the Korean leaders were willing to obey their overlords, but Mang Gong rejected the Japanese suggestion. Quoting the Amithaba Sutra, he said, "If one person encourages a monk to break his vows, this person will go to hell." Then he continued, "There are 7,000 monks in Korea. Where will all of you go? The original is clear and empty. Why did the mountains and rivers appear? If you understand this, breaking the vows is no hindrance, if you do not understand, and break vows, you will go to hell like an arrow. What can you do?''
In practicing the precepts, we will break them many times. It is important not to give up. Breaking the precepts is like falling down when you're walking. The thing to do is to get up and start walking again, and if you fall again, get up again, keep on trying.
The real stuff *munch* is the only way to go, Cloud.
So, I take it that a new Western school of Buddhism might look *shudder* like this page. Is this what we really want? is it worth it? I'm exhausted already!
(pass the popcorn, please, Cloud.)
*passes the popcorn*
http://againstthestream.org/about-us/our-tradition
I sent them an e-mail to see if they'll respond with what exactly they do teach. If it's just the Four Noble Truths + Noble Eightfold Path, then they're very close to what I already practice.
I dropped in on a class when I visited down there. It seems to be Vipassana. The founder, Noah Levine, studied under Jack Kornfield.
I'm kinda curious, however, as to what it is about traditional Buddhisms that they are suspicious of.
Anyway, it's a nice organization. They have TWO centers and several events weekly.
"Hi Cloud,
Thanks for your note. We are primarily in the Theravadan tradition with a lineage coming from the Thai Forest Tradition. This is pretty straightforward, no-frills Buddhist practice. We try to adhere to what the Buddha taught as much as can we possibly can.
all the best,
Mary"
however, "tibetan buddhism" may have too much bōn in it.