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.
Actually, from the accounts I get from people I know who have gone the monastic route, monastic life presents its own challenges that may make their path considerably more difficult: loneliness, hunger (monks in Theravada countries traditionally live on one meal a day), boredom, extremes of temperature (no heating/air conditioning), sexual appetite (this last one particularly had apparently resulted in some interesting regulations in the Vinaya Pitaka and stil lplagues monasteries in Thailand where monks commonly solicit the services of prostitutes), etc. You don't join a monastery to escape the experiences of the world. The world follows you into the monastery and, in the case of many, can continue to haunt you as you pursue the path.
It seems to me that it would matter what you doubted, in order to judge whether doubting were a bad thing.
For instance, if you were doubting some negative thoughts than you could be released from them and their unhappiness.
Or, what if you doubted that you were these thoughts, at/all, thereby cutting off identity with them all together? It seems like this would be an even better thing.
In this way, doubt could become a useful tool, don’t you think?
There are many good reasons to live in a monastery. But if you believe by hiding out in a monastery that you will avoid craving, than you are only kidding yourself. What you may gain is a kind of ‘pseudo liberation,’ (a trap which some warn against, called ‘quietism), which falls to pieces the second you are faced with the real world once again.
I believe that our problems reside in our mind, not in the world that merely points them out.
Something I ran into while reading today, that you might find interesting too:
The ‘Great Doubt’ of the Zen practitioners was likened to the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ of St John of the Cross.
They said both of these, rather than just being doubt as we commonly think of it, were a place often reached through practice where you finally realized that you didn’t know anything. ‘The Don’t Know Mind.” This was a subjective event that often took place just before dying to small self, once and for all, and totally 100% Waking Up.
Trying to determine what is true by deriving it from first principles using reason. Look up the names Aristotle, Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, and many others.
Buddhism is a path, a method for seeing the truth. The method must be trusted because applying it is many years of hard work. But this trust is not blind or mistaken, because you can see the lineage of teachers who have followed the before you.
When you study the sutras to see what the Buddha's philosophy was, you see he held to common sense notions of ethics and cause and effect. He wasn't especially an exclusive rationalist or a skeptic. And on top of that there are descriptions of clairvoyant powers arising from meditation: seeing objects at a distance, flying through the air, remembering past lives and seeing where others are reborn. These are ideas any theosophist would be comfortable with. If you acquaintance with Buddhist scriptures begins and ends with the Kalama Sutta, you have a rude shock ahead of you when you read further.
Why is it people assume one is an ignoramus on a subject when one has different views to them? It seems especially common here:)
For the record, I studied western Philosophy to Phd level and have pretty much dedicated my life to the study and practice of dharma for the last near decade. These are not idle fancies I am presenting but the culmination of two decades of my life and thought:)
I do not believe in the accuracy of the suttras. I believe they have been distorted from the Buddha's original teaching, there is much evidence for this, both textual, historical, philosophical and empirical.(See salted.net for the start of my views on this, If you like.)
I think it is very clear what the first principles are and I think they apply to all consistent possible worlds at every level.
They are Annica, Anataman, Dukka, variously realised at all levels of abstraction, from the simplest toy universe to these rich human lives of ours.
>>>When you study the sutras to see what the Buddha's philosophy was, you see he held to common sense notions of ethics and cause and effect.
Common sense to us,when we strip away the esoteric, I agree. But let us not belittle what a momentous development the Buddhas's causal, moral, mental system was. It was ground-breaking and to this day it remains continually enforced by modern science and reason.
>>>He wasn't especially an exclusive rationalist or a skeptic.
I think he was. I remain to be shown otherwise. Incidentally the KS isnt the only place doubt is discussed and proposed in the suttras:)
>>>And on top of that there are descriptions of clairvoyant powers arising from meditation: seeing objects at a distance, flying through the air, remembering past lives and seeing where others are reborn.
I think they, like much of the immenseitude of the Pali Cannon, are later embellishments. I consider them preposterous and though I respect those who wish to believe in them I have no ground with such doctrine. They are absurd.
I am only interested in the Buddha who was a normal man at birth, died a normal, enlightened man, and taught that which consistently is entailed by the Three Marks.
Anything else, is with the fairies and the bible, to me:)
Let me just say that I, too, like the Three Marks: (1) anicca/impermanence, (2) dukkha/suffering, and (3) anatta/no-self, perhaps for my own reasons. I like them because they are obvious to the naked eye, and do not call for faith beyond what I can see for myself.
When we get beyond what can personally be verified, the fertile human imagination starts throwing too many things into the stew, and confusion reins.
I also think that if we were to follow out to the end, where these three guides led us, they alone, with nothing else added, could bring us all the way to rediscovering Nirvana,
Please forgive us for coming off like we are sooo right, and consequently like everyone else must be wrong.
: ^ (
I think that this arrogance on our part, must be one of the hazards of being human, and also of identifying too closely with our own egos. ; ^ )
"Human, all 2 human."
I, for one, am enjoying some of the points that you are making.
Let me just say that I, too, like the Three Marks: (1) anicca/impermanence, (2) dukkha/suffering, and (3) anatta/no-self, perhaps for my own reasons. I like them because they are obvious to the naked eye, and do not call for faith beyond what I can see for myself.
When we get beyond what can personally be verified, the fertile human imagination starts throwing too many things into the stew, and confusion reins.
I also think that if we were to follow out to the end, where these three guides led us, they alone, with nothing else added, could bring us all the way to rediscovering Nirvana,
Please forgive us for coming off like we are sooo right, and consequently like everyone else must be wrong.
: ^ (
I think that this arrogance on our part, must be one of the hazards of being human, and also of identifying too closely with our own egos. ; ^ )
"Human, all 2 human."
I, for one, am enjoying some of the points that you are making.
Peace is a skill,
S9
Hi S9
Thanks for the comments, peace is a skill thats often hard to practice:)
As I have "always" said, and believe strongly, ultimately it doenst matter if "down at the bottom" there is quantum flux or god's ideas or something else, whats important is the path and practice.
I don't think in any of the debates here I have seen anyone contesting Magga, we can all agree on that most wonderful of gifts. The rest is either rational philosophy (Which interests me deeply) or faith-based mysticstsim, two entirely different "magesteriums".
I was interested in why you follow buddhism? It seems (and I may be wrong) that, although you say you "doubt" everything, you have already made up your mind. Now I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but my only reference is what you have posted and it seems to me clear what you believe and what you don't believe. This is not doubt, this is clear affirmation.
What you seem to follow is your own beliefs, your own ideas, so why call it Buddhism? (eg you said you don't have faith in the suttas)
Also, (please don't be offended) what I get from your posts is they give the impression that you are right and everyone is wrong (although you haven't said that). Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just some practical critisism . It is VERY difficult on a forum to find the right words and the right way of explaining things without coming across the wrong way.
I was interested in why you follow buddhism? It seems (and I may be wrong) that, although you say you "doubt" everything, you have already made up your mind.
You are wrong in what you say here:) I do not dount the three marks, the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path:)
I cannot doubt them, they are self evident and demonstrable and expericiencable.
The same is not true of rebirth, majic karma etc or indeed the suttras themselves:)
>>>What you seem to follow is your own beliefs, your own ideas, so why call it Buddhism? (eg you said you don't have faith in the suttas)
I am a Buddhist I follow Dharma. That is simple:)
>>>Also, (please don't be offended) what I get from your posts is they give the impression that you are right and everyone is wrong (although you haven't said that).
If they are certain in the suttras as authentic orthodoxy then they are wrong. That is simple. We cannot be ccertain of any aspect of the suttras. That's like being certain in the accuracy Greek myths. Do you not see that?
Equally, I do not know what is right opr what the Buddha really taught!
I am trying to find out, as all Buddhists should. To start where the buddha started but with his huge head start: annica, antaman, dukkha. He has shown the way, we cannot only test that way and explore it and travel down it.
MatSalted, if you indeed have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, you will no doubt be familiar with the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. I bring this up because you seem to be rather talented at perpetrating it.
@Mat
Thanks for the reply Mat. Your post, though, has proved my point. :tonguec: Your views come across as set in stone. This is not doubt. Like I said, it is perfectly clear what you believe and what you don't believe. This is not doubt.
You also admitted that you are correct in your views. This gives the impression that everyone else is wrong. Do you not see that? (Do you believe that?) But it doesn't make sense when you say this and then say that you are "trying to find out". If you are right already, what is there to explore?
All these things that everyone is talking about (rebirth/karma etc)< I don't know the answer. I simply don't know. So I am also trying to find out. But I won't flat out reject anything and call it "magic" simply because it doesn't fit with my current understanding of the world, not matter how good I believe my understanding to be. The more I learn about the world, the less I realise I know!
Either way, I wish you well in your practice. :uphand:
MatSalted, if you indeed have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, you will no doubt be familiar with the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. I bring this up because you seem to be rather talented at perpetrating it.
Where have I done this? With regards to textual accuracy? Or dependnet origination? Or doubt (I guess for this you will say the real issue of the KS is that latter hald not the forumer?)
@Mat
Thanks for the reply Mat. Your post, though, has proved my point. :tonguec: Your views come across as set in stone. This is not doubt. Like I said, it is perfectly clear what you believe and what you don't believe. This is not doubt.
My views are perfectly set in stone regarding the consientcy and causality of the three marks of existence, you are correct:) I would hope they are for all Buddhists:)
I think that everyone follows their own beliefs. The reason that we are Buddhists is because Buddha had the good sense to believe, or to say, some of the things that we happen to agree with. ; ^ ) The things we except as being possible although we do not yet witness them our selves, rest on a firm foundation of what we have witnessed to be correct in Buddha’s words.
So we all follow what we believe that we personally know thus far, even if that happens to be how little we actually seem to know, and even less so as time goes on.
Doubt isn’t a belief. Doubt is a method of investigating similar to bare attention, in that it tries to eliminate preconceptions and look directly at what we ourselves can know, nothing 2nd hand. You don’t hold on to doubt like a point of faith. It is more a tool, like a filter to remove impurities.
Buddhism obviously isn’t one thing that is easily defined, as in one size fits all. It isn’t Sutra-ism either. Obviously Buddha did it without the sutras. ; ^ )
Lastly, we have no idea what someone else believes outside of the tiny sound bites that appear on this forum. I believe we are all quite serious in our quest and know far more, every single one of us, than may appear to be the case.
Where have I done this? With regards to textual accuracy? Or dependnet origination? Or doubt (I guess for this you will say the real issue of the KS is that latter hald not the forumer?)
I dont think I have, but I may be wrong.
I certainly havent on purpose:)
Well, no one in this thread has argued that the suttas in any way represent the absolute, untouched word of Shakyamuni Buddha. Yet you continue to argue this point... that no one made. The only reason people are linking/quoting the suttas is because you yourself opened up a discussion citing the Kalama Sutta as corroborative evidence of your hypothesis that the Buddha advocated doubting everything. No one in this thread is asking you to take the suttas they present on faith, without question. They are merely presented in the same manner in which you presented the Kalama Sutta - as a vehicle through which a point can be made in respect to Buddhism.
That said, Buddhism is a practice. Neither I nor anyone else here have that practice down pat. I will try and reconsider all you've said in thsi thread to see if there is something I have missed or I could learn from. Best of luck to you.
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 January 2010
Buddhism isn't necessarily about beliefs, but about Faith - Confidence - in the things you learn and understand.
I don't 'believe' everything about Buddhism's different traditions, but i don't doubt that for some, they are the deep core-essence of their practice. Therefore, I don't doubt them. I question them, and leave them aside as not for me....
The Buddha didn't "do it without the Sutras". the Buddha created the Sutras. So he did do it with the Sutras. That is how we know what we know, for ourselves, for sure. By reading, learning and inwardly marking the sagacity and wisdom of the Buddha's teachings. Given to us as Sutras/Suttas.
Whilst I accept that much of what was transmitted and later written may be questionable, and designed to make us think, I go at it from a point of openness and acceptance, and only after examination take it up as worthy, or lay it aside as not for me.....
Well, no one in this thread has argued that the suttas in any way represent the absolute, untouched word of Shakyamuni Buddha. Yet you continue to argue this point... that no one made.
So you all here agree that all is up for doubt like me, great!:) Now we are being rational!
M: Peace is a skill that’s often hard to practice.
S9: Like anything, it’s all in the wrist. ; ^ )
For instance, make up your mind not to be reactive. This calls for putting some distance between yourself and the ever-changing circumstances.
I remember when I was a little kid, my grandmother used to say, “Take a breath and count to 10.” Little things like that actually work.
Also, putting some of what we know into practice is a good idea. For instance, if the ego self (AKA the no-self) isn’t really us, why do we protect every thought/concept that it has, and holds dear, to the last drop of blood?
M: What’s important is the path and practice.
S9: Yes, indeed. Our only real hope is persistence.
M: I don't think in any of the debates here I have seen anyone contesting Magga.
S9: I Googled the word Magga to see if there was one definitive meaning for the word. It seemed to be all over the place, except that it did seem to keep saying “a path to cessation.” Is that your meaning?
Also, putting some of we know into practice is a good idea. For instance, if the ego self (AKA the no-self) isn’t really us, why do we protect every thought/concept that it has, and holds dear, to the last drop of blood?
Because its a hugly seductive illusion that we must always stive to refute in our moments:)
S9: I Googled the word Magga to see if there was one definitive meaning for the word. It seemed to be all over the place, except that it did seem to keep saying “a path to cessation.” Is that your meaning?
Yes, The Fourth Noble Truth, The Noble Eightfold Path:)
F: Buddhism isn't necessarily about beliefs, but about Faith - Confidence - in the things you learn and understand.
S9: That is a good point. Belief is in things not seen. Faith is a confidence in things we ourselves have witnessed. However, even these must be held loosely in order for us to continue to see the very same thing more deeply over time.
F: I don't 'believe' everything about Buddhism's different traditions, but i don't doubt that for some, they are the deep core-essence of their practice. Therefore, I don't doubt them. I question them, and leave them aside as not for me....
S9: But you do “doubt” them with a little “d,” as in not useful to you. Even though you have not gone so far as to condemn them to hell. ; ^ ) Are you open minded about voodoo?
F: The Buddha didn't "do it without the Sutras". The Buddha created the Sutras.
S9: Perhaps, but he had to invent the wheel, whereas we do not need to reinvent it. Which shows the knowledge is out here, outside of the scriptures.
F: So he did do it with the Sutras.
S9: NO, he did it with the original wisdom that got written down in the sutras for our convenience. Let us remember that Buddha told us to find this in ourselves, not in some pages.
I am a great lover of words. So I am far from being a purist like some I have met, who believe that words are the enemy. But, I also believe that words are just the finger pointing at were we ourselves must look. (Very Zen)
Comments
It seems to me that it would matter what you doubted, in order to judge whether doubting were a bad thing.
For instance, if you were doubting some negative thoughts than you could be released from them and their unhappiness.
Or, what if you doubted that you were these thoughts, at/all, thereby cutting off identity with them all together? It seems like this would be an even better thing.
In this way, doubt could become a useful tool, don’t you think?
Peace,
S9
There are many good reasons to live in a monastery. But if you believe by hiding out in a monastery that you will avoid craving, than you are only kidding yourself. What you may gain is a kind of ‘pseudo liberation,’ (a trap which some warn against, called ‘quietism), which falls to pieces the second you are faced with the real world once again.
I believe that our problems reside in our mind, not in the world that merely points them out.
Peace is a skill,
S9
Something I ran into while reading today, that you might find interesting too:
The ‘Great Doubt’ of the Zen practitioners was likened to the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ of St John of the Cross.
They said both of these, rather than just being doubt as we commonly think of it, were a place often reached through practice where you finally realized that you didn’t know anything. ‘The Don’t Know Mind.” This was a subjective event that often took place just before dying to small self, once and for all, and totally 100% Waking Up.
Sounds like doubt could be fertile ground.
With respect,
S9
Why is it people assume one is an ignoramus on a subject when one has different views to them? It seems especially common here:)
For the record, I studied western Philosophy to Phd level and have pretty much dedicated my life to the study and practice of dharma for the last near decade. These are not idle fancies I am presenting but the culmination of two decades of my life and thought:)
I do not believe in the accuracy of the suttras. I believe they have been distorted from the Buddha's original teaching, there is much evidence for this, both textual, historical, philosophical and empirical.(See salted.net for the start of my views on this, If you like.)
I think it is very clear what the first principles are and I think they apply to all consistent possible worlds at every level.
They are Annica, Anataman, Dukka, variously realised at all levels of abstraction, from the simplest toy universe to these rich human lives of ours.
>>>When you study the sutras to see what the Buddha's philosophy was, you see he held to common sense notions of ethics and cause and effect.
Common sense to us,when we strip away the esoteric, I agree. But let us not belittle what a momentous development the Buddhas's causal, moral, mental system was. It was ground-breaking and to this day it remains continually enforced by modern science and reason.
>>>He wasn't especially an exclusive rationalist or a skeptic.
I think he was. I remain to be shown otherwise. Incidentally the KS isnt the only place doubt is discussed and proposed in the suttras:)
>>>And on top of that there are descriptions of clairvoyant powers arising from meditation: seeing objects at a distance, flying through the air, remembering past lives and seeing where others are reborn.
I think they, like much of the immenseitude of the Pali Cannon, are later embellishments. I consider them preposterous and though I respect those who wish to believe in them I have no ground with such doctrine. They are absurd.
I am only interested in the Buddha who was a normal man at birth, died a normal, enlightened man, and taught that which consistently is entailed by the Three Marks.
Anything else, is with the fairies and the bible, to me:)
Peace:)
Mat
Let me just say that I, too, like the Three Marks: (1) anicca/impermanence, (2) dukkha/suffering, and (3) anatta/no-self, perhaps for my own reasons. I like them because they are obvious to the naked eye, and do not call for faith beyond what I can see for myself.
When we get beyond what can personally be verified, the fertile human imagination starts throwing too many things into the stew, and confusion reins.
I also think that if we were to follow out to the end, where these three guides led us, they alone, with nothing else added, could bring us all the way to rediscovering Nirvana,
Please forgive us for coming off like we are sooo right, and consequently like everyone else must be wrong.
: ^ (
I think that this arrogance on our part, must be one of the hazards of being human, and also of identifying too closely with our own egos. ; ^ )
"Human, all 2 human."
I, for one, am enjoying some of the points that you are making.
Peace is a skill,
S9
Hi S9
Thanks for the comments, peace is a skill thats often hard to practice:)
As I have "always" said, and believe strongly, ultimately it doenst matter if "down at the bottom" there is quantum flux or god's ideas or something else, whats important is the path and practice.
I don't think in any of the debates here I have seen anyone contesting Magga, we can all agree on that most wonderful of gifts. The rest is either rational philosophy (Which interests me deeply) or faith-based mysticstsim, two entirely different "magesteriums".
Peace:)
Mat
I was interested in why you follow buddhism? It seems (and I may be wrong) that, although you say you "doubt" everything, you have already made up your mind. Now I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but my only reference is what you have posted and it seems to me clear what you believe and what you don't believe. This is not doubt, this is clear affirmation.
What you seem to follow is your own beliefs, your own ideas, so why call it Buddhism? (eg you said you don't have faith in the suttas)
Also, (please don't be offended) what I get from your posts is they give the impression that you are right and everyone is wrong (although you haven't said that). Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just some practical critisism
Please take this as practical critisism.
Nios.
You are wrong in what you say here:) I do not dount the three marks, the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path:)
I cannot doubt them, they are self evident and demonstrable and expericiencable.
The same is not true of rebirth, majic karma etc or indeed the suttras themselves:)
>>>What you seem to follow is your own beliefs, your own ideas, so why call it Buddhism? (eg you said you don't have faith in the suttas)
I am a Buddhist I follow Dharma. That is simple:)
>>>Also, (please don't be offended) what I get from your posts is they give the impression that you are right and everyone is wrong (although you haven't said that).
If they are certain in the suttras as authentic orthodoxy then they are wrong. That is simple. We cannot be ccertain of any aspect of the suttras. That's like being certain in the accuracy Greek myths. Do you not see that?
Equally, I do not know what is right opr what the Buddha really taught!
I am trying to find out, as all Buddhists should. To start where the buddha started but with his huge head start: annica, antaman, dukkha. He has shown the way, we cannot only test that way and explore it and travel down it.
Thanks:)
Mat
Thanks for the reply Mat.
You also admitted that you are correct in your views. This gives the impression that everyone else is wrong. Do you not see that? (Do you believe that?) But it doesn't make sense when you say this and then say that you are "trying to find out". If you are right already, what is there to explore?
All these things that everyone is talking about (rebirth/karma etc)< I don't know the answer. I simply don't know. So I am also trying to find out. But I won't flat out reject anything and call it "magic" simply because it doesn't fit with my current understanding of the world, not matter how good I believe my understanding to be. The more I learn about the world, the less I realise I know!
Either way, I wish you well in your practice. :uphand:
Where have I done this? With regards to textual accuracy? Or dependnet origination? Or doubt (I guess for this you will say the real issue of the KS is that latter hald not the forumer?)
I dont think I have, but I may be wrong.
I certainly havent on purpose:)
My views are perfectly set in stone regarding the consientcy and causality of the three marks of existence, you are correct:) I would hope they are for all Buddhists:)
Be well
I think that everyone follows their own beliefs. The reason that we are Buddhists is because Buddha had the good sense to believe, or to say, some of the things that we happen to agree with. ; ^ ) The things we except as being possible although we do not yet witness them our selves, rest on a firm foundation of what we have witnessed to be correct in Buddha’s words.
So we all follow what we believe that we personally know thus far, even if that happens to be how little we actually seem to know, and even less so as time goes on.
Doubt isn’t a belief. Doubt is a method of investigating similar to bare attention, in that it tries to eliminate preconceptions and look directly at what we ourselves can know, nothing 2nd hand. You don’t hold on to doubt like a point of faith. It is more a tool, like a filter to remove impurities.
Buddhism obviously isn’t one thing that is easily defined, as in one size fits all. It isn’t Sutra-ism either. Obviously Buddha did it without the sutras. ; ^ )
Lastly, we have no idea what someone else believes outside of the tiny sound bites that appear on this forum. I believe we are all quite serious in our quest and know far more, every single one of us, than may appear to be the case.
Peace,
S9
That said, Buddhism is a practice. Neither I nor anyone else here have that practice down pat. I will try and reconsider all you've said in thsi thread to see if there is something I have missed or I could learn from. Best of luck to you.
I don't 'believe' everything about Buddhism's different traditions, but i don't doubt that for some, they are the deep core-essence of their practice. Therefore, I don't doubt them. I question them, and leave them aside as not for me....
The Buddha didn't "do it without the Sutras". the Buddha created the Sutras. So he did do it with the Sutras. That is how we know what we know, for ourselves, for sure. By reading, learning and inwardly marking the sagacity and wisdom of the Buddha's teachings. Given to us as Sutras/Suttas.
Whilst I accept that much of what was transmitted and later written may be questionable, and designed to make us think, I go at it from a point of openness and acceptance, and only after examination take it up as worthy, or lay it aside as not for me.....
So you all here agree that all is up for doubt like me, great!:) Now we are being rational!
Be well
Mat
M: Peace is a skill that’s often hard to practice.
S9: Like anything, it’s all in the wrist. ; ^ )
For instance, make up your mind not to be reactive. This calls for putting some distance between yourself and the ever-changing circumstances.
I remember when I was a little kid, my grandmother used to say, “Take a breath and count to 10.” Little things like that actually work.
Also, putting some of what we know into practice is a good idea. For instance, if the ego self (AKA the no-self) isn’t really us, why do we protect every thought/concept that it has, and holds dear, to the last drop of blood?
M: What’s important is the path and practice.
S9: Yes, indeed. Our only real hope is persistence.
M: I don't think in any of the debates here I have seen anyone contesting Magga.
S9: I Googled the word Magga to see if there was one definitive meaning for the word. It seemed to be all over the place, except that it did seem to keep saying “a path to cessation.” Is that your meaning?
Peace,
S9
Because its a hugly seductive illusion that we must always stive to refute in our moments:)
S9: I Googled the word Magga to see if there was one definitive meaning for the word. It seemed to be all over the place, except that it did seem to keep saying “a path to cessation.” Is that your meaning?
Yes, The Fourth Noble Truth, The Noble Eightfold Path:)
Salome!
Mat
thats debatable.
but some, sure, and they are the ones I want to talk with if they want to talk with me:)
@Fede - right on sista! :uphand:
@Mat - we are encouraged to question yes. No one here has said otherwise
F: Buddhism isn't necessarily about beliefs, but about Faith - Confidence - in the things you learn and understand.
S9: That is a good point. Belief is in things not seen. Faith is a confidence in things we ourselves have witnessed. However, even these must be held loosely in order for us to continue to see the very same thing more deeply over time.
F: I don't 'believe' everything about Buddhism's different traditions, but i don't doubt that for some, they are the deep core-essence of their practice. Therefore, I don't doubt them. I question them, and leave them aside as not for me....
S9: But you do “doubt” them with a little “d,” as in not useful to you. Even though you have not gone so far as to condemn them to hell. ; ^ ) Are you open minded about voodoo?
F: The Buddha didn't "do it without the Sutras". The Buddha created the Sutras.
S9: Perhaps, but he had to invent the wheel, whereas we do not need to reinvent it. Which shows the knowledge is out here, outside of the scriptures.
F: So he did do it with the Sutras.
S9: NO, he did it with the original wisdom that got written down in the sutras for our convenience. Let us remember that Buddha told us to find this in ourselves, not in some pages.
I am a great lover of words. So I am far from being a purist like some I have met, who believe that words are the enemy. But, I also believe that words are just the finger pointing at were we ourselves must look. (Very Zen)
Respectfully,
S9