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.
Was the Buddha a Mysic
I don't know the answer to this question but I do have some questions that may help answer it.
Here are some questions about Dharma and Mysticism:
I answer yes to the above, hows about you?
Mat
Here are some questions about Dharma and Mysticism:
- At the time of the Buddha was self-mortification practised by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were animal-sacrifices practise by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were narcotics practised by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were there more mystical practices than the three stated above?
- Is Hinduism generally considered to be the world's most mystical religion?
- Was Hinduism the dominant religion for millenia before and after the time of The Buddha?
- Are there cases where other religions have undergone "accidental" doctrinal modification?
- Are there cases where other religions have had their doctrinal modified for specific religious, cultural or political reasons?
- Should we expect Hindu concepts to be found in other culturally connected religions?
- Are the suttras copies of copies of doctrine first written down hundreds of years and over a thousand miles from the time and region of the Buddha?
- Are the suttras written down in a language that the Buddha did not speak?
- Are there over ten thousand suttras in the Pali Cannon alone?
- Are there internal contradictions in the Pali Cannon?
- Are there profound contradictions between the various schools of Buddhism?
- Should we expect there to be errors, alterations and additions to the suttras?
- Is it possible that a translation/transcription mistake or some other reason has replaced "mysticism" with "self-mortification" in the texts of the suttras?
- Did the Buddha say he had nothing hidden away?
- Did the Buddha say that even his own words should be doubted?
- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of miracles?
- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of Devas?
- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of literal rebirth?
- Is it the concept of craving essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of ignorance essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of karma essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of annica essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of anataman essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of dukka essential to Buddhism?
- Is it possible to practice and understand Buddhism without the mystical?
- Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of imperminance?
- Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of "No soul"?
- Does rebirth seem not to fit within in The Four Noble Truths?
- Can there be Right View without rebirth?
- Does rebirth seem to be a variant of Heaven, Hades, Valhalla....?
- Does rebirth seem to make Buddhism more about the quality of some future life rather than this life?
- At an existential level do people generally want for there to be more to this life than it being just this life?
- If there is no more to this life than this, then is such a want for more a delusion?
- Is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice to extinguish delusion?
- Could Dharma have been nonmystical and become mystical after the time of The Buddha?
- Could the middle path have originally been a path between mysticism and nihilism rather than self-mortification and nihilism?
- Could the Buddha have been teaching that the very notion of rebirth is the first thing that must be escaped from, on the path to enlightenment?
I answer yes to the above, hows about you?
Mat
0
Comments
Later....
Buddhism virtually disappeared from the Gangetic plain and in its place Hinduism and other religions like Jainism flourish.
Man, the calf's nipple really made you think about this. Or was it the power of my sorcery? *evil wizard laughter*
Anyways I have never given this much thought until the other thread made me go over a book about tibetan rituals. It is entirely possible that Buddhism mixed with Mysticism in Tibet; Mixed with Taoism in China; and it's mixing with rationalism on the West because that is the way we can absorb it.
What you are asking is something someone could write a book about. It's not so simple so I don't even know how to answer.
- At the time of the Buddha was self-mortification practised by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were animal-sacrifices practise by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were narcotics practised by mystics?
- At the time of the Buddha were there more mystical practices than the three stated above?
yes if the shramana movement was mystical. remember that your concept of mystic is relevant to your own experiences. you have never met a shramana from 500 BC.- Is Hinduism generally considered to be the world's most mystical religion?
No that would be scientology- Was Hinduism the dominant religion for millenia before and after the time of The Buddha?
yes- Are there cases where other religions have undergone "accidental" doctrinal modification?
accidental? like when a canon is set down that is accidental?- Are there cases where other religions have had their doctrinal modified for specific religious, cultural or political reasons?
yes- Should we expect Hindu concepts to be found in other culturally connected religions?
yes- Are the suttras copies of copies of doctrine first written down hundreds of years and over a thousand miles from the time and region of the Buddha?
yes- Are the suttras written down in a language that the Buddha did not speak?
?- Are there over ten thousand suttras in the Pali Cannon alone?
?- Are there internal contradictions in the Pali Cannon?
There is no problem with internal contradictions unless you have your own views on attachment. Some contradictions are things like 'drive left to avoid the side of the road' 'drive right to avoid oncoming traffic' When the tires meet the pavement there is no problem with contradictions because the teachings are not absolute truth. The only absolute truth in buddhism is that things which appear to be absolute truth are really changing relationships.- Are there profound contradictions between the various schools of Buddhism?
same. are there differences between the buffalo bills and the new york jets system of playing football?- Should we expect there to be errors, alterations and additions to the suttras?
the dharma isn't like the bible. you can add and subtract without invoking anyones wrath- Is it possible that a translation/transcription mistake or some other reason has replaced "mysticism" with "self-mortification" in the texts of the suttras?
Again I think your pasting your own experiences in 21st century with 'mysticism' onto scripture.- Did the Buddha say he had nothing hidden away?
Buddha is a buddha. But there are also Prateyaka buddhas who do teach secretly. Some of the dharma is for them and by them. Some of the dharma is written by bodhisatvas rather than buddhas. (Just my guess)- Did the Buddha say that even his own words should be doubted?
yes- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of miracles?
yes- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of Devas?
yes- Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of literal rebirth?
yes- Is it the concept of craving essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of ignorance essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of karma essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of annica essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of anataman essential to Buddhism?
- Is it the concept of dukka essential to Buddhism?
buddhism is just skillful means to relieve suffering. 'moderation' is a limited example of skillful means. buddhas system is just very powerful skillful means. strictly speaking all thats needed is to observe your experience.Those ideas (craving ignorance karma annica anataman dukka) all point back to reality. That is where the tires meet the road.
- Is it possible to practice and understand Buddhism without the mystical?
yes- Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of imperminance?
I don't think you understand rebirth. Maybe someone could teach you? Not me I don't care about rebirth either way.- Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of "No soul"?
same- Does rebirth seem not to fit within in The Four Noble Truths?
same- Can there be Right View without rebirth?
same- Does rebirth seem to be a variant of Heaven, Hades, Valhalla....?
no... in buddhism heaven just means that you have a problem. Pride. hades means you have a problem. Anger. Valhalla means you have a problem. Jealousy.- Does rebirth seem to make Buddhism more about the quality of some future life rather than this life?
No you might be reborn a mollusk so better make hay while the sun shines.- At an existential level do people generally want for there to be more to this life than it being just this life?
That can be viewed at a mundane rather than existential level. It has to do with expectations. If I take a trip to Italy I will be dissapointed if I have intestinal flu the entire time.- If there is no more to this life than this, then is such a want for more a delusion?
who would want delusion? I think the fact that people want SOMETHING is more interesting that WHAT they think they want. The want of something is non-mystical. It is apparent. That is what is interesting. The ideation of what they want is the mystical. They might want to find a turtle with a moustache. But the actual WANT is real as anything.- Is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice to extinguish delusion?
dismiss delusion and dispell klesha (stain)- Could Dharma have been nonmystical and become mystical after the time of The Buddha?
All the things you listed as the definition of mystical are not practiced in buddhism.- Could the middle path have originally been a path between mysticism and nihilism rather than self-mortification and nihilism?
Or eternalism and nihilism- Could the Buddha have been teaching that the very notion of rebirth is the first thing that must be escaped from, on the path to enlightenment?
First understand rebirth. Second see if you think it is true.My (unfounded and baseless) theory is that Buddah was just a sharp guy-- but not any sharper than some people living on Earth today or at any other time. There are always people who see better than others how to live in this world to make one's life more peaceful and meaningful. Buddah happened to be in the right place at the right time so that a large number of people gathered around him and created a religion. Over millenia of story-telling he's probably turned into a sort of a myth that has little resemblance with the guy himself. He was deified the way we deify celebrities today or politicians were deified a few centuries ago.
...Somehow historical Buddah doesn't concern me that much. I know that in the vast and diverse body of thinking and practices referred to as "Buddhism" there's a great deal of stuff that makes sense to me and works for me. If one day I find out somehow that in fact the said stuff didn't come from Buddah but was invented by Buddhists much later on, it won't matter in any practical sense. "Buddah" and "Buddhism" are nothing but words. And we all know what Zen tells one to do if we see the Buddah
The Buddha taught for over forty five years. He created a monastic sangha to maintain his teaching and carry out his mission. It took somewhere between sixty and one hundred years for a split to occur in the sangha. Well after the original split, the various groups continued to agree on the basic message. Comparison of the texts of various groups shows a great deal of conservatism.
As an example, it's reasonable to suppose that the Buddha was born in Lumbini, or nearby. But Matthew's claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is very much open to doubt.
The main obstacle to knowing the Buddha's biography is the sketchiness of info. While the gospels were written to record what Jesus did, the Nikayas and Agamas were intended to record what the Buddha taught.
I have spent the best part of a decade trying to understand it.
There is nothing to undertstand.
It is bunkum and delusion, not dharma.
The buddha saw this and taught this.
I am as sure of this as anyone can be of the contrary.
Rebirth is not a dharmic concept.
It is later pollution.
Purify.
The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions gives a similar, but less succinct definition. If you are using a different definition of mysticism, it would probably help if you posted it so we know what you're talking about.
Believing in magic.
I dont need to, you need to answer the questions all on your own.
Be your own light.
Don't be deluded.
No No ren, mysticism is magic. Ask a yogi;)
Its also not dharma... think about the questions and you will see, if you can see things as they are, that is.
If you mean oracles, rituals and spirits I don't think you will find a passage that is completely opposite or completely in favor. Maybe you are expecting to find all the answers you are looking for in the Buddha's words, when he himself didn't answer them all.
Let go of that calf MatSalted, let go of it. ehehehe
The above refers to the teaching of rebirth. Give us some evidence that the Buddha taught that rebirth is bunkum and delusion.
Nope:) I dont need to, I cant show you the delusion, you need to see it for yourself. i think its very easy to see.
Start by thinking more on my questions.
I wish you luck with Right View.
And why would a yogi even care what the definition of mysticism is?
no I mean anomalous phenomenon, like rebirth and Santa delivering all the pressies in one night:)
As said, stop asking me more little distracting questions about the trivial of the matter and look into yourself for answers.
That is your view, not the Buddha's view.
This is what we debate, I say it was the Buddha's view and you are wrong, you say it wasnt and I am wrong.
I am fine with that, all I ask is that you think with a clear head about it, rather than your thoughts pretainted:)
Did you read and think about my questions? If you did tell me which ones you answer no to (I am not interested in your constant petty quibbles) and we can discuss those like adults.
If you agree with them all then are in the same place as me.
Ren, the questions, are you mainly "yes" or "no "?
Here they are again
At the time of the Buddha was self-mortification practised by mystics?
At the time of the Buddha were animal-sacrifices practise by mystics?
At the time of the Buddha were narcotics practised by mystics?
At the time of the Buddha were there more mystical practices than the three stated above?
Is Hinduism generally considered to be the world's most mystical religion?
Was Hinduism the dominant religion for millenia before and after the time of The Buddha?
Are there cases where other religions have undergone "accidental" doctrinal modification?
Are there cases where other religions have had their doctrinal modified for specific religious, cultural or political reasons?
Should we expect Hindu concepts to be found in other culturally connected religions?
Are the suttras copies of copies of doctrine first written down hundreds of years and over a thousand miles from the time and region of the Buddha?
Are the suttras written down in a language that the Buddha did not speak?
Are there over ten thousand suttras in the Pali Cannon alone?
Are there internal contradictions in the Pali Cannon?
Are there profound contradictions between the various schools of Buddhism?
Should we expect there to be errors, alterations and additions to the suttras?
Is it possible that a translation/transcription mistake or some other reason has replaced "mysticism" with "self-mortification" in the texts of the suttras?
Did the Buddha say he had nothing hidden away?
Did the Buddha say that even his own words should be doubted?
Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of miracles?
Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of Devas?
Is it possible to understand and practice Buddhism without the concept of literal rebirth?
Is it the concept of craving essential to Buddhism?
Is it the concept of ignorance essential to Buddhism?
Is it the concept of karma essential to Buddhism?
Is it the concept of annica essential to Buddhism?
Is it the concept of anataman essential to Buddhism?
Is it the concept of dukka essential to Buddhism?
Is it possible to practice and understand Buddhism without the mystical?
Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of imperminance?
Does rebirth seem to contradict the Buddhist doctrine of "No soul"?
Does rebirth seem not to fit within in The Four Noble Truths?
Can there be Right View without rebirth?
Does rebirth seem to be a variant of Heaven, Hades, Valhalla....?
Does rebirth seem to make Buddhism more about the quality of some future life rather than this life?
At an existential level do people generally want for there to be more to this life than it being just this life?
If there is no more to this life than this, then is such a want for more a delusion?
Is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice to extinguish delusion?
Could Dharma have been nonmystical and become mystical after the time of The Buddha?
Could the middle path have originally been a path between mysticism and nihilism rather than self-mortification and nihilism?
Could the Buddha have been teaching that the very notion of rebirth is the first thing that must be escaped from, on the path to enlightenment?
Dude, there's nothing to think about. The Pali Canon teaches rebirth. Did the Buddha teach it? Archeological evidence points to that.
It is not a question of whether or not rebirth makes sense. It is a question of whether or not the Buddha taught it. These are two different things. In the first case yes you can use your reason. In the second you can't.
Let's say you wanna know what I said in my very first post. Would reason do you any good? No. You would just need to read my post. If you wanted to argue whether or not my first post made sense than you could reason with it, but that is a different story.
The mind is a magical place. Ask Jung and Freud. When reduced to only measurements with no ideation interpreting or pointing to the eperiential reality psychology is dry as a bone. Just observations. Yet you DO have to see through your own ideation about the mind and use it rather than just be caught up in the spell.
It is essentially seeing through your spells such as in meditation the anger dance. The lust dance. The regret dance. The indignation dance. Not be swept away by such voices.
When with your thoughts you are secure and stable and calm then your thinking is clearer and less distorted. Then you can actually use your mind..
Personally some of this might be a bit off because I am working on the first part which is to see thinking as thinking. But its very powerful.
I find that the possibiolity that a central tenet of Buddhism is Wrong View is much to think about, if you don't fine, but we should not tell people what to think.
Once again, this has nothing to do with what you believe or with what I believe. It has to do with your assertion that the Buddha taught that rebirth is bunkum, and whether you have any evidence to support that.
Yes I have evidence that I consider irrefutable.
It is this
Rebirth is bunkum
Dharma is truth.
The Budha taught Truth not Bunkum.
If you have a black vase in front of you it is pointless to argue that it should be white. It will continue to be black.
If Buddhism comes with rebirth it is pointless to argue that it shouldn't. It will continue to teach rebirth.
You are free to dislike the vase, you are free to say this vase would be perfect if it wasn't for its color, but this won't change the color of the vase.
You are free to dislike Buddhism, you are free to say it would be perfect if it wasn't for rebirth, but it won't change the fact that Buddhism teaches rebirth.
I don't know how to make this any clearer :-\
That doesn't make it Right View:)
I love Buddhism I just think Rebirth is a later addition.
Rebirth is not a Dharmic term.
Why would anyone believe in Rebirth unless they were indoctrinated?
Rebirth is bunkum
The Buddha didn't teach bunkum.
I think we agree what bunkum is. I think you need to define rebirth so that we know exactly what it is that you're claiming the Buddha didn't teach.
LOL.your funny. You're like an AI bot programmed to distract. How about you answer my questions?
what scares you about answering them?
I guess we both know the answer to that.
Liberate!;)
This is just about as much like the pot calling the kettle black, as anything could be.
Back up your statements (The Buddha never taught rebirth) with proof, actual circumstantial evidence and de facto links and then, you can tell people to 'think for themselves and find their own answers'...
But unless you are prepared to back up your statements with something more concrete than "this is how it is because I sed so", quit giving us windmills to fight...
You wriggle out of discussion by claiming you don't need to back up your statements.
well I have news for you bud...
Yes, you do.
You DO have to back them up. Otherwise, this is all just more hot air, and a waste of time.
Again.
I will Fed, when you have had a go at answering my questions.
Waits....
Let me put it more directly:
Answer other people's requests to come up with hard factual written evidence, when they request it, or lose the thread.
Which would you prefer?
I'm a Moderator, Mat. I don't play games.
LOL. Kill the thread Fed. That says it all.
You would rather I closed your thread, than give you the opportunity to make the effort, and enter into sound, logical and factually-backed discussion?
Is that what you're telling me?
You may have said elsewhere what you mean by rebirth, but my memory isn't perfect. As the word "mysticism" has demonstrated, what you mean by a word and what I mean by a word isn't necessarily the same. So please define rebirth.
There it is.
Whichever thread, whatever the subject, you'll have to 'define' and 'back it up'.
Not only in this one, in any one you choose to start.
Closing the thread will not take that requirement away.
Remember this:
We back up what we think, believe or have investigated for ourselves and found to be true.
we have the Suttas/sutras.
Now - your choice is to accept that or reject it.
And if you choose to reject that, then that's your problem.
We at least have backed our comments and statements with teachings and clarifications.
You simply need to do the same.
(Sorry Ren, carry on.)
We have plenty of people on here who through some instance or another have some kind of mental condition or disorder.
Can't permit that fall-back on the excuse to distract me from what is required.
Being understanding is one thing, making allowances is another.
Letting people get away with this kind of continued diatribe, is not on the agenda.
And frankly, if we want to consider any disorder as an issue, it doesn't help anyone to let them get away with taking liberties. I'd say it's counter-productive to treat them any differently.....
I try to remember that I'm practicing vipashyana and meitri. Screwing up just shows how much I need the practice.
As far as the interaction between Matt and I, I don't think I'm making excuses so much as I'm recognizing _one_ of the factors in the interaction. Obviously Matt is a complete human being interacting with another human being and there's more than one factor.
ADHD has nothing to do with it. Skeptism does.
You can call me a Troll, in the olden days you would have called me a heretic.
There is a fascistic attitude here as soon as anyone questions the masculine orthodox indoctrination.
I would like to discuss the idea that the Buddha taught that the mystical is delusion. It is an idea I become ever more sure of. This is my path of Dharma yet it has so little respect here.
These questions are undogmatic yet, see the scare they entail.
The burden is on you to show me why rebirth makes any sense at all, with or without Dharma.
You cant do that, because it doesn't.
Acthung!
Mat