Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
..I'm back..again
My questions are never ending...I know..I'm sorry. (Not sure If you need to ask Buddhists to forgive you)
Anyhow, I read on a diffrent site, someone had stated that the religion contridicted itself...below is her explantion as to why... And I must admit I understand her point...Could someone clarify it what she is saying is wrong.
After is also some basic questions as well.
My opinion has reasons.Correct me if I am wrong.
The teaching/philosophy of Buddhism is contradicting.
The Four Noble Truth and the Eight Fold Path.
First – There is suffering and misery in life .
Second – The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.
Third – Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.
Fourth – Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.
The Fourth Noble Path says the only way to remove DESIRE you need to follow the Eight Fold Path. Some people say you need to be more understanding to remove the desire but that's not what the Fourth Noble Path says. If you don't follow what Four Noble Path says then you are not following Buddha.
So its a must for you to follow Eight Fold Path in order to remove Desire. But you need DESIRE in order to follow Eight Fold Path.
And that's contradicting.
Basically I'm being told in order to not cry(DESIRE) I have to follow you(Eight Fold Path).
But in order to follow you(Eight Fold Path) I have to cry(DESIRE). So I in order for me to stop crying(DESIRE) I have to always cry(DESIRE) to follow you(Eight Fold Path). So I have to always cry(DESIRE) in order for me to not cry(DESIRE).
Basically DESIRE will only be removed by continuously having a DESIRE
and DESIRE causes suffering and misery.
So DESIRE is never removed.
Ok my silly question of the day is this... Do Buddhists Cry? Do they allow themselves to cry? As it is a sign of suffering, I'm sure you get what I'm getting at
Thanks...again
Anyhow, I read on a diffrent site, someone had stated that the religion contridicted itself...below is her explantion as to why... And I must admit I understand her point...Could someone clarify it what she is saying is wrong.
After is also some basic questions as well.
My opinion has reasons.Correct me if I am wrong.
The teaching/philosophy of Buddhism is contradicting.
The Four Noble Truth and the Eight Fold Path.
First – There is suffering and misery in life .
Second – The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.
Third – Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.
Fourth – Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.
The Fourth Noble Path says the only way to remove DESIRE you need to follow the Eight Fold Path. Some people say you need to be more understanding to remove the desire but that's not what the Fourth Noble Path says. If you don't follow what Four Noble Path says then you are not following Buddha.
So its a must for you to follow Eight Fold Path in order to remove Desire. But you need DESIRE in order to follow Eight Fold Path.
And that's contradicting.
Basically I'm being told in order to not cry(DESIRE) I have to follow you(Eight Fold Path).
But in order to follow you(Eight Fold Path) I have to cry(DESIRE). So I in order for me to stop crying(DESIRE) I have to always cry(DESIRE) to follow you(Eight Fold Path). So I have to always cry(DESIRE) in order for me to not cry(DESIRE).
Basically DESIRE will only be removed by continuously having a DESIRE
and DESIRE causes suffering and misery.
So DESIRE is never removed.
Ok my silly question of the day is this... Do Buddhists Cry? Do they allow themselves to cry? As it is a sign of suffering, I'm sure you get what I'm getting at
Thanks...again
0
Comments
Here read this. It is straightforward and will clear up some of the misunderstanding.
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm.
Actually, the second noble truth states that the origination of suffering is the craving (tahna, literally "thirst") that makes for further becoming.
As for the rest, in Buddhist psychology, desire can be skillful (kusala) and unskillful (akusala). In fact, the desire for happiness, especially "long-term welfare and happiness," is an important part of the Buddhist path. Are you familiar with the four bases of power (iddhipada)? The four qualities listed in the bases of power are desire, persistence, intent and discrimination. In Wings to Awakening, Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to this passage:
He goes on to explain that, "This passage shows that the problem lies not in the desire, effort, intent or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task."
If we take a look at the exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15, for example, we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That's because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15:
So while there may be contradictions in Buddhism, I don't think this is one of them.
So eventually we end up smiling and be peaceful when we use to cry.
smiling and be peaceful when we use to to get angry etc...
so we don't get angry or depress or cry much anymore because we now understand how pointless it is to hurt ourselves in order to fight reality, so we react differently to what happen in our lives.
Out of interest, I am aware there is a lot of types of Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, etc etc
After looking on Wiki and looking for info I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Is this a "Type" of Buddhism? Can one be, or call themselves a "Theravada Buddhist"?
If a "school" is a "type", then yes, Theravada is a type of Buddhism. You may want to look at this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
Tears of sorrow might be a good motivation to practice, but they aren't going to do you any good if you make a habit of it. Tears of joy or tears of inspiration, on the other hand, are an important part of practice (in my opinion). It is a sign that you are learning how to open your heart fully to the happiness within. Nothing wrong with crying.
Sherab, Its hard to explain what I mean...
I suppose.... If Theravada, is simply a Buddhist school (Where Buddhists/monk) go to train, what from of Buddhism do they teach there? Zen, Tibetan etc?
Whatever style of Buddhism they are teaching, isn't that surely the correct one, or most true one, as there teachings are the oldest? And what would be the difference between what they teach, and say, what you practice? What they look down on over Buddhists for practicing a more...modern, untrue Buddhism..
Make sence of what im getting at?
You need to recognize that arguments like this a brought forward not to discuss an idea, but to dismiss it. This person just doesn't want to think about Buddhism and uses this argument to keep from having to.
No. This is the typical criticism of Buddhism that is based on pure semantic trickery. One does not need to desire to remove desire. People are capable of doing things without actually desiring to do so. You simply just do it.
Also, even if one did desire to end desiring, that wouldn't pose a problem because once the path is followed, all desire is removed, including the desire to follow the Eightfold Path.
Nope. No contradictions.
.
A tough question to give a brief answer to and I am certainly not the best person to answer such a question so I'll pass the buck. If you want a thorough and detailed answer I would recommend reading "A History of Mindfulness" by Bhante Sujato.
Briefly, Buddhism is allowed to evolve. Basically it's a matter of whatever floats your boat, within the various traditions. I myself practice Mahayana in the Tibetan tradition. My impression of you is that you are a tender soul and that you have a lot to give to other people from that, and you would probably like Mahayana. It's said a lot that the Buddha taught various things to various types of people depending on their capacity to hear and act on what they heard. Mahayana is thought to be a later evolution of Theravada.
I wasn't kidding about the nursing home or hospice as Buddhist practice. For people like you and me that can't sit still, it works very well. I've been doing it for almost 35 years.
When in doubt, do something nice for somebody. Random spontaneous acts of kindness.
lol that was a bit of a Theravadin drive-by.
there are two main divisions of Buddhism. Theravada and mahayana. Zen and Tibetan are "subcategories" of Mahayana. "School" means sect, not a physical place of study. The primary difference between Mahayana and theravada is that the Pali Canon, the oldest texts, are the sole source in Theravada. Mahayana also includes later Mahayana sutras which are rejected in Theravada. I wouldn't worry too much about all the different schools ATM. I would focus on the core teachings which are common to all schools, like dependant origination, the four noble truths, eightfold path, anatta/anicca/dukkha... I would search google for "what budha taught" and exlore that website.
the "truest" teachings are those which you can verify yourself through vipassana, which explain the true origin of dukkha and a path to it's cessation.
I may have driven by, but I didn't shoot. I just drove by. That's all I needed to do. I thought it was pretty diplomatic.
What historical evidence is there to support this?
Around the time that Mahayana began forming in the Northern part of India, Theravada was predominantly practiced in Sri Lanka. The school which Mahayana was most likely an "evolution" of would be the Sarvastivadins who were the main school of Buddhism in the North of India around the turn of the millenium. When Mahayana speaks of Hinayana ("rubbish vehicle") and selfish Arahants it is possible that they were referring to certain monks within the Sarvastivadin school who may or may not have been thought of by some as Arahants (whether or not they actually were).
Bhante Sujato suggests in this thought-provoking talk that the Mahayana concept of the selfish Arahant was not meant to be taken literally to mean that if someone is an Arahant or striving to become an Arahant then they must therefore be selfish (after all, the Buddha was also an Arahant). Instead (according to Sujato) it was perhaps meant as a critique of the Sarvastivadins who were not living in line with (what the Mahayana school considered to be) the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I know you didn't actually make the point of saying that Theravadins are Hinayanists and selfish, etc. I am just saying this because if someone new to Buddhism were to choose Mahayana over Theravada on the basis that someone told them it was the correct choice for "tender souls who have a lot to offer other people" then that choice would be based on a well intended but misinformed notion. Just saying this for the sake of fairness to both traditions.
Whatever choice the OP makes...whether he decides to remain as a Christian, or convert to Mahayana or Theravada or even forget the whole religious thing altogether and become an Atheist...my hope is that they are as fairly and correctly informed as possible.
The quest for truth is much more important, in my opinion, than being told what you have to believe and not being allowed to question it. So please keep asking questions mikaakim, we might not always have the correct or best answers but we try our best.
I grant your point about lack of historical evidence for Mahayana having "evolved" from Theravada. I'll just say that it arose separately. It is whatever it is. Some people practice Mahayana, and it floats their boat.
Also as a general principle to live by this is a great piece of advice whatever religion or lack thereof.
So Theravada is a school of Buddhism. And what I understand you could regard yourself a Buddhist who follows Theravada.
Now I'm curious...Why doesn't everyone follow this school/type?? It is stated that it the oldest form of Buddhism, and I quote
"which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings"
So if this is true, why wouldnt you follow theravada? Because by doing so wouldn't you be giving yourself the best chance of enlightenment? Not following theravada simply means you are following a form of Buddhism which is not the true teachings of Buddha?
Different types of Buddhism have their own interpretations of the teachings, and what they will and will not allow to be authoritative. For instance, Mahayana claims to be based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, but in what they think is a more expansive way than Theravada. They also allow some writings to be authoritative even if they are not strictly a part of the Pali Canon, which, if I understand it correctly, is all Theravada allows as authoritative.
There are both Mahayanists and Theravadins that post here on the site. The best I can do for the moment is suggest that you Google "Theravada Mahayana differences" and be ready to do some serious reading. It's hard to explain briefly.
I got lucky with the link below. I had never seen it before.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm
So perhaps you would be interested to listen to his story, and find out why he chose theravada.
This is his bio, where you will find this answer, and so much more on top of being highly interesting and entertaining!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YiiLrCS-P8
(in many many parts)
Thank you Sherab. You are a gift to this forum
ps :Also, this is only my opinion and i'm just trolling here but the corrupted ones all seem to follow the Mahayana traditions
(see Korean Buddhism in Korea, luxury, sex, alcohol and rock n roll baby!! lol)
The vast majority of Buddhist books available are written by Tibetan Lamas, monks or nuns.
And that's perfectly fine.
I began to take an interest in Buddhism long ago, (around 20 years ago, more or less....) but only decided which school to adhere to, two years ago. Up until then, I largely took, read, learnt and understood, then accepted what worked or resonated with me.
It was absolutely fine and comfortable.
but I merely decided for myself which specific tradition to follow in 2008, and planted my mast and Took Refuge officially.
However, I still derive great pleasure and much support from some aspects of other traditions.
Which school or tradition did I choose?
Really, it's not important.
Just read what you can from everything, and see what you are drawn to... to begin with, it might be a mix....
That's fine - honestly it is.
At one point or another, something will click definitively with regard to where your personal calling lies.
Its a good idea not put down other traditions as corrupt. Its a small town we live in.
btw i wasn't implying all Korean Buddhists are corrupted, just as i would never imply all catholic priests are perverted pedophiles... just that corruption is wide spread in korean Buddhism in Korea.
Im not putting the whole tradition as corrupt don't worry
I believe there are great teachers on both sides.
i was just playing around, just a playful retaliation for the earlier Theravadin drive-by..
But it was I who supposedly did the Theravadin drive-by. You notice I avoided that one completely today.
Not quite. This is where pattica sampadda comes in. You should investigate this, its kinda hard.
Actually there is nothing exclusive inherent in The Noble Eightfold path, there might be other paths that work. I don't know of any that demonstrably and rationally/spiritually work better.
Also be aware it isn't just "desire", its deeper and more subtle than that, this thing called "tanha". Desire is a type of Tanha, but there are other types too. Such as existential compulshions.
Hey, the hard cold seldom celebrated fact of Buddhism is that we just dont know. So all these "theys" should be doubted and the idea that there is any definitive truth of buddhism is nonsense.
Doubt everything!
You can solve this puzzle by thinking in terms of Buddhism as not being about some magical total removal of the possibility of desire and suffering.
Desire causes suffering.
Reduce desire reduce suffering.
Ignorance causes desire.
Reduce ignorance reduce desire.
Maybe not totally. I doubt that in his 50 years as Buddha the buddha never ever desired a single thing.
The dream of total annihilation of desire later in life is extream view, in my view.
The dream of total annihilation of desire in a future life is wrong view, in my view.
I once asked a Lama this question, he told he he knows he would cry if his loved ones died.
I seem to remember there is a story in the suttras where the Buddha cried when someone got killed by a cow.
a mooving story
namaste
Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bahiya — attacked by a cow with a calf — lost his life. Then the Blessed One, having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from his alms round with a large number of monks, saw that Bahiya had died. On seeing him, he said to the monks, "Take Bahiya's body and, placing it on a litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your companion in the holy life has died."
"As you say, lord," the monks replied. After placing Bahiya's body on a litter, carrying it off, cremating it, and building him a memorial, they went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to him, "Bahiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?"
"Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
Well when you suggest that Mahayana would be better suited to someone solely because they "have a tender soul and... have a lot to give to other people from that," what does that imply about Theravadins? I think it's a bit suspicious and completely misleading to recommend one over the other for such a reason... bang bang.
I've only just seen this thread and that's an interesting comment ! For years I practised Mahayana in the Tibetan tradition.... until I found Theravada made a lot more sense to me! Does that mean I must have nothing to give to others ?
.
OK- To whatever extent it's necessary, I apologize.
My experience with Theravadins has been limited to a small number of monks who seemed kind of aloof and appeared to expect some kind of deference from the people in their congregation.
What I'm saying is that my experience with Theravadins is so limited that I should not have made such a statement. I'm just now really realizing how much I lack up-close-and-personal experience with Theravadins, so I should not even have raised the question in that way.