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.
If it sounds elitist then maybe a teacher would not be a good fit for you right now. Not everyone is alike. Also in your argument the assumption is that tulkus are not truly reincarnating. That it is an elitist lie to puff them up. That could be true but it could be the case that they are truly reincarnating. In that case how can the truth be elitist? That would be like saying that it is elitist for a chef to be on tv. Why does he get to be on tv? I could be on tv. But I don't have the skills and fame of the chef. I can only cook a handful of things so of course I lack the abilities to be on a cooking tv show. Likewise is it elitist that a medical doctor does surgery and earns the money? Why don't I get to do surgery and paid even though I have no training or experience?
I think your example of the chef and the doctor is different because that is something tangible. You can look at either one and say 'i can do that' and then work towards achieving it whereas you cannot look at dalai lama and say 'ok Im going to be that'. You cannot even be reborn as that. Its a special thing and its exclusive of everyone except the chosen few.
My next question is why are buddhists vegetarian? I mean I know that the teachings say not to kill a living being etc but we are part of the food chain which is part of nature. Animals kill other animals to survive and this is accepted as natural so whats so different about humans? We are animals.
I have to say I completely disagree with factory farming methods etc and find it very unnatural that meat is all packaged up nicely so that humans dont have to face the ugly reality of it. However the human body needs certain fats and oils only found in animals particularly fish. Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I think your example of the chef and the doctor is different because that is something tangible. You can look at either one and say 'i can do that' and then work towards achieving it whereas you cannot look at dalai lama and say 'ok Im going to be that'. You cannot even be reborn as that. Its a special thing and its exclusive of everyone except the chosen few.
My next question is why are buddhists vegetarian? I mean I know that the teachings say not to kill a living being etc but we are part of the food chain which is part of nature. Animals kill other animals to survive and this is accepted as natural so whats so different about humans? We are animals.
I have to say I completely disagree with factory farming methods etc and find it very unnatural that meat is all packaged up nicely so that humans dont have to face the ugly reality of it. However the human body needs certain fats and oils only found in animals particularly fish. Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?
one of the most widely held misunderstandings of buddhism is that all buddhists follow the dalai lama. in truth, he is the leader of the gelug sect of tibetan buddhism. i happen to like much of what he has to said, so i've read a few of his books... but i don't exactly worship him, as some may. perhaps, a tibetan buddhist might better elaborate what is involved in the choosing of a lama. i know that they seek out the rebirth and try to determine if you are in fact, the reincarnation of the lama by means of some tests. but i'm not sure if he actually "chooses" his rebirth. i could be mistaken, but i thought that his good karma places him in a favorable rebirth. even the wikipedia page states that he is unsure where his next rebirth might be aside from that it will be whatever will be of the greatest value to the largest number of sentient beings.
but anyways... my question to you, why would you want to be the dalai lama? he does not exist for the power or fame. in my opinion, he exists to help others along the noble path. i can do this too. i can't look at the dalai lama and say "i want to be that" but i can look at the buddha and say "i want to be that". that's what this whole thing is really about anyways.
most buddhists aren't vegetarian, in my experience. the ones that are, myself included, usually do so because they don't want to harm sentient beings. in my case, i don't even want to take part of something (the meat industry) which leads to so much suffering. but the biggest reason for me is actually for health reasons. i don't actually oppose to others eating meat so long as it's free range and a humane kill, but i think being a vegetarian is easier than trying to eat only meat brought up that way haha.
and are you talking about omega 3 fatty acids? i can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. omega 3 has a number of vegetarian sources from kiwis to flax seeds.
"Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?"
one of the most widely held misunderstandings of buddhism is that all buddhists follow the dalai lama. in truth, he is the leader of the gelug sect of tibetan buddhism. i happen to like much of what he has to said, so i've read a few of his books... but i don't exactly worship him, as some may. perhaps, a tibetan buddhist might better elaborate what is involved in the choosing of a lama. i know that they seek out the rebirth and try to determine if you are in fact, the reincarnation of the lama by means of some tests. but i'm not sure if he actually "chooses" his rebirth. i could be mistaken, but i thought that his good karma places him in a favorable rebirth. even the wikipedia page states that he is unsure where his next rebirth might be aside from that it will be whatever will be of the greatest value to the largest number of sentient beings.
but anyways... my question to you, why would you want to be the dalai lama? he does not exist for the power or fame. in my opinion, he exists to help others along the noble path. i can do this too. i can't look at the dalai lama and say "i want to be that" but i can look at the buddha and say "i want to be that". that's what this whole thing is really about anyways.
most buddhists aren't vegetarian, in my experience. the ones that are, myself included, usually do so because they don't want to harm sentient beings. in my case, i don't even want to take part of something (the meat industry) which leads to so much suffering. but the biggest reason for me is actually for health reasons. i don't actually oppose to others eating meat so long as it's free range and a humane kill, but i think being a vegetarian is easier than trying to eat only meat brought up that way haha.
and are you talking about omega 3 fatty acids? i can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. omega 3 has a number of vegetarian sources from kiwis to flax seeds.
"Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?"
i can't answer this for you.
Thank you for your view.
Ill answer your question first - "why would you want to be the dalai lama?"
I wouldnt.
Im not sure if you might of misunderstood my point. I wasnt saying I wanted to be him but was more just making a statement about what seems to be a sort of hierarchical system much like the church and the pope. Ive seen meetings where the Dalai lama was present. The followers are all in awe and hanging off every word he utters and I dont get it. To be honest I dont think he does either. I never can understand a word he says anyway. I went to a meeting once and it was a waste of time. As for the pope well he's just a nasty piece of work. At least the Dalai lama seems nice.
What you said about meat industry leading to suffering is true in some instances but in other more organic practices its not true at all. Those animals get to live a happy natural life. If we didnt look after them where would they be? Probably dead from malnourishment anyway.
My next question is why are buddhists vegetarian? I mean I know that the teachings say not to kill a living being etc but we are part of the food chain which is part of nature. Animals kill other animals to survive and this is accepted as natural so whats so different about humans? We are animals.
I have to say I completely disagree with factory farming methods etc and find it very unnatural that meat is all packaged up nicely so that humans dont have to face the ugly reality of it. However the human body needs certain fats and oils only found in animals particularly fish. Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?
Not all Buddhists are vegetarian. The only common link amongst all Buddhists is the 4 Noble Truths, the truth of suffering and freedom from suffering. Even then Buddhists interpret those differently. Beyond that there are moral -guidelines- and these are interpreted differently by all Buddhists as well. What Buddhism teaches is the truth of our reality, how suffering arises, and how it can cease. Many Buddhists choose to be vegetarian out of compassion for animals and their suffering. Many do not, sometimes because they feel that suffering occurs to animals through a vegetarian diet as well, some because they feel animals don't suffer as we do, some because they need meat in their diet, etc. You can be a Buddhist and do as you wish... but Buddhism asks that you examine your beliefs and let go of your views and work towards improving yourself. Your view may change, it may not.
And as Zombiegirl said: the Dalai Lama does not represent all of Buddhism. He represents a certain sect. And despite the corruptions you see in it, he along with teachers in other religions often have wise things to say that should be taken in. You can leave the superstition aside, but try not to block out the gems at the same time.
Ive seen meetings where the Dalai lama was present. The followers are all in awe and hanging off every word he utters and I dont get it. To be honest I dont think he does either.
He doesn't, and he discourages this.
I never can understand a word he says anyway.
It's called an accent.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Thank you for your view.
Ill answer your question first - "why would you want to be the dalai lama?"
I wouldnt.
Im not sure if you might of misunderstood my point. I wasnt saying I wanted to be him but was more just making a statement about what seems to be a sort of hierarchical system much like the church and the pope. Ive seen meetings where the Dalai lama was present. The followers are all in awe and hanging off every word he utters and I dont get it. To be honest I dont think he does either. I never can understand a word he says anyway. I went to a meeting once and it was a waste of time. As for the pope well he's just a nasty piece of work. At least the Dalai lama seems nice.
What you said about meat industry leading to suffering is true in some instances but in other more organic practices its not true at all. Those animals get to live a happy natural life. If we didnt look after them where would they be? Probably dead from malnourishment anyway.
ah, i get what you're saying. i had to laugh at a few of your comments about the dalai lama. honestly, i've never been horribly impressed by videos of him...some if it may be due to the language difficulties. but i do enjoy his books. pick one up sometime and decide for yourself. i think fanatically worshiping anyone is a bad idea in general... but then again, when you study someone's work and come to deeply respect them, this can sometimes happen. i say all this, but at the same time i finally got the chance to see Hole play a few weeks ago and i definitely was screaming my head off at being able to hear courtney love perform live.
point being, i'm no better than they are. it's human nature to make a big deal out of someone we feel is truly inspirational.
in my post, i said, "i don't actually oppose to others eating meat so long as it's free range and a humane kill, but i think being a vegetarian is easier than trying to eat only meat brought up that way haha."
the reason i say this is because i have tried to eat only organic/free range meat etc... and everytime, i end up just not having the strength to do it. i end up hanging out with my friends who want to order a pepperoni pizza and are completely confused by me "only eating organic meat" but understanding of me being a vegetarian. for me, it's just easier to cut it out completely vs. trying to identify the source of every meat i'm taking into my body. i think if i actually had to do this, i would eat meat so infrequently it would cause me a lot of digestive problems anyways. if i try to eat meat after even a few weeks of not eating it... let's just say... i really really wish i hadn't. heh.
i also think it's silly to suggest that animals in their own environment would die of malnutrition if we didn't eat them. other animals would eat them before that happen.
I think your example of the chef and the doctor is different because that is something tangible. You can look at either one and say 'i can do that' and then work towards achieving it whereas you cannot look at dalai lama and say 'ok Im going to be that'. You cannot even be reborn as that. Its a special thing and its exclusive of everyone except the chosen few.
Da Lai Lama is a political office. Chosen at birth. It all depends on whether you believe in reincarnation. Otherwise (to you) it is a crazy superstition. But YOU CAN realize the same level of wisdom as the da lai lama. You can work towards achieving it.
Buddhism does have a hierarchical system, much like the church, because both are religious institutions.
For some of his followers, the Dalai Lama is a Buddha. So they worship him.
The rest of us do not see him as a Buddha, but as a monk. We do not worship him.
However, most of us recognises he has a deep understanding of Mahayana Buddhism and is a great man. So we have great respect for him.
The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, but he does not represent Buddhism.
The Tulku system (that of searching for the reincarnation of teachers/monks) is only part of Tibetan Buddhism. No other form of Buddhism does this.
As others have said already, not every Buddhist is vegetarian and for many of us, it's not a requirement but a choice.
Thanks to everyone for answering my questions. I know they might seem a bit silly but Im still trying to figure out if the Buddhist path is for me.
Hi Zania, If you want an overvierw of Buddhism to help you decide if you believe it is the path you wish to take your life then I reccomend that you read the foundation course from the FWBO website. I myself have read it and I think it gives a excellent unbiased view of Buddhism , its beliefs, its history and its different schools.
I think if you read this you should have a better idea of if you think Buddhism is for you.
Anyway I hope you do
The link is below http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/study/foundation
This manual of buddhist path (listed in the writings of a practitioner) explains many things (briefly) about the entire buddhist path in the tibetan traditions http://www.clearlightvideos.net/id34.html (for one practitioner the author at least)
lol, if you want to be buddhist in my opinion and what I have been told my practitioners, you need to believe in all aspects. If you don't, then you are not buddhist.. simple. If you are a teacher of buddhism, an ajahn, then you must believe in rebirth....
lol, if you want to be buddhist in my opinion and what I have been told my practitioners, you need to believe in all aspects. If you don't, then you are not buddhist.. simple. If you are a teacher of buddhism, an ajahn, then you must believe in rebirth....
So in order to be a Buddhist I would have to believe that Shakyamuni was born from his mommies armpit, walked and talked immediately and that flowers blossomed under his feet.
Padmasambhava was born in the center of a lotus with the body of an eight year old boy.
I think they were both born from vaginas, as babies who pooped their pants and cried when they were hungry.
How bout them apples?
That is a fair comment lol. I was told a few months ago that to not believe in rebirth would mean you cannot classify yourself buddhist. To take aspects of the religion and use them, yes that is fine, but you are not buddhist. I also read in a book by the dalai lama a while ago that if you have any doubt in your mind about any of the teachings, then this will hinder you and you should not follow the dharma.
Anyway, where did you get this from? was it from one of the tales given my the buddha in the scriptures?
To take aspects of the religion and use them, yes that is fine, but you are not buddhist.
OMG I heard that too, from Thubten Chodron. Although she wasn't talking specifically about rebirth. She also completed it by saying that by rejecting what we disagree with and using only what we agree, we are making our own path and not the path of the Buddha, that our path got us this far and that it doesn't lead to liberation (obviously), but that the path of the Buddha does. It is in her audio of the 37 Bodhissatva practices.
Yes, I think it is a complex point because where do you draw the line? 'Oh, I don't believe in karma', or 'no, the buddha was wrong, we should all own a house and money because that is the way of today.'
The dalai lama did say that if you want to be liberated and awoken, you need to follow the dharma in it's full.
I heard a monk say not long ago that there are 2 types of religion. One where you are told what is the truth, what you have to do, and the other which buddhism is where you are given the path and the tools and you must find the truth for yourself.
Anyway, where did you get this from? was it from one of the tales given my the buddha in the scriptures?
They are common elements of the mythology of the life stories of the Buddha and Padmasambhava.
I just wanted to illustrate a point that there are things in the tradition that are parable, I do not think rebirth is parable or metaphor though.
I think the teachings are quite literal, rational, and sophisticated.
I think the teachings are quite literal, rational, and sophisticated.
I think you, me and ThailandTom are on the same page here.
I would just like to add that this blind faith people have in the "scientific approach of Buddhism" is not scientific at all. Just go read some books on Buddhology. No serious scholar (and here I mean academics that do use the scientific method) gives the slightest credit to the "psychological interpretations" people profess.
Do I really have to list all the Buddhists who don't?
Batchelor, Buddhaghosa...
Numerous teachers teach of the importance of practice in-the-moment as opposed to strong rebirth-belief, such as McLeod, Chah, Sumedho...
The comment was in the context of Tibetan Buddhism reincarnation by the way, and so outside of that, of course there are many who don't believe in it.
By your response, it sounds like you disagree that one can be a Buddhist without belief in rebirth as a post-mortem teaching? :rolleyes:
Shenpen:
So in order to be a Buddhist I would have to believe that Shakyamuni was born from his mommies armpit, walked and talked immediately and that flowers blossomed under his feet.
Padmasambhava was born in the center of a lotus with the body of an eight year old boy.
I think they were both born from vaginas, as babies who pooped their pants and cried when they were hungry.
How bout them apples?
I am starting to fall in love.
ThailandTom:
That is a fair comment lol. I was told a few months ago that to not believe in rebirth would mean you cannot classify yourself buddhist. To take aspects of the religion and use them, yes that is fine, but you are not buddhist.
Oh then I guess many here are not Buddhists. If we are striving towards the ending of dukkha and follow teachings attributed to the Buddha which are relevant to that goal, then to me, we are Buddhists. A Buddhist is someone who walks the path, not someone at the goal. Perhaps rebirth-belief will somehow reveal itself to be a natural outcome of the path. I can't see how, but whatever. Maybe I will call myself a follower of the Buddha, while you can be a Buddhist (i.e. a follower of the religion built around the Buddha).
I also read in a book by the dalai lama a while ago that if you have any doubt in your mind about any of the teachings, then this will hinder you and you should not follow the dharma.
Once again the Dalai Lama does not represent all of Buddhism. There are many sects of Buddhism, and not a single person I've spoken with takes all the teachings from all the teachers, suttas, sutras, commentaries, as absolute literal truth. Do you?
Anyway, where did you get this from? was it from one of the tales given my the buddha in the scriptures?
Oh, so when it sounds insane or illogical to you, it's just a "tale"?
And example of such a teaching:
Within Tibetan BuddhismTārā is regarded as a Boddhisattva of compassion and action. She is the female aspect of Avalokitesvara (Chenrezig) and in some origin stories she comes from his tears:
<dl><dd>Then at last Avalokiteshvara arrived at the summit of Marpori, the 'Red Hill', in Lhasa. Gazing out, he perceived that the lake on Otang, the 'Plain of Milk', resembled the Hell of Ceaseless Torment. Myriads of being were undergoing the agonies of boiling, burning, hunger, thirst, yet they never perished, but let forth hideous cries of anguish all the while. When Avalokiteshvara saw this, tears sprang to his eyes. A teardrop from his right eye fell to the plain and became the reverend Bhrikuti, who declared: 'Son of your race! As you are striving for the sake of sentient beings in the Land of Snows, intercede in their suffering, and I shall be your companion in this endeavour!' Bhrikuti was then reabsorbed into Avalokiteshvara's right eye, and was reborn in a later life as the Nepalese princess Tritsun. A teardrop from his left eye fell upon the plain and became the reverend Tara. She also declared, 'Son of your race! As you are striving for the sake of sentient beings in the Land of Snows, intercede in their suffering, and I shall be your companion in this endeavour!' Tara was also reabsorbed into Avalokiteshvara's left eye, and was reborn in a later life as the Chinese princess Kongjo (Princess Wencheng)."<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup></dd></dl>
Do I really have to list all the Buddhists who don't?
Nope. I was just curious.
By your response, it sounds like you disagree that one can be a Buddhist without belief in rebirth as a post-mortem teaching? :rolleyes:
I disagree with teachers teaching their own ideas without stating clearly that they are making up their own thing, much like the Zen masters that claim lineage to Dogen and drop several ideas (rebirth is the least to be a concern) that he taught. Just read Sanji Go, by Dogen. To quote the master himself:
In other words, when there are people who have committed any of the five most
treacherous deeds, they will inevitably fall into a hellish state in their next lifetime.
‘The next lifetime’ means the lifetime that follows this lifetime. For other
wrongdoers, there are those who will fall into a hellish state in their next lifetime,
and there are those who would sink into a hellish state in their next lifetime were it
not for some intervening good karma. For these five most treacherous deeds,
however, people invariably fall into a hellish state along with whatever karma they
carry with them into their next lifetime.
I believe it is not a very good practice when you decide to change the beliefs of your school and forget to mention it to the people you are teaching, yes? I am not saying they can't make up their own mind, but why not be honest about it? f they aren't being straightforward in this point, who guarantees they will show integrity on other subjects?
I'm confused. You've been on this board how long? You've aren't aware of the many Buddhists who don't believe in literal rebirth? o_O
I disagree with teachers teaching their own ideas without stating clearly that they are making up their own thing
So in other words the common view are the actual teachings of the Buddha, not interpretation of the suttas, and the non-traditional view is just interpretation and people making things up?
It's all interpretation. What matters is its effect of practice. All I stated was that not all Buddhists and teachers believe in rebirth. That is true.
I believe it is not a very good practice when you decide to change the beliefs of your school and forget to mention it to the people you are teaching, yes?
Which of them have claimed to be representing a specific lineage? Where has this happened?
It's not good practice to change the teachings and beliefs of the person on whom your religion is based upon, but evidently that happened as we have how many traditions now? Blind obedient faith in your school therefore seems ill-advised.
I am not saying they can't make up their own mind, but why not be honest about it?
f they aren't being straightforward in this point, who guarantees they will show integrity on other subjects?
Again, what are you on about?
You mentioned certain Zen masters. Like who?Who have said "I am teaching the views of so-and-so and representing this lineage"? Indeed that would be suspicious. Not sure what that has to do with whether or not those teachings hold truth, though.
OMG I heard that too, from Thubten Chodron. Although she wasn't talking specifically about rebirth. She also completed it by saying that by rejecting what we disagree with and using only what we agree, we are making our own path and not the path of the Buddha, that our path got us this far and that it doesn't lead to liberation (obviously), but that the path of the Buddha does. It is in her audio of the 37 Bodhissatva practices.
i'm rejecting this, as i disagree with it.
this seems to assume that all personal beliefs that defy teachings are inherently wrong as well as all teachers are always correct in their views. human nature seems to suggest that neither of these can be true at all times. i've never seen such an obvious statement supporting blind faith before. scaaarreeeyyyy...
You have all probably heard of Godwin's Law, which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
I propose a new law, unique to Buddhist forums. That is: the longer that a discussion on a Buddhist forum continues the probability of a rebirth debate starting approaches 1. In addition, the chances of anything of value ever coming out of them is, as a general rule, 0.
I call this Rebirthwin's Law.
If anyone can come up with a better name I am open to suggestions.
The theory has been tested and has yet to be proven false, LOL
Did you expect a Thread titled "Rebirth..." to involve discussion about something other than rebirth? O_O
What happens as far as rebirth goes if the world is wiped out and becomes a barren place no longer suitable for life? Where do we all go then?
I wasn't "expecting" anything. But the above does not exactly prompt a debate if rebirth is true or not or if belief in it is required to be called a Buddhist.
There is no "belief" prerequisite for Buddhism.
Belief implies a hardened, static position and that is most definitely not what we want in our minds.
We have to have flexibility of mind in order to investigate the teachings, our world, and ourselves in a way that is productive and insightful.
These threads are often fine examples of people drawing lines in the sand that impy an either/or scenario.
Its just not that simple.
I dont like this idea that the dalai lama gets to choose to reincarnate but the rest of us dont. That just seems hierarchical and elitist much like the roman catholics and their pope. If everyone is equal and we are meant to treat every one as such then why is he placed up there on a pedestal? and who decides which baby the new dalai is being born into?
I cannot recall any of my past lives and the future has not been written. therefore it is irrelevant to me whether to take the reincarnation issue literally since I don't know where i'm going and I don't know where i've been. Suffice it for myself that there is a cause and effect relationship so whatever i do in this life will affect what or where i go in the afterlife. this concept seems to be true in other religions as well so i think there is a universality to that truth. i think it is pointless to worry about what exactly will happen in reincarnation and whether or not it exists. i think you only need to have faith that there is an afterlife of some sort, whatever form that takes.
And if you don't believe in any afterlife, well, be a good person anyways, if you can't practice buddhism, practice altruism... why not?
I believe it is not a very good practice when you decide to change the beliefs of your school and forget to mention it to the people you are teaching, yes? I am not saying they can't make up their own mind, but why not be honest about it? f they aren't being straightforward in this point, who guarantees they will show integrity on other subjects?
Perhaps the students they are teaching are not ready to hear such things? Would it be skillful of a teacher to start explaining shunya to someone who comes to them and says "Hey, what is this Buddhism thing about?" Isn't it considered wise to teach the Buddha's teaching in a graduated manner? Maybe their focus is on beginners while allowing the more experienced people to figure it out for themselves.
I have very strong views on what I think the Buddha thought and taught about rebirth.
So do most of you.
But never the twain shall meet,
These threads always turn to goo,
(or poo)
Because you can't show her wrong,
And she cant show you the same,
So rather like my doggerel,
It always ends up lame.
Buddhism is about here and now cessation of suffering. Beliefs (in rebirth or otherwise) have very little place in it. Buddha talked about some verifiable Dhamma. It is undeniably stated over and over again in the suttas.
You are not buddhist if you choose to take parts of the religion and disregard others, it is that simple. I would state you are merely using aspects of the religion to improve your life and take away your suffering. How hard is that for people to understand... Ajahn brahm gave a talk on rebirth recently and mentioned rebirth is avery important aspect of buddhism indeed. He doesn't know why people are so quick to dismiss it. If you look there are heaps of research done by even scientists and there is a book published called something like 20 cases of rebirth. A scientist dedicated his life to finding these children who have spoken of past lives, who have said to their mothers that i am nt your son o daughter, so and so is. He took all of the research that could have no other logical explanation and put them into a book. It is quite eye opening I must say.
People are so quick to say it is not true or I don't believe in it, but on what grounds do you state this? A lot of people I think dismiss it because it is not so logical to them as the rest of the teachings are, more of a myth or paranormal nonsense.
But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t
b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
By the way, there is no such thing as a 'soul' in buddhism, it is a stream of consciousness zidangus.
You are not buddhist if you choose to take parts of the religion and disregard others, it is that simple. I would state you are merely using aspects of the religion to improve your life and take away your suffering. How hard is that for people to understand... Ajahn brahm gave a talk on rebirth recently and mentioned rebirth is avery important aspect of buddhism indeed. He doesn't know why people are so quick to dismiss it. If you look there are heaps of research done by even scientists and there is a book published called something like 20 cases of rebirth. A scientist dedicated his life to finding these children who have spoken of past lives, who have said to their mothers that i am nt your son o daughter, so and so is. He took all of the research that could have no other logical explanation and put them into a book. It is quite eye opening I must say.
People are so quick to say it is not true or I don't believe in it, but on what grounds do you state this? A lot of people I think dismiss it because it is not so logical to them as the rest of the teachings are, more of a myth or paranormal nonsense.
But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t
b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
By the way, there is no such thing as a 'soul' in buddhism, it is a stream of consciousness zidangus.
tom
Yes ThailandTom, I do not believe there is a soul either, I believe that it is your life force or as you say a stream of consciousness that moves to the next life. And I agree you must belive in future lifes if you consider yourself a Buddhist. The Buddhas karma sutra has rebirth as its foundation.
You are not buddhist if you choose to take parts of the religion and disregard others, it is that simple. I would state you are merely using aspects of the religion to improve your life and take away your suffering. How hard is that for people to understand... Ajahn brahm gave a talk on rebirth recently and mentioned rebirth is avery important aspect of buddhism indeed. He doesn't know why people are so quick to dismiss it. If you look there are heaps of research done by even scientists and there is a book published called something like 20 cases of rebirth. A scientist dedicated his life to finding these children who have spoken of past lives, who have said to their mothers that i am nt your son o daughter, so and so is. He took all of the research that could have no other logical explanation and put them into a book. It is quite eye opening I must say.
People are so quick to say it is not true or I don't believe in it, but on what grounds do you state this? A lot of people I think dismiss it because it is not so logical to them as the rest of the teachings are, more of a myth or paranormal nonsense.
But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t
b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
By the way, there is no such thing as a 'soul' in buddhism, it is a stream of consciousness zidangus.
tom
I think you sound somewhat arrogant going around defining who is and who isnt a buddhist. Its not some sort of exclusive club in which one must conform to be a part of and if thats what it is then I most certainly wouldnt want to be a part of it anyway.
You are not buddhist if you choose to take parts of the religion and disregard others, it is that simple. I would state you are merely using aspects of the religion to improve your life and take away your suffering. How hard is that for people to understand... Ajahn brahm gave a talk on rebirth recently and mentioned rebirth is avery important aspect of buddhism indeed. He doesn't know why people are so quick to dismiss it. If you look there are heaps of research done by even scientists and there is a book published called something like 20 cases of rebirth. A scientist dedicated his life to finding these children who have spoken of past lives, who have said to their mothers that i am nt your son o daughter, so and so is. He took all of the research that could have no other logical explanation and put them into a book. It is quite eye opening I must say. People are so quick to say it is not true or I don't believe in it, but on what grounds do you state this? A lot of people I think dismiss it because it is not so logical to them as the rest of the teachings are, more of a myth or paranormal nonsense. But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
By the way, there is no such thing as a 'soul' in buddhism, it is a stream of consciousness zidangus.
tom
In my opinion all the so-called 'evidence' of rebirth such as childrens stories and past life regression (which is in fact probably a combination of fantasy and cryptomnesia) cannot be verified.
I neither accept nor reject rebirth, my practice is concerned with the here and now in this present lifetime.
Does this mean I am not a Buddhist? Well actually, whilst wishing them well, I couldn't care less whether others think I'm a Buddhist or not.
Ajahn brahm gave a talk on rebirth recently and mentioned rebirth is avery important aspect of buddhism indeed. He doesn't know why people are so quick to dismiss it.
I have listened to talks by AB on this matter and he gives no clear idea how and what is reborn in the first place. His talks on rebirth are very vague with no clear definitions to anything. He is also criticised by some other monks for entertaining speculative super-natural ideas in his Dhamma talks. I am saying this just to imply that not all Buddhists agree with everything AB says.
For the record, noone is saying there is no rebirth. It is simply irrelevant and it is NOT an all important teaching. The 4 NTs is an important teaching. The DO is an important core Buddhist teaching. Rebirth is not mentioned in any of them.
If you look there are heaps of research done by even scientists and there is a book published called something like 20 cases of rebirth. A scientist dedicated his life to finding these children who have spoken of past lives, who have said to their mothers that i am nt your son o daughter, so and so is. He took all of the research that could have no other logical explanation and put them into a book. It is quite eye opening I must say.
But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t
b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
Irrelevant. There are a lot of Buddhists who do not blindly believe in anything. Even if you bolded and changed the font of the above statement it is still irrelevant.
Well I think it ia great that people follow certain or a lot of aspects of buddhism, but you can call yourself a buddhist until the cows come home, it won't make you one. And what should that matter?? It shouldn't, of course it shouldn't. I respect everyone's point of view, be it atheist, muslim, christian whatever, but I personally do not think you are a buddhist otherwise. There is so much emphasism on rebirth and it is at the core of the teachings. To be liberated is to be liberated from suffering and ultimately this cycle of rebirth... No more samsara. Now if you are following aspects of it to better your life, this one life, then you clearly are not a buddhist, and like I said that doesn't matter does it..
There is so much emphasism on rebirth and it is at the core of the teachings. To be liberated is to be liberated from suffering and ultimately this cycle of rebirth...
Why do you try to escape phyiscal birth? (whatever that means) What is the cause of your suffering? Phyiscal birth or attachment to self?
Where does it say rebirth is the core of Buddhism? Where has the Buddha told to escape existence?
Why do you try to escape phyiscal birth? (whatever that means) What is the cause of your suffering? Phyiscal birth or attachment to self?
Where does it say rebirth is the core of Buddhism? Where has the Buddha told to escape existence?
I really do not understand what the problem is here. The Buddha's detailed conception of the connections between action (karma), rebirth and causality is set out in the twelve links of dependent origination.
And I am not sure if becoming enlightened means you then cease to exist. However If you do not believe in rebirth then this is fine, no one is asked to accept things which they do not believe in, at the end of the day each of us have to follow the path in which we feel is the correct for us. For me I consider myself a Buddhist because I have taken to heart and have faith in the three jewels, four noble truths and the noble eight fold path. For others it may be something different why they consider them self Buddhist but their reasons are just as valid as mine. Whatever the reason or beliefs, to take any part of the Dharma into your life, is surely a good thing.
I really do not understand what the problem is here.
There is no problem. I merely asked those questions as the quoted sentence seems to imply that physical birth is suffering. There is no problem in discussion is there?
The Buddha's detailed conception of the connections between action (karma), rebirth and causality is set out in the twelve links of dependent origination.
Birth in the 12 links is mental birth as I see it.
And I am not sure if becoming enlightened means you then cease to exist. However If you do not believe in rebirth then this is fine, no one is asked to accept things which they do not believe in, at the end of the day each of us have to follow the path in which we feel is the correct for us. For me I consider myself a Buddhist because I have taken to heart and have faith in the three jewels, four noble truths and the noble eight fold path. For others it may be something different why they consider them self Buddhist but their reasons are just as valid as mine. Whatever the reason or beliefs, to take any part of the Dharma into your life, is surely a good thing.
I would regard myself to be a lay buddhist at best, and there is nothing at all wrong with the opinion of ANYONE. I think it is hard for some people to accept rebirth and I can see why as I use to be a major skeptic too. Sorry to anyone if I came across arrogant or something, but I was merely pointing out that to actually be buddhist you have to accept rebirth. If you do not then no one is going to say you are a fool or you are wrong, because you are not, but you are neither a buddhist.
This is truly pointless so I will also abandon this conversation and make a mental note to be weary of rebirth topics
Comments
I think your example of the chef and the doctor is different because that is something tangible. You can look at either one and say 'i can do that' and then work towards achieving it whereas you cannot look at dalai lama and say 'ok Im going to be that'. You cannot even be reborn as that. Its a special thing and its exclusive of everyone except the chosen few.
My next question is why are buddhists vegetarian? I mean I know that the teachings say not to kill a living being etc but we are part of the food chain which is part of nature. Animals kill other animals to survive and this is accepted as natural so whats so different about humans? We are animals.
I have to say I completely disagree with factory farming methods etc and find it very unnatural that meat is all packaged up nicely so that humans dont have to face the ugly reality of it. However the human body needs certain fats and oils only found in animals particularly fish. Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?
one of the most widely held misunderstandings of buddhism is that all buddhists follow the dalai lama. in truth, he is the leader of the gelug sect of tibetan buddhism. i happen to like much of what he has to said, so i've read a few of his books... but i don't exactly worship him, as some may. perhaps, a tibetan buddhist might better elaborate what is involved in the choosing of a lama. i know that they seek out the rebirth and try to determine if you are in fact, the reincarnation of the lama by means of some tests. but i'm not sure if he actually "chooses" his rebirth. i could be mistaken, but i thought that his good karma places him in a favorable rebirth. even the wikipedia page states that he is unsure where his next rebirth might be aside from that it will be whatever will be of the greatest value to the largest number of sentient beings.
but anyways... my question to you, why would you want to be the dalai lama? he does not exist for the power or fame. in my opinion, he exists to help others along the noble path. i can do this too. i can't look at the dalai lama and say "i want to be that" but i can look at the buddha and say "i want to be that". that's what this whole thing is really about anyways.
most buddhists aren't vegetarian, in my experience. the ones that are, myself included, usually do so because they don't want to harm sentient beings. in my case, i don't even want to take part of something (the meat industry) which leads to so much suffering. but the biggest reason for me is actually for health reasons. i don't actually oppose to others eating meat so long as it's free range and a humane kill, but i think being a vegetarian is easier than trying to eat only meat brought up that way haha.
and are you talking about omega 3 fatty acids? i can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. omega 3 has a number of vegetarian sources from kiwis to flax seeds.
"Surely ethical organic farming processes and humane killing of animals for food is ok?"
i can't answer this for you.
Thank you for your view.
Ill answer your question first - "why would you want to be the dalai lama?"
I wouldnt.
Im not sure if you might of misunderstood my point. I wasnt saying I wanted to be him but was more just making a statement about what seems to be a sort of hierarchical system much like the church and the pope. Ive seen meetings where the Dalai lama was present. The followers are all in awe and hanging off every word he utters and I dont get it. To be honest I dont think he does either. I never can understand a word he says anyway. I went to a meeting once and it was a waste of time. As for the pope well he's just a nasty piece of work. At least the Dalai lama seems nice.
What you said about meat industry leading to suffering is true in some instances but in other more organic practices its not true at all. Those animals get to live a happy natural life. If we didnt look after them where would they be? Probably dead from malnourishment anyway.
Not all Buddhists are vegetarian. The only common link amongst all Buddhists is the 4 Noble Truths, the truth of suffering and freedom from suffering. Even then Buddhists interpret those differently. Beyond that there are moral -guidelines- and these are interpreted differently by all Buddhists as well. What Buddhism teaches is the truth of our reality, how suffering arises, and how it can cease. Many Buddhists choose to be vegetarian out of compassion for animals and their suffering. Many do not, sometimes because they feel that suffering occurs to animals through a vegetarian diet as well, some because they feel animals don't suffer as we do, some because they need meat in their diet, etc. You can be a Buddhist and do as you wish... but Buddhism asks that you examine your beliefs and let go of your views and work towards improving yourself. Your view may change, it may not.
And as Zombiegirl said: the Dalai Lama does not represent all of Buddhism. He represents a certain sect. And despite the corruptions you see in it, he along with teachers in other religions often have wise things to say that should be taken in. You can leave the superstition aside, but try not to block out the gems at the same time.
He doesn't, and he discourages this.
It's called an accent.
ah, i get what you're saying. i had to laugh at a few of your comments about the dalai lama. honestly, i've never been horribly impressed by videos of him...some if it may be due to the language difficulties. but i do enjoy his books. pick one up sometime and decide for yourself. i think fanatically worshiping anyone is a bad idea in general... but then again, when you study someone's work and come to deeply respect them, this can sometimes happen. i say all this, but at the same time i finally got the chance to see Hole play a few weeks ago and i definitely was screaming my head off at being able to hear courtney love perform live.
point being, i'm no better than they are. it's human nature to make a big deal out of someone we feel is truly inspirational.
in my post, i said, "i don't actually oppose to others eating meat so long as it's free range and a humane kill, but i think being a vegetarian is easier than trying to eat only meat brought up that way haha."
the reason i say this is because i have tried to eat only organic/free range meat etc... and everytime, i end up just not having the strength to do it. i end up hanging out with my friends who want to order a pepperoni pizza and are completely confused by me "only eating organic meat" but understanding of me being a vegetarian. for me, it's just easier to cut it out completely vs. trying to identify the source of every meat i'm taking into my body. i think if i actually had to do this, i would eat meat so infrequently it would cause me a lot of digestive problems anyways. if i try to eat meat after even a few weeks of not eating it... let's just say... i really really wish i hadn't. heh.
i also think it's silly to suggest that animals in their own environment would die of malnutrition if we didn't eat them. other animals would eat them before that happen.
Da Lai Lama is a political office. Chosen at birth. It all depends on whether you believe in reincarnation. Otherwise (to you) it is a crazy superstition. But YOU CAN realize the same level of wisdom as the da lai lama. You can work towards achieving it.
For some of his followers, the Dalai Lama is a Buddha. So they worship him.
The rest of us do not see him as a Buddha, but as a monk. We do not worship him.
However, most of us recognises he has a deep understanding of Mahayana Buddhism and is a great man. So we have great respect for him.
The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, but he does not represent Buddhism.
The Tulku system (that of searching for the reincarnation of teachers/monks) is only part of Tibetan Buddhism. No other form of Buddhism does this.
As others have said already, not every Buddhist is vegetarian and for many of us, it's not a requirement but a choice.
Nios.
I think if you read this you should have a better idea of if you think Buddhism is for you.
Anyway I hope you do
The link is below
http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/study/foundation
Free will and the unique human ability to choose your actions and the ability to discern the consequences of such actions.
It depends entirely on the individual person who consumes the food. Some people,yes, some people, no.
Most would have never been born to begin with.
Neither do I! But he did once say that "In Tibet there is great faith, but very little actual wisdom"
There are as many different kinds of Buddhism as there are other religions, maybe more. "Dali Lama Buddhism" is one small part of that whole.
Who?
So in order to be a Buddhist I would have to believe that Shakyamuni was born from his mommies armpit, walked and talked immediately and that flowers blossomed under his feet.
Padmasambhava was born in the center of a lotus with the body of an eight year old boy.
I think they were both born from vaginas, as babies who pooped their pants and cried when they were hungry.
How bout them apples?
Anyway, where did you get this from? was it from one of the tales given my the buddha in the scriptures?
OMG I heard that too, from Thubten Chodron. Although she wasn't talking specifically about rebirth. She also completed it by saying that by rejecting what we disagree with and using only what we agree, we are making our own path and not the path of the Buddha, that our path got us this far and that it doesn't lead to liberation (obviously), but that the path of the Buddha does. It is in her audio of the 37 Bodhissatva practices.
The dalai lama did say that if you want to be liberated and awoken, you need to follow the dharma in it's full.
I heard a monk say not long ago that there are 2 types of religion. One where you are told what is the truth, what you have to do, and the other which buddhism is where you are given the path and the tools and you must find the truth for yourself.
I just wanted to illustrate a point that there are things in the tradition that are parable, I do not think rebirth is parable or metaphor though.
I think the teachings are quite literal, rational, and sophisticated.
I think you, me and ThailandTom are on the same page here.
I would just like to add that this blind faith people have in the "scientific approach of Buddhism" is not scientific at all. Just go read some books on Buddhology. No serious scholar (and here I mean academics that do use the scientific method) gives the slightest credit to the "psychological interpretations" people profess.
Do I really have to list all the Buddhists who don't?
Batchelor, Buddhaghosa...
Numerous teachers teach of the importance of practice in-the-moment as opposed to strong rebirth-belief, such as McLeod, Chah, Sumedho...
The comment was in the context of Tibetan Buddhism reincarnation by the way, and so outside of that, of course there are many who don't believe in it.
By your response, it sounds like you disagree that one can be a Buddhist without belief in rebirth as a post-mortem teaching? :rolleyes:
Shenpen:
I am starting to fall in love.
ThailandTom:
Oh then I guess many here are not Buddhists. If we are striving towards the ending of dukkha and follow teachings attributed to the Buddha which are relevant to that goal, then to me, we are Buddhists. A Buddhist is someone who walks the path, not someone at the goal. Perhaps rebirth-belief will somehow reveal itself to be a natural outcome of the path. I can't see how, but whatever. Maybe I will call myself a follower of the Buddha, while you can be a Buddhist (i.e. a follower of the religion built around the Buddha).
Once again the Dalai Lama does not represent all of Buddhism. There are many sects of Buddhism, and not a single person I've spoken with takes all the teachings from all the teachers, suttas, sutras, commentaries, as absolute literal truth. Do you?
Oh, so when it sounds insane or illogical to you, it's just a "tale"?
And example of such a teaching:
I'm assuming you accept this and have no doubts?
You had me at hello.
I disagree with teachers teaching their own ideas without stating clearly that they are making up their own thing, much like the Zen masters that claim lineage to Dogen and drop several ideas (rebirth is the least to be a concern) that he taught. Just read Sanji Go, by Dogen. To quote the master himself:
I believe it is not a very good practice when you decide to change the beliefs of your school and forget to mention it to the people you are teaching, yes? I am not saying they can't make up their own mind, but why not be honest about it? f they aren't being straightforward in this point, who guarantees they will show integrity on other subjects?
So in other words the common view are the actual teachings of the Buddha, not interpretation of the suttas, and the non-traditional view is just interpretation and people making things up?
It's all interpretation. What matters is its effect of practice. All I stated was that not all Buddhists and teachers believe in rebirth. That is true.
Which of them have claimed to be representing a specific lineage? Where has this happened?
It's not good practice to change the teachings and beliefs of the person on whom your religion is based upon, but evidently that happened as we have how many traditions now? Blind obedient faith in your school therefore seems ill-advised. Again, what are you on about?
You mentioned certain Zen masters. Like who?Who have said "I am teaching the views of so-and-so and representing this lineage"? Indeed that would be suspicious. Not sure what that has to do with whether or not those teachings hold truth, though.
This is the crucial point if you ask me.
Its not about who said what, or what who thinks who said what means.
Its about what works.
The Buddha said we shouldn't have a house or money...? What do you do? Live on the streets and steal your food?
What dharma? Tibetan?
i'm rejecting this, as i disagree with it.
this seems to assume that all personal beliefs that defy teachings are inherently wrong as well as all teachers are always correct in their views. human nature seems to suggest that neither of these can be true at all times. i've never seen such an obvious statement supporting blind faith before. scaaarreeeyyyy...
Yeah, I am very big on blind faith. Cya.
The theory has been tested and has yet to be proven false, LOL
I wasn't "expecting" anything. But the above does not exactly prompt a debate if rebirth is true or not or if belief in it is required to be called a Buddhist.
Belief implies a hardened, static position and that is most definitely not what we want in our minds.
We have to have flexibility of mind in order to investigate the teachings, our world, and ourselves in a way that is productive and insightful.
These threads are often fine examples of people drawing lines in the sand that impy an either/or scenario.
Its just not that simple.
Never the less the life force which is reborn as the human who becomes the Dali lama is extremely fortunate and must have accumulated a lot of positive karma in previous life’s.
metta to all
And if you don't believe in any afterlife, well, be a good person anyways, if you can't practice buddhism, practice altruism... why not?
Perhaps the students they are teaching are not ready to hear such things? Would it be skillful of a teacher to start explaining shunya to someone who comes to them and says "Hey, what is this Buddhism thing about?" Isn't it considered wise to teach the Buddha's teaching in a graduated manner? Maybe their focus is on beginners while allowing the more experienced people to figure it out for themselves.
So do most of you.
But never the twain shall meet,
These threads always turn to goo,
(or poo)
Because you can't show her wrong,
And she cant show you the same,
So rather like my doggerel,
It always ends up lame.
namaste:)
People are so quick to say it is not true or I don't believe in it, but on what grounds do you state this? A lot of people I think dismiss it because it is not so logical to them as the rest of the teachings are, more of a myth or paranormal nonsense.
But to reiterate, y o u a r e n o t a b u d d h i s t i f y o u d o n o t
b e l i e v e i n r e b i r t h
By the way, there is no such thing as a 'soul' in buddhism, it is a stream of consciousness zidangus.
tom
Yes ThailandTom, I do not believe there is a soul either, I believe that it is your life force or as you say a stream of consciousness that moves to the next life. And I agree you must belive in future lifes if you consider yourself a Buddhist. The Buddhas karma sutra has rebirth as its foundation.
metta to all
I think you sound somewhat arrogant going around defining who is and who isnt a buddhist. Its not some sort of exclusive club in which one must conform to be a part of and if thats what it is then I most certainly wouldnt want to be a part of it anyway.
In my opinion all the so-called 'evidence' of rebirth such as childrens stories and past life regression (which is in fact probably a combination of fantasy and cryptomnesia) cannot be verified.
I neither accept nor reject rebirth, my practice is concerned with the here and now in this present lifetime.
Does this mean I am not a Buddhist? Well actually, whilst wishing them well, I couldn't care less whether others think I'm a Buddhist or not.
I have listened to talks by AB on this matter and he gives no clear idea how and what is reborn in the first place. His talks on rebirth are very vague with no clear definitions to anything. He is also criticised by some other monks for entertaining speculative super-natural ideas in his Dhamma talks. I am saying this just to imply that not all Buddhists agree with everything AB says.
For the record, noone is saying there is no rebirth. It is simply irrelevant and it is NOT an all important teaching. The 4 NTs is an important teaching. The DO is an important core Buddhist teaching. Rebirth is not mentioned in any of them.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant. There are a lot of Buddhists who do not blindly believe in anything. Even if you bolded and changed the font of the above statement it is still irrelevant.
Where in the suttas is consciousness talked about as a stream? Please provide me a quote
Why do you try to escape phyiscal birth? (whatever that means) What is the cause of your suffering? Phyiscal birth or attachment to self?
Where does it say rebirth is the core of Buddhism? Where has the Buddha told to escape existence?
And I am not sure if becoming enlightened means you then cease to exist. However If you do not believe in rebirth then this is fine, no one is asked to accept things which they do not believe in, at the end of the day each of us have to follow the path in which we feel is the correct for us. For me I consider myself a Buddhist because I have taken to heart and have faith in the three jewels, four noble truths and the noble eight fold path. For others it may be something different why they consider them self Buddhist but their reasons are just as valid as mine. Whatever the reason or beliefs, to take any part of the Dharma into your life, is surely a good thing.
Metta to all
There is no problem. I merely asked those questions as the quoted sentence seems to imply that physical birth is suffering. There is no problem in discussion is there?
Birth in the 12 links is mental birth as I see it.
I don't think we disagee here
This is truly pointless so I will also abandon this conversation and make a mental note to be weary of rebirth topics
regards, tom