Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Difficult to accept

billmacbillmac
edited October 2010 in Buddhism Basics
I am finding it difficult to reconcile the teachings that have relevance and the teachings that are way out there. I am referring primarily to the Buddhist concept of cosmology. Anyone else having the same issues? My problem is that Buddhist cosmology is so unbelievable, it makes me second guess the validity of the other teachings.

Comments

  • TreeLuvr87TreeLuvr87 Veteran
    edited October 2010
    It's different for everyone buddy. It's always good to second guess things. You're on your own path and that's good. Just keep walking. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited October 2010
    "the dharma speaks for itself," said the blessed one, " as for the cosmology.... well i was tripping pretty hard and i didn't feel like explaining"
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited October 2010
    that's from jn. 371 fammajagamma sutta by the way if you wanted a reference
  • ShiftPlusOneShiftPlusOne Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I did as well. Now I just see it as a method of teaching rather than the teaching itself. Either way, I don't think it matters... I second guess the validity of everything anyway. You can test dependant origination yourself and Buddha said that to see dependant origination is to see the Dharma... so I am guessing that 8FP, the precepts and dependant origination are pretty much what's worth focusing on (for me). Everything else is pretty much an explanation thereof.

    That's just me though, others seem to take a more agnostic approach.
  • billmacbillmac
    edited October 2010
    I agree Shift. It's like finding a great philosophy teacher who has some good stuff to say; then you find out a few weeks later that he spends his free time sitting atop a hill staring into the sky convinced that Darth Vader and Yoda are real and will be visiting him at any moment. Kinda makes you stop and say, "Whoa...am I going to follow his other teachings knowing he believes this?"
  • AnattaAnatta
    edited October 2010
    My question is, "WWBD?" In my opnion, the questions raised by cosmology aren't ones that need answers. And a question that doesn't need to be answered, is better left un-asked. :)
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    The cosmology has nothing whatsoever to do with the undeniable truth of the 4NT's and the N8P. Those don't require even knowing what the word "cosmology" means.
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    don't require even knowing what the word "cosmology" means.
    true
  • PuFaPuFa
    edited October 2010
    What we believe and understand depend on our scope of view. A fish will only know his water environment and have no concept of land. However, we can base our trust and belief others who have been on the path (Buddha and Sages). The reason it is difficult to accept is that we view it from the scope of our view. A fish will find it is difficult to accept that there is a space beyond the water as it cannot reach there.

    Amituofo
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited October 2010
    billmac wrote: »
    I am finding it difficult to reconcile the teachings that have relevance and the teachings that are way out there. I am referring primarily to the Buddhist concept of cosmology. Anyone else having the same issues? My problem is that Buddhist cosmology is so unbelievable, it makes me second guess the validity of the other teachings.

    You are only supposed to believe that which you have experienced first-hand. The approach is to take the instructions (for meditation, for mindfulness, for how we live our life, for saying mantra, etc) and apply them. As the months and years wear on, we should see that our attitudes and approaches and understandings change ... this is what Buddhism promises, and this is what it fulfills. As you start to experience, so you can start to believe ... if nothing else, you at least begin to believe that the dharma practice does deliver what it promises.

    To believe or not believe in any of the cosmology is trying to find "ground" under your feet ... "ground" being that sense of "ah hah! I KNOW what the truth is and what it isn't!". This ground is only another form of attachment, in the form of wanting the security of "knowing" the truth. The path of Buddhism should be taking you away from security, from knowing, and into the realm of neither knowing nor grasping. It is, at first, distinctly uncomfortable ... and that is another lesson all in itself, that of relaxing into discomfort.
Sign In or Register to comment.