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.
Where did Buddha's teachings come from?
Hey guys,
I'm not a Buddhist per say, I'm just someone who is fascinated by the teachings and who finds a lot of them helpful. In fact, I feel like my mind is slowly being transformed. Buddhist teachings have taught me how to be aware so now I can learn things that I missed before in day to day life. I've read several Buddhist books, like "Buddhism Plain and Simple", "Seeking the Heart of Wisdom", and I read a couple of the Dalai Lama books...and I'm starting to wonder "What's next?".
I was raised as a Christian...and the "Holy Bible" is "the" book to read if you're a Christian. I know there isn't an equivalent book for Buddhism...but I'm curious, what is the best way to read the Buddha's teachings? The different schools of Buddhism and the different historical texts are confusing...is there a useful guide out there for that stuff as well?
The reason for the above question is particularly this: I'm curious at where the teachings of reincarnation and different planes of existence come from. Buddha seems like such a reasonable guy...the teachings are great, and are testable for the most part (you can see them at work in your life)...but the different planes and reincarnation concepts are just so weird, and feel way more religion-esk than the rest of it. I don't see where he got the information from...and there's no real way for me to "see for myself" as to whether those teachings are correct or not.
So yeah, it comes down to two questions (sorry for the ramble):
1) Where did the teachings for reincarnation and different planes of existence come from, and
2) Is there a good guide for reading the historical buddhist texts (like which one to read first and so on)?
I'm not a Buddhist per say, I'm just someone who is fascinated by the teachings and who finds a lot of them helpful. In fact, I feel like my mind is slowly being transformed. Buddhist teachings have taught me how to be aware so now I can learn things that I missed before in day to day life. I've read several Buddhist books, like "Buddhism Plain and Simple", "Seeking the Heart of Wisdom", and I read a couple of the Dalai Lama books...and I'm starting to wonder "What's next?".
I was raised as a Christian...and the "Holy Bible" is "the" book to read if you're a Christian. I know there isn't an equivalent book for Buddhism...but I'm curious, what is the best way to read the Buddha's teachings? The different schools of Buddhism and the different historical texts are confusing...is there a useful guide out there for that stuff as well?
The reason for the above question is particularly this: I'm curious at where the teachings of reincarnation and different planes of existence come from. Buddha seems like such a reasonable guy...the teachings are great, and are testable for the most part (you can see them at work in your life)...but the different planes and reincarnation concepts are just so weird, and feel way more religion-esk than the rest of it. I don't see where he got the information from...and there's no real way for me to "see for myself" as to whether those teachings are correct or not.
So yeah, it comes down to two questions (sorry for the ramble):
1) Where did the teachings for reincarnation and different planes of existence come from, and
2) Is there a good guide for reading the historical buddhist texts (like which one to read first and so on)?
0
Comments
2) Sutras, I suppose. Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, etc.
If you come across something like reincarnation/rebirth that leaves you in the dark, well, don't worry about it: It's either true or not true, but if you don't know, you just don't know ... no big deal.
A little actual-factual meditation practice will give you a grounded experience in what is currently just intellectual.
Best wishes.
We have zillions of hours of deep inner-directed skillful meditation of all types done by thousands and thousands of monks over 2500 years. They all compare notes and they all seem to arrive at the same conclusions (or at least the same ballpark!). There's no agenda on their parts except absolute honesty in trying to clarify for themselves and rest of us the meaning behind our existence. What more could you ask for?
AFAIK, No other "religion" has such an vast continuous archive of inner-directed selfless exploration and focus.
_____________________________________________________________
Roger -- I hope you will check out Hinduism some time.
As for myself, I'm agnostic when it comes to the idea of postmortem rebirth. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that the teachings on rebirth can be useful. If you're interested, you can read more of my thoughts about rebirth and its place in the path here.
2) Not really. My only suggestion would be to start with a more historically oriented work like How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings; or, if you want to just jump right in, start with the Pali Canon first and then move onto the Sanskrit Sutras.
When somebody says, "I don't believe in reincarnation" it's absurd to me!
If we really can not possibly understand something how can anybody make a definitive conclusion about it?
Therefore? I have to accept it conditionally, meaning: as a human I'm not smart enough to grasp the full extent of what is going on with "reincarnation." Therefore I can not reject it and am glad to assume it exists.
Want more of my amateur speculation? Read on:
What I think I do know? I "Roger" am not coming back, but tiny aspects of me will come back. Why? Because if all of "Roger" came back all of "Bob," "Tom," "Rajif," and "#&@s," all those previous lives which "Roger" is a re-continuation of, would have to come back too, it would be a mess!
Conclusion? An essential part of us as individuals comes back, but most of what comes back is, not the separate individual, but rather the connectedness we all should be feeling, at least to a small extent, while we are here.
I know that's just speculation on my part but with a purpose: To loosen up people's ideas of "reincarnation." The "I," "Me," "Myself," thing confuses people when they attempt to grasp a phenomenon (reincarnation) which is probably impossible to fully grasp with this mind in these brains in the first place!
You should first start with an overview of the different types of Buddhism. Just as there are the Old Testament, New Testament, the Book of Mormon, etc., in Christianity, there are different branches of Buddhism which tend to center around different writings.
I recommend starting from the beginning, with the oldest school of Theravada.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
If you like to listen:
http://www.suttareadings.net/
Also, go to the library and pick up a book like "Idiot's Guide to Buddhism", which gives a decent overview of the different schools and their historical origins. If you think a branch like Mahayana is interesting, you can read more on that after you study Theravada.
It's important you can identify the different branches of Buddhism because some people believe some branches are either incomplete or B.S. (In the same way a Christian might think the Old Testament is incomplete or a Catholic might think the Book of Mormon is B.S.)
Finally, regarding meditation: There are obvious reasons to do it for its own sake. But I would further say that practicing meditation will illuminate the philosophy of Buddhism. After all, much of the Buddha's teachings either come from the insights he has gained from meditating or are designed to facilitate meditation.
No idea. Personally I think they were influences from the hindu culture that was around for millenia before and after the buddha. To my mind they dimply don't fit with the four noble truths, the three foundations/marks, dependent origination or the skandic mind. But we will never know fure sure, these can only ever be personal questions to ponder.
2) Is there a good guide for reading the historical buddhist texts (like which one to read first and so on)?
No, be aware that the suttras were not in existance until hundreds of years after the buddha's time. But as a guide, start with the common ones, like the SFTWOD suttra, fire suttra, MP suttra, kalama suttra etc if you want to aim for closeness to the time of the buddha.
Doubt it all as much as you can, most you wont be able to doubt at all.
Enjoy!
Thickpaper- remember not all of us understand these abbreviations, especially new folks.
Thanks.
Many people seem to find that they no longer want to be what they understand as "Christian" when they encounter critical works and, in particular, the historical accounts of the Jesus period. So much myth, legend and exegesis have accumulated over the centuries. To make matters worse, each separate Christian group chooses a few of these and then advances them as The Truth.
This process operates in all the faith families with which I am familiar.
Buddhism has suffered in the same way.
Because we, in the West, have experienced the historical and intellectual Enlightenment and the consequent rise of empiricism and scientific method, we apply very different standards to our personal belief systems from, say, pre-Enlightenment cultures. We need what we take to be 'facts' and 'evidence' before we will trust. This is neither good nor bad ultimately. It just takes us longer and we need to do more work.
May I suggest a couple of books which may help? Both address the question of the Historical Buddha. I suggest these because the major shift in our belief system has been a new concept of 'history', relying on different 'facts' from received legends.
The first book is a classic:
T"he Historical Buddha" by H. W. Schumann:
This is not a new book but remains a solid introduction to the history.
The second is more recent (and more readable):
"Buddha" by Karen Armstrong.
No, the Buddha taught only what he personally realised. He taught from personal experience. When you see a great practitioner, they also teach from personal experience. All the texts are fine and wonderful to read but when it comes down to it, personal experience is what leads to cessation of suffering, not the books.
So to those that have recommended that you don't stress too much about teachings that you find confusing or difficult to come to terms with but just sit and practice (or walk and practice or sit on the toilet seat and practice or sleep and practice) I say, spot on. It is through personal experience of the teachings that we progress or begin to wake.
However, to say that the Buddha taught rebirth because he was taught reincarnation as a Brahmin youth, I would say that in the light of the fact that the Buddha only taught from personal experience, that this is highly unlikely. Add to that the fact that the Brahmin concept of reincarnation (in which one's soul transmigrates from lifetime to lifetime until it merges with the atman) differs greatly in the Buddha's teaching of his personal realisation of rebirth in which there is no soul or mind or body that "follows" one from lifetime to lifetime as the khandas are impermanent and arise and cease from moment to moment. In fact, when a monk went around stating that the mind was reborn from lifetime to lifetime, the Buddha rebuked him and told him he was misrepresenting the Buddha-dhamma.
But I don't have time here to go into all this and I've probably confused you enough for now. What I can very strongly recommend is reading the Introduction to the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha - a translation of the Majjhima Nikaya translated by Bikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi published by Wisdom Publications (you can find it on Amazon or maybe a library at a university will have it if you don't want to buy it). The Introduction discusses a lot of the Buddhist concepts including the ones that you find difficult to come to terms with. It is a wonderful work that if you are prepared to fork out the money, is an excellent read.
Hope I've helped instead of confused...
Metta,
Vangelis
I think you are deeply mistaken here Vangelis. To say that the Buddha did not teach philosophy, when we haver the vast and perfect system of Dharma, the richest most important system of thought mankind has produced, is close to absurd.
From the simple universal truths of the three foundations/marks, through the four noble truths and the eightfold path. It is a philosophy, and much more, but i is a philosophy.
>>>>Philosophies are fine if you are happy to pontificate ad-infinitum, but for a way out of suffering, philosophy is not enough.
Again, this seems wrong.
>>>>No, the Buddha taught only what he personally realised. He taught from personal experience.
We agree, but that experience, the path of dharma, has a fundamental philosophical aspect. why deny this?
>>>>Personal experience is what leads to cessation of suffering, not the books.
We agree, but that experience must involve contemplation and meditation on thiongs as they are, not how they seem.
>>>>However, to say that the Buddha taught rebirth because he was taught reincarnation as a Brahmin youth, I would say that in the light of the fact that the Buddha only taught from personal experience, that this is highly unlikely.
Then why does he teach rebirth, if you think he does? What reason of dharma is there to believe in this?
>>>>Add to that the fact that the Brahmin concept of reincarnation (in which one's soul transmigrates from lifetime to lifetime until it merges with the atman) differs greatly in the Buddha's teaching of his personal realisation of rebirth in which there is no soul or mind or body that "follows" one from lifetime to lifetime as the khandas are impermanent and arise and cease from moment to moment.
This "rebirth" differs from "reincarnation" line is close to buddhist bamboozling and should be avoided, especially to newcomers.
In the key sense of there being more to this life than this, the age old existential unanswerable, they are the same, however you wrap them up. The Mirror of Dharma.
namaste
It is like two archers firing at a small target very far away. If one archer fires without much precision, the arrow will go very far and for those that cannot see where the arrow lands, they can exclaim that the target was hit whereas in fact, it wasn't. Only the archer that is very careful, taking into consideration his aim, the prevailing conditions, the distance and size and type of target will have any chance of hitting his target.
To say that Brahmanism or Hinduism or Xtianity or Islam or any other "philosophy" or "theory" or religion is also the "old existential unanswerable" is to miss the target. It grossly misrepresents the Buddha-dhamma.
Metta,
Vangelis
I disagree. I think you mistake the dharmic system for the dharmic experince that is achieved through the dharmic practice.
>>>>The three marks of all existence MUST be personally experienced before nibbana can be attained.
I don't know what that means, I also dont see why you are so sure of it. The three marks are simply true in all possible worlds. They are not magic or mystical, they are just the case.
>>>The Four Noble Truths (incorporating the Eightfold Path to Perfection) MUST be personally experienced before nibbana can be attained. No, this cannot be philosophy as philosophy cannot necessarily be personally experienced.
The path has a number of dimensions, the spiritual, moral, mental and the philosophical. Nether has primacy, all are needed.
You paint a picture that Dharma Practice is some mystical journey, if you think that, OK, but I think it is a pragmatic path of effort and understanding.
So when you shout that it MUST be this etc, you just come over as yet another mystic getting dogmatic. If I am mistaken in this take oin what you say, i appologise, show me where I have gone wrong.
>>>The reason why I said this is because without personal verification, only ad-infinitum discussion and argument can be the result. Something that can be experienced does not even need to be discussed.
When I say philosophy I dont mean some undergad debating society, I mean insight and understanding about the nature and structure of the world, that which is contained in Right View/Understanding.
Dharma has a clear ontology (The Three Marks), epistemology (Doubt>Questioning>Understanding>Clarity) and eitiology (dependent origination), it fits togther perfectly and its understanding and practice leads to the cessation of suffering and the increase in positivity.
As I said before, why would you say this isnt the case? What's your actual reason?
>>>It is what creates samsara. Samsara is suffering. Nibbana is the escape from that suffering. Without rebirth, without samsara, there is no sufering, therefore there is no reason for the Buddha-dhamma.
You havent answered my question, moreover you have just pushed your position more into bamboozling.
You say without rebirth there is no suffering, this is dharmically wrong. We know from the four noble truths why there is suffering, it is clear. Do they mention rebirth and samsara? No.
>>>>No, no, no and no! The Buddha never bamboozled.
I agree, but he did warn us against those who bamboozle and the kinds of questions that lead to that.
You are saying things as if they are of the same status as the 4NT's etc, which they just are not. I try not to get involved in such issues, but I think when you say them in responce to a very newcomer it is the wise thing to do.
>>>>And the great practitioners of dhamma that are around today do not bamboozle.
I dont know who these are, nor will I accept any claim from any one as true unless I know it for myself, as the Buddha advises.
>>>The deep, subtle dhamma is very difficult to understand and explain.
I disagree. I think its fairly easy to explain, harder to fully understand and much harder to practice. (In the time of the buddha it was explained to the point of enlightenment in a matter of hours.)
>>>The Buddha expounded the dhamma in a very precise and consistent manner.
I agree. so where did he explain "precise and consistent" about samsara, suffering and rebirth as you so dogmatically stated above?
>>>>To say that Brahmanism or Hinduism or Xtianity or Islam or any other "philosophy" or "theory" or religion is also the "old existential unanswerable" is to miss the target.
Why?
>>>It grossly misrepresents the Buddha-dhamma.
I think likewise of your misinformation to the OP, hence my response.
Please don't reply unless you answer my points clearly and precisely (I am not interested in to tussle in quagmires),
namaste
Only through developing the mind's concentration can the mind see arising and cessation of phenomena. This is impermanence. Only through developing the mind's concentration can the mind see the suffering associated with impermanence. Only through developing the mind's concentration can the mind see that all phenomena including nibbana are not-self. Mere intellectual "understanding" is not experiential.
I am not going to go into more detail. The detail will literally take over 800 pages and has been consumately expounded by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga - The Path of Purification. A clear, concise manual on attaining each of the path factors starting with virtue, progressing onto concentration then the wisdom that arises from the suitably concentrated mind. Can you please define "spiritual"? Please be specific. You keep saying this. Can you please quote where I state that the Noble Eightfold Path to Perfection is "mystical" or "magical" because I will not waste time in defending myself from imagined allegations. You can choose to ignore the Visuddhimagga but since it was written by an experienced exponent of the Buddha-dhamma I will defer to this text rather than what you have to say. If I have said anything that contradicts what is in the Visuddhimagga in terms of the development of the path, then please show me where and I will stand corrected. Do not, however, accuse me of some sort of mystical writing until you can quote where I am being mystical. As for being dogmatic, I must necessarily be so because I won't sit here and listen to failed hippies spaced out on drugs telling me that the dhamma is some wishy-washy mix of all other religions. It isn't. Its precision is there for all to see. Now, before you get upset, I am not referring to you here, I am referring to many posts that I've read that are sometimes rather hippy in content. It seems that Buddhism attracts those types in this day and age but they usually have little grasp of the Buddha-dhamma and end up saying many things that just aren't in the texts. This is where I think we are getting our wires crossed. By philosophy I mean the many philosophical systems that have been expounded and intellectually nutted out by the respective philosophers from ancient times. Any intellectually expounded system can only produce more confusion as it can't be experienced and verified. This is why I never describe Buddhism as a philosophical system as many do because it goes beyond mere philosophy. When the Buddha talks about impermanence and suffering it is not from a philosophical standpoint, it is from having deeply experienced it, understood it completely and attained freedom from it. Ie, he has been able to "see" it with his mind. This is very different to philosophy. No, what I am saying is that mere intellectual understanding is not enough. The mind's concentration needs to be developed to the point that it can experience and "see" impermanence, suffering and not-self. It needs to be able to do this again and again and again until all bonds are broken and it finally wakes up. All this is in the Visuddhimagga so if I am saying anything that is different to what is there, then I stand corrected. You accuse me of not answering your question yet I have answered it. If you don't understand the answer then ask for clarification. Accusations won't get you anywhere. SN 56.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth
translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera
"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects."
So with birth and death defined as suffering, if there is no rebirth, then there is no suffering after death.
As for the Buddha's expounding of kamma and rebirth, it occurs in many suttas but the sutta devoted to it is: MN 136 Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Great Exposition of Kamma
I won't reproduce the whole sutta here but you can read it here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html
This response will have to be in 2 parts due to the limitations of the current forum.
As for it being explained to the point of enlightenment in a matter of hours, it is true that in the suttas there were beings that attained enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's talks but many of them were either celestial beings (who's being mystical now?) or monks who had been practising for some time. Even the Buddhas two closest disciples took one to two weeks to attain nibbana and then only after 2 decades of some form of mind-training with other teachers in search for the dhamma. Many of the other monks took decades of practice to attain nibanna. I dogmatically
In summary, I think this whole misunderstanding has arisen due to our different understandings of the term philosophy.
Metta,
Vangelis
Bikkhu Bodhi is an excellent scholar-monk and he discusses all these Buddhist concepts in the introduction with relevant references.
>>>Vangelis >>>I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please be more precise.
Simply that the experience of dharma comes from the practice of dharma and a component of that practices is Right Understanding, which is philosophical. I think you seem to lump it all together, erroneously.
>>>Vangelis >>>There is nothing magical or mystical in Buddhism - it can all be experienced by the wise. The arising of wisdom only occurs from direct experience, not intellectual "understanding".
I disagree, there is an intellectual aspect to it, in the same sense as there is a moral and mental aspect.
>>>>Mere intellectual "understanding" is not experiential.
I agree. By itself the philosophical/intellectual aspect isn't enough. The path has eight paths, not one.
>>>I am not going to go into more detail.
I think that says it all.
>>>>The detail will literally take over 800 pages
Not very simple then. You know, the buddha could explain dharma in a few hours, now we need weeks?
>>>and has been consumately expounded by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga - The Path of Purification.
Written over a thousand years after the buddha's death
>>>>Can you please define "spiritual"? Please be specific.
The phenomenon and experiences that arrise when one relates to their existence. It will be differnt for all.
In the sense that love is between two people, an emergent experince, the spiritual is between one and the world.
>>>>You can choose to ignore the Visuddhimagga but since it was written by an experienced exponent of the Buddha-dhamma I will defer to this text rather than what you have to say.
That is your choice, I have no issue with that. My issue is when you imply that if it isnt your way it is wrong. But for the sake of the quagmire, why do you belive what is written? have you really challenged it? Have you tested it, doubted it?
>>>If I have said anything that contradicts what is in the Visuddhimagga in terms of the development of the path, then please show me where and I will stand corrected.
I have no idea or care, that is your path. You treat a book that has no connection with the buddha as if its from his living mouth. My point in this is not that you are wrong in you what you believe but that you are wrong in telling a new buddhist this so dogmatically and wrong telling me I am wrong.
>>>Do not, however, accuse me of some sort of mystical writing until you can quote where I am being mystical.
My appologies, I guess I must have misread you.
>>>As for being dogmatic, I must necessarily be so because I won't sit here and listen to failed hippies spaced out on drugs telling me that the dhamma is some wishy-washy mix of all other religions.
I am not sure where you believes or aggression come from, especially in the above.
>>>>It isn't. Its precision is there for all to see.
I agree, and whereas I can explain it as can and do many others here, your only retort is to tell me to skip off and read 800 pages of early medieval writing
>>>>Now, before you get upset, I am not referring to you here, I am referring to many posts that I've read that are sometimes rather hippy in content.
I wasn't upset, confused, as said. But still my point remains, who are you to have this authority? An authority that can tell someone their path is wrong, and to do so with a very undharnmic insulting attude.
>>>It seems that Buddhism attracts those types in this day and age but they usually have little grasp of the Buddha-dhamma and end up saying many things that just aren't in the texts.
The texts are a fabrication of monks who were born centuries after the buddhas time. They are the most important texts in the world to me, but to say they are accurate and should not be tested is utterly undharmic.
We do not need the texts to know dharma. It was true before the texts, before the buddha.
>>>>When the Buddha talks about impermanence and suffering it is not from a philosophical standpoint, it is from having deeply experienced it, understood it completely and attained freedom from it.
Again you mash the path up. Right Understanding is purely philosophical, right mindfullness is purely unphilosophical, for example.
>>>>me>>>>You say without rebirth there is no suffering, this is dharmically wrong. We know from the four noble truths why there is suffering, it is clear. Do they mention rebirth and samsara? No.
>>>>>>>"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects."
Two points on the above. One: Really it should be dukka not suffering. Suffering is an approximation of dukka, the negative interdependence of all things.
Two: There is no mention of rebirth.
>>>>>So with birth and death defined as suffering, if there is no rebirth, then there is no suffering after death.
I think you had to jump of the path to jump to that conclusion. Can you explain it, without another 800 page "go read"?
>>>>As for the Buddha's expounding of kamma and rebirth, it occurs in many suttas but the sutta devoted to it is: MN 136 Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Great Exposition of Kamma
Can you explain it though? I can explain all i understand of dharma without a single URL, it seems you cannot.
If someone cant explain something clearly I think they don't understand it clearly.
tbc.....
The Kalama Suttra.
I remember another place two where he asks us to question even his teaching. Jason or someone else may know.
But yes, the Kalama Suttra.
>>>>If it were easy to explain, we would not be having this discussion...
Ummmm.... We are having this discussion because you didnt like the way the OP was being answered by myself and others. It seems we are fraudulent buddhists unless we read all 800 pages of Buddhaghosa....
>>>As for it being explained to the point of enlightenment in a matter of hours, it is true that in the suttas there were beings that attained enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's talks but many of them were either celestial beings (who's being mystical now?) or monks who had been practising for some time.
I disagree.
>>>Even the Buddhas two closest disciples took one to two weeks to attain nibbana and then only after 2 decades of some form of mind-training with other teachers in search for the dhamma. Many of the other monks took decades of practice to attain nibanna.
I disagree.
>>>>I dogmatically
Then I will assume you just cant explain it clearly. If you cant explain, you don't understand it clearly.
Let's assume we have lost all of the suttras and just have the 4NT's and all they contain. You wouldn't be able to pass the buck as you so often do. Most of here, I believe, would still see and practice dharma.
>>>>Because a thousand different contradictory systems can't be right.
Can you find anyone here, on this forum, who expounds systems that contradict the 4NT's? I don't think so. Sure there will be differences about the unanswerable, and differences about methods, but ultimately all will be dharmically consistent with each other and the noble truths.
>>>>Well, in my response this time I have tried to use as many references and quotes as I can to back up what I have said.
But I dont respect those quotes if you cannot explain them. They dont back you up, more like you cling to them.
So again, can you try to explain your rightness and our wrongness without URLs and with your own words?
>>>I used to always quote from texts when I responded but more recently I have just made the statements rather than lengthen a response unduly with quotes and references.
Try harder! How about never quote from a text, give it a whirl, you might find you learn from yourself.
>>>>If I have made statements that I have not referenced, please let me know and I will supply the references. If I have made statements that contradict the texts I have quoted, then I humbly stand corrected.
Vangelis, stop quoting, supply your own lighting, do your own writing's.
>>>>In summary, I think this whole misunderstanding has arisen due to our different understandings of the term philosophy.
Frankly no, it may have started like that, now I feel you communicate with Wrong Speech and promote Wrong Understanding. You insult others and dogmatise dharma to someone new to Buddhism. I hope you change your ways, but that is your care not mine.
Peace.
The Buddha had a term for people like you. Eel-wriggler.
No, you began with the dogma, about what I and pothers said.
>>>>>I explain something in simple terms
Can you paste where you did this please, as I cannot see it and have tried to.
>>>>I quote the suttas and you reject them?
No, I reject your reliance on them. If you cannot explain it clearly, you don't understand it clearly.
>>>>The Buddha had a term for people like you. Eel-wriggler.
I have remained clear and consistent throughout. If you disagree show me where.
Anyways, it says much you can only end on a personal insult.
They are your fruit.
The different planes and reincarnation concepts were from the remarkable meditation practitioners of Hindu who had seen it through their deep meditation then. Unfortunately, these cultivators did not know how these planes came about as their meditation practice did not achieve the intended result of true insight. Similarly on the concept of science that discovered the existence of different dimensions but did not achieve a breakthrough :thumbsup: I believe that one day, scientist would induce a Buddha from their earnest search of reality to push science into another milestone of wholesome and ultimate bliss for mankind.