Dalai Lama says "Buddhism Not Blind Faith"

DhammaDhatu

3:33 minutes

Cloud

I picked up words like Investigation, Experiment, Scientific, not following the teachings (or HHDL or your teacher/guru) based on "blind faith or devotion".

Well said.

Jeffrey

At the same time it takes devotion to be a scientist in my experience. Devotion to the dollar and devotion to learning and fun. It takes devotion to the truth and the investigation of the buddhist path in order to practice at all. We all have a certain amount of devotion in that sense which is like curiosity but I think curiosity would be another side of the same thing. Devotion is more like determination and patience whereas during curiosity the joyful effort. Ksanti versus Virya.

compassionate_warrior

Is this anything new? Why was this posted?

laurajean

Is this anything new? Why was this posted?

I agree. With all due respect the the original poster, this is common knowledge, isn't it?

DhammaDhatu

Is this anything new? Why was this posted?

CW

Posted for "beginners" to listen to (rather than "old hands" to get fussed about).

Is this common knowledge? Judging by many of the posts on this forum, my answer is "no".

NamNam

Is this anything new? Why was this posted?

CW

Posted for "beginners" to listen to (rather than "old hands" to get fussed about).

Is this common knowledge? Judging by many of the posts on this forum, my answer is "no".

+1 from me:)

Besides revision of some basic principles can always be beneficial.

federica

@compassionate_warrior, @laurajean:

For once - it's in exactly the correct sub-forum.
This isn't for the benefit of established members, who seem to view it as 'common knowledge'.
Just because "you" know, does it follow that any other beginner visiting, will?

:rolleyes:

laurajean

@compassionate_warrior, @laurajean:

For once - it's in exactly the correct sub-forum.
This isn't for the benefit of established members, who seem to view it as 'common knowledge'.
Just because "you" know, does it follow that any other beginner visiting, will?

:rolleyes:

You're right, my apologies.

federica

I forgive you.
Don't do it again.

Roger

I woke up. Got my one cup of coffee. Sat down (no blackberry) at computer and listened to this HHDL video posted by Dhamma Dhatu and I'm CHARGED for the day! THANK YOU DD.

Did I "hear it before?" Of course. Did I suffer hearing it again? No!

newbuddhist.com = always something to start your day on the right footing.

No problem laurajean! We love you (in a non-weird way of course).

Roger

BTW, what I always start thinking about when this "investigation" idea comes up?

I think of millions of person-hours spent in meditation by countless Buddhist monks over the centuries. You'd think with all those inner-focussed minds at work, different or even wildly divergent ideas would have sprung forth and started discord and conflicts in daily (non-meditation) life, right?

Instead, millions of person-hours among probably the most honest, earnest, "reality" seeking beings who ever lived spent in meditation, observation, discussion and debate in an unbroken lineage: and they all come out with pretty much the same story: love, compassion, service, tolerance, some concept of reincarnation (BTW very difficult for all humans to grasp and why shouldn't it be?), Kharma, etc.

To me? THAT says something big. What does it say? As far as human beings and our little brains in these bodies occupied with a little speck of Infinite Mind is concerned: their investigations are the absolute best we can do in this human lifetime.

No faith in believing this. Just look at the situation I describe above and discover it's just inductive reasoning. The evidence is there (deep inner reflection, observation and lots of "comparing notes" over centuries). Even modern scientists do it though they've been at it only for a couple hundred years! HAHAHA!

Sabre

Wonderful movie, thanks for posting this DD. Although common knowledge it is always good to point this out once more.

Instead, millions of person-hours among probably the most honest, earnest, "reality" seeking beings who ever lived spent in meditation, observation, discussion and debate in an unbroken lineage: and they all come out with pretty much the same story: love, compassion, service, tolerance, some concept of reincarnation (BTW very difficult for all humans to grasp and why shouldn't it be?), Kharma, etc.

That indeed says something big. For one thing it shows there isn't any difference in all types of Buddhism at all. The methods may be different, the result is the same. And all religions that I know of for that matter, although some are (sadly enough) stuck in their books and faith, as HHDL says.

Whoever thinks their tradition is right and all others are wrong, that's the point where you've stopped investigating. There is only one truth, one nature, one kind of enlightenment, not several.

Love,
Sabre :vimp:

Sabre

This is how I see it:

Zen uses wisdom as the main aspect of the 8-fold path to pull the rest along with it. Therevada uses mental development and Mahayana uses ethical conduct. The three different main factors of the path. Whatever suits somebody most, that's the way they've got to go. No need to ever judge. It always makes me a bit sad when somebody says "Yes, but Mahayana says this, but Therevada says this blabla", "my teacher is right, yours is wrong", "this sutta says this, but this sutta says that".. It's all exactly the same Buddhism. And the Buddha knew different approaches were suitable for different people, that's why he gave so many different ways. Not because one is right and the others are wrong.

Of course it also has to do with culture. Whatever suits a culture, that's the way Buddhism will go. Makes it more accessible for people and that's important.

Calling it buddhism our yourself a buddhist is already putting it in a spot where it should not be. Call yourself a loving philosopher and mind-scientist, that's better.

Roger

There is only one truth, one nature, one kind of enlightenment, not several.

Love,
Sabre :vimp:

Yeah, What he (Sabre) said! :thumbsup:

What's more? Enlightenment can not be communicated nor explained in anyway that's ever even mnutely adequate. Too bad for "religions" that think otherwise.

E. is too HUUUUUGE for that.

E. can only be made evident thru deeds.

compassionate_warrior

Posted for "beginners" to listen to (rather than "old hands" to get fussed about).

Is this common knowledge? Judging by many of the posts on this forum, my answer is "no".

True, I didn't notice it was in "Beginners". But my impression of this forum is that the "investigate for yourself" view is posted almost daily (especially in those endless rebirth debates). On the other hand, we do have many novice members who may not have heard that teaching. In my case, it was one of the first things I learned about Buddhism, and was one thing that attracted me to it strongly. It's unique to Buddhism, of all the spiritual traditions/religions. :clap:

Dakini

It always makes me a bit sad when somebody says "Yes, "my teacher is right, yours is wrong", "this sutta says this, but this sutta says that".. It's all exactly the same Buddhism. And the Buddha knew different approaches were suitable for different people, that's why he gave so many different ways.

Is that why there are contradictions in the suttras, Sabre? I've been trying to figure that out. I didn't know there were contradictions, until I joined this site; it's all new to me. So does that mean, contrary to the view of some, that one can, in fact, "pick and choose"?

federica

No, it means that what might work for one person who (purely as a completely hypothetical example) lives in a society where it is legal and normal to have several wives, some aspects may be applicable, but others not. Yet to another person living in a society where the rules, regulations and social customs are different, other aspects would apply.

do you know the Sutta of the Simsapa leaves?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.wlsh.html

Jeffrey

"So does that mean, contrary to the view of some, that one can, in fact, "pick and choose"?"

You can do whatever you want. The motive is whats important. Do you want to awaken or get better at samsara? But no one cares if you take a cookie from the cookie jar

Sabre

It always makes me a bit sad when somebody says "Yes, "my teacher is right, yours is wrong", "this sutta says this, but this sutta says that".. It's all exactly the same Buddhism. And the Buddha knew different approaches were suitable for different people, that's why he gave so many different ways.

Is that why there are contradictions in the suttras, Sabre? I've been trying to figure that out. I didn't know there were contradictions, until I joined this site; it's all new to me. So does that mean, contrary to the view of some, that one can, in fact, "pick and choose"?

Some approaches work for some, some don't. A caring and loving person might not get very far with Zen and it's koans, so Mayahana may be better for him/her perhaps. One who is more focused on meditation might like Theravada more. Wherever you feel most at home is best.

As long as you respect each tradition just as much it's fine, really. In this age of information technology I just would take a bit from all. First you'll see massive 'differences', but in time you'll find they are all the exact same thing.

No difference whatsoever, maybe some more focus on certain concepts, that's all. Of course there will always be 'fights' about who's right on a superficial level. I think it is wise to not get distracted by that.

Also teachers like Tolle are the same. Maybe even Hinduism is in essence the same, I don't know enough about it to be sure, but they use the same meditation so a lot of them must have gotten in the enlightenment stream (by "accident"), it's almost impossible that they didn't. Their goal of being "one with god" (or whatever) must be enlightenment then.

Well basically everything is 'the same', and all religions are good, but you get the point I guess.

Dakini

No, it means that what might work for one person who (purely as a completely hypothetical example) lives in a society where it is legal and normal to have several wives, some aspects may be applicable, but others not. Yet to another person living in a society where the rules, regulations and social customs are different, other aspects would apply.

do you know the Sutta of the Simsapa leaves?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.wlsh.html

Thank you for the text. What I meant more, about picking and choosing, is that if the Buddha taught one view of, say, rebirth, or karma, to one group, then another thing to another group, can we choose what accords with our own experience or, perhaps, bias, then choose other teachings, and thereby cobble together our own patchwork of teachings, without accepting the whole kit and kaboodle of any particular school? Can we mix and match?

Jeffrey

I think so Dakini, but just keep inquisitive. Just my opinion. I think its ok to practice with people who don't share all your same views. As long as you can be supportive of eachother.

Dakini

I think so Dakini, but just keep inquisitive. Just my opinion. I think its ok to practice with people who don't share all your same views. As long as you can be supportive of eachother.

Thanks, I like this answer. It's a "keeper"!