Buddhism

[firedragon]

Well. In Buddhism there are mainly two different paths or sects if someone likes to call them called Mahayana and Theravadha. I am not well read at all in Mahayana Buddhism so the contributors to this thread may teach some things with reference that I will truly be grateful for.

Mahayana means the Big Vehicle. Yana means vehicle that provides transport. When we say vehicle in English it sounds like a car or a van but not an aircraft. But Yana means a general vehicle with more of an emphasis to a floating vehicle. Like an aircraft. Or even some kind of medium which could just be non-physical.

Maha means large. It has a bigger meaning than just saying “big”. It’s “Huge”. In meaning. Well, Theravadha is also called Heenayana which means small vehicle. Heena means small or thin. Small vehicle meaning there are not too many options or the path is smaller. Or stricter. So in definition Mahayana should have a much bigger opening for “salvation” if that word could be used here, and Theravadha has a much smaller or strict pathway for salvation.

Assuming almost everyone knows the story of the Buddha, the Bodhisathva who supposedly was to be either the Buddha or the Sakvithi raja or the “big time king”, told by a sage at his birth. So he was already prophesied to be great either way at his birth. The soothsayer had some magical powers to make such prophecies. This is a contention that has to be thought of by the Buddhists who claim Buddhism is a naturalistic religion while some even claim it’s an atheistic religion. Sidhdhartha means the one who does the truth or the one who has achieved the truth. “It’s true that he has achieved”. He was not let out to engage with the real world but one day he did go out and he see’s the 4 truths of this world. A dead person, an old person, a sick person, and a monk. So this affects him strongly where he realises these are the truths of this life and he opts to go out looking for salvation. If I may, he goes out looking for “an end to a fire”. A blowing out of a candle. Peace. Nibbana.

Well he leaves his palace which is called “Gihi”. He goes through a lot of learning about life. He learns from scholars. Like Kondangnga, bhaddhiya, vappa, mahanama, assaji, and realises this is nice, but not the ultimate truth. Becomes a hermit, without food etc which is called Dhushkara Kriya or the difficult acts and still realises its useless. Then he says he understood madhyama prathipadha. The middle path.

This middle path is difficult to understand. I doubt I have so far met someone who has understood it. One may believe he has understood it. The meaning of this middle path is “neither this or that but whats in between”.

Some buddhists tend to say that Buddhism does not believe in anything divine. But Buddhism teaches that a simple fact of the Buddha’s empathy or metta or how ever you wish to interpret it is not just a feeling or love but something he could project to another person magically. What’s your concept? Is it magic which is not divine? Or is it something that could be achieved through meditation like the Chinese chi energy which looks like magic, but it’s just natural? Is it natural to emit a feeling so strong enough to stop a drunk elephant from crushing a child? How about the Buddhist teaching of Irdhi? Is it not divine? Where do these powers come from?

A lot of people claim the Buddha. A very few Muslims have claimed he was a prophet of God, misread. Bahai’s claim he was an old manifestation of God, of course among others like Krishna, Jesus, etc etc etc and I just believe that’s an attempt to bring all to their faith. I mean they officially do that, not like Islam where it’s nothing official. A few “assume” that it could be an older prophet who was misread by later adherents. I guess there maybe many religions in the modern world who do this kind of thing, and some maybe right.

What do you think is the Buddha’s position? Is it almost atheistic? Is it a completely natural one? What are the direct sources you use for your view? Not some website you just found on the internet via a quick google search

I would love to hear some insight.

Thank you very much.

 

[Sirona]

As an ex-Buddhist (Diamond Way), I'll give it a try.

First of all, I think one should distiguish between the life story of the Buddha which has elements of legend, and the actual teaching of Buddhist philosophy. Although the life story of Buddha is part of Buddhism, it is not "essential" in the sense the stories in the Torah / Bible / Quran probably are for Abrahamics. Buddhism teaches that there are no "actual" gods (it's true that they're "higher beings") but they can die and are reborn in the circle of samsara just like anybody else (humans, animals, and plants). As for the soul, Buddhism teaches that there is no permanent soul but it is a conglomerate of some sorts of "factors" like desire for example. When the soul dies, the factors dissolve and recombine for birth in a new soul. But there's no "consciousness" or "individuality" being reborn, just those factors. So, one could say that Buddhism believes neither in god(s) nor in an immortal soul in an Abrahamic sense. In consequence, I think it's quite possible to consider Buddhism as an atheist philosophy.

The middle path means neither (excessive, fundamentalist) strive for "holiness" nor succumbing to one's animal nature (the opposite). The middle path is illustrated by the strings of a stringed instrument. If one string is not tightened enough (letting oneself go), there will be no proper sound. If the string is too tight (excessive asceticism / striving for "holiness"), it will snap. Only when the string is properly tightened (not too loose and not too tight), there will be a beautiful sound. This is the middle way.

Theravada vs. mahayana:
In Mahayana, everyone, whether monk/nun or layperson, has the possibility to attain nirvana already after this life. As far as I know, in Theravada, only monks have this possibility. To my knowledge, Buddhist nuns do not exist in Theravada and lay people only attain the possibility of a better birth if they prepare themselves for a future life as a monk by serving the present monks. So, in Mahayana, a lot more people can ride on the "vehicle of enlightenment" than in Hinayana, consequently Mahayana is the "great vehicle".

Opinions from different religions: If you're looking for Buddhist answers, why do you care what Baha'is think about it? As I explained, there's no God / Allah in Buddhism, so making Buddha a messenger of this "God" / "Allah" totally twists the nature of the Buddhist philosophy.

Correct me when I'm wrong, but I have absolutely no interest in starting a fight over this.

 

[firedragon]

As an ex-Buddhist, I'll give it a try.

First of all, I think one should distiguish between the life story of the Buddha which has elements of legend, and the actual teaching of Buddhist philosophy. Although the life story of Buddha is part of Buddhism, it is not "essential" in the sense the stories in the Torah / Bible / Quran probably are. Buddhism teaches that there are no "actual" gods (it's true that they're "higher beings") but they can die and are reborn in the circle of samsara just like anybody else (humans, animals, and plants). As for the soul, Buddhism teaches that there is no permanent soul but it is a conglomerate auf some sorts of "factors" like desire for example. When the soul dies, the factors dissolve and recombine for birth in a new soul. But there's no "consciousness" or "individuality" being reborn, just those factors. So, one could say that Buddhism believes neither in god(s) nor in an immortal soul in an Abrahamic sence. In consequence, I think it's possible to consider Buddhism as an atheist philosophy.

I thank you very much for your response. I agree that one could make a distinction between Buddha's life story and the Buddhist teachings. But without his life story, there won't be much teachings. Anyone who reads the direct source would know. Vis vis, the Tipitaka.

The middle path means neither (excessive, fundamentalist) strife for "holiness" nor succumbing to an animal nature (the opposite). The middle path is illustrated by the strings of a stringed instrument. If one side is stretched too loosely (letting oneself go), there will be no proper sound. If the string is too tight (excessive asceticism / striving for "holiness"), it breaks. Only when the string is properly tensioned (not too loose and not too tight), there is a beautiful sound. This is the middle way.

That's the superficial understanding. Or the Shallow understanding. Or as Buddhism refers to as "Chathukkang". The deeper understanding or the Abhidhamma is to understand the void in between this and that. When you understand it, you have reached a state of sovan. This does not apply to daily living for the Gihi Satta. This is for the vinaya satta or in usually communicated terms, pavidhi.

But thank you for giving me that understanding of yours. It's easier to explain to people. And people can apply it to daily life as usually taught.

Theravada vs. mahayana:
In Mahayana, everyone, whether monk/nun or layperson, has the possibility to attain nirvana already after this life. As far as I know, in Theravada, only monks have this possibility. To my knowledge, Buddhist nuns do not exist in Theravada and lay people only attain the possibility of a better birth if they prepare themselves for a future life as a monk by serving the present monks. So, in Mahayana, more people can ride on the "vehicle of enlightenment" than in Hinayana, consequently Mahayana is the "great vehicle".

Not really Sirona. In Theravadha also there are female buddhist priests or as you referred to "nuns". Many. And also, you were wrong about the monks vs the normal human being. Everyone can attain nirvana. But it would depend on your definition of a monk. I don't know much about Mahayana so I cannot say much about it. This is only about the Theravadha buddhism that I spoke of. Theravadha means the arguments of the Thera's or how do you say "high priests"?? I don't know if high priests is the correct term but Theravadha means the teachings or arguments of the high priests. Everyone can attain nirvana if the teachings are followed and they come to understand madhyama prathipadha and achieve Sovan, Arahath and/or then enlightenment.

I would like to learn more about the Mahayana differences in this matter. Most if not all Buddhists in this forum are from the Mahayana tradition so it will be great to hear what you and others have to say about it.

Opinions from different religions: If you're looking for Buddhist answers, why do you care what Baha'is think about it? As I explained, there's no God / Allah in Buddhism, so making Buddha a messenger of this "God" / "Allah" totally twists the nature of the Buddhist philosophy.

I didn't say "I care about what the Bahai's think about it". You have given your Buddhist answer to the question so thank you very much.

Since you are not interested in that particular topic, I will not ask any further questions on that. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

@ronki23

I thought maybe you have something to contribute in this thread.

 

[sun rise]

Many years ago I became interested in Buddhism and studied specifically Zen and Tibetan. Their emphasis was not historical/scriptural as is true for the Abrahamic religions but oriented around the basics in a very down-to-earth manner.

In both cases, the approach I learned was intensely focused on action based on the fundamentals not on scriptural gymnastics. The teaching was focused on integrating one's situation with dharma not on what this or that scripture might say. For example

“When we find ourselves in a situation in which our buttons are being pushed, we can choose to repress or act out, or we can choose to practice. If we can start to do the exchange, breathing in with the intention of keeping our hearts open to the embarrassment or fear or anger that we feel, then to our surprise we find that we are also open to what the other person is feeling. Open heart is open heart.” ― Chogyam Trungpa
​

When I visited his center one thing that impressed me was how they put these principles into action. As I remember, every day there was a period of work unless you were on a meditation intensive. During that work period, people were asked to work on what bothered them. Did the floor look dirty to you - then you cleaned it. That invited people to reflect on their attachments and emotions.

When I visited Kapleau's zen center, we focused on meditation whether sitting or walking. Again the focus was on action. They did one thing there that impressed me. In the East, monks begged for food. In the West, the culture was so different that begging was not appropriate. So they picked up litter on the roadside

Zen also sometmies uses a keisaku, a stick applied to the meditator who was sleepy or losing concentration. Rather than not have it at all as one school practiced or have it applied when the wielder though necessary, the adaptation was to allow the one meditating to diagnose his own condition and request it which fits much better for Westerners.

Finally, the protean nature of Buddhism allows people to be both Buddhist and another religion as Sylvia Boorstein wrote about in
That's Funny, You Don't Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Jew and a Passionate Buddhist

 

[firedragon]

Many years ago I became interested in Buddhism and studied specifically Zen and Tibetan. Their emphasis was not historical/scriptural as is true for the Abrahamic religions but oriented around the basics in a very down-to-earth manner.

In both cases, the approach I learned was intensely focused on action based on the fundamentals not on scriptural gymnastics. The teaching was focused on integrating one's situation with dharma not on what this or that scripture might say. For example

“When we find ourselves in a situation in which our buttons are being pushed, we can choose to repress or act out, or we can choose to practice. If we can start to do the exchange, breathing in with the intention of keeping our hearts open to the embarrassment or fear or anger that we feel, then to our surprise we find that we are also open to what the other person is feeling. Open heart is open heart.” ― Chogyam Trungpa
​

When I visited his center one thing that impressed me was how they put these principles into action. As I remember, every day there was a period of work unless you were on a meditation intensive. During that work period, people were asked to work on what bothered them. Did the floor look dirty to you - then you cleaned it. That invited people to reflect on their attachments and emotions.

When I visited Kapleau's zen center, we focused on meditation whether sitting or walking. Again the focus was on action. They did one thing there that impressed me. In the East, monks begged for food. In the West, the culture was so different that begging was not appropriate. So they picked up litter on the roadside

Zen also sometmies uses a keisaku, a stick applied to the meditator who was sleepy or losing concentration. Rather than not have it at all as one school practiced or have it applied when the wielder though necessary, the adaptation was to allow the one meditating to diagnose his own condition and request it which fits much better for Westerners.

Finally, the protean nature of Buddhism allows people to be both Buddhist and another religion as Sylvia Boorstein wrote about in
That's Funny, You Don't Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Jew and a Passionate Buddhist

Hey thanks for that. Very interesting. If it's not based on scripture, it's not based on the Buddha. So how is it called Buddhism?

 

[syo]

What do you think is the Buddha’s position? Is it almost atheistic? Is it a completely natural one? What are the direct sources you use for your view?

Buddha is Vishnu's ninth avatar. All else are fairy tales.

 

[Secret Chief]

Buddha is Vishnu's ninth avatar. All else are fairy tales.

I believe in fairy tales.

 

[syo]

I believe in fairy tales.

I do too.

 

[firedragon]

Buddha is Vishnu's ninth avatar. All else are fairy tales.

I have heard this, but I don't know what's the source on this thought. Please give me the direct source that says this so that I could read up. Thank you very much.

 

[firedragon]

@Lyndon

What do you say?

 

[syo]

I have heard this, but I don't know what's the source on this thought. Please give me the direct source that says this so that I could read up. Thank you very much.

Search ''dashavatara''.

 

[firedragon]

Search ''dashavatara''.

I did find that the Puranas mention it. But what I noticed was that the oldest or more well known puranas like the Bhavisha purana or the Vedas like the adarvaved, sam ved, rig ved etc don't mention the Buddha. Or at least no one seem to mention them. I am not well versed in Hindu scripture so I am not making these claims. I am only going by what people have written.

Why do you think that is?

 

[syo]

Why do you think that is?

It depends the text. Read the text and stop at what it says. That's it.

 

[firedragon]

It depends the text. Read the text and stop at what it says. That's it.

Hmm. Okay. No problem.

Do you negate the Tipitaka as nonsense?

 

[syo]

Do you negate the Tipitaka as nonsense?

No.

 

[firedragon]

No.

I asked because you said other than the Buddha being the 9th avatar, everything else is fairy tales or something to that nature.

Thus, if you do accept the Tipitaka, it does not say anything about being an avatar, and it has the Buddhas stories or attha katha, and the formulas and the discipline and the deep philosophy.

How do you marry the two? That is, everything else being fairy tales, and you not dismissing the Tipitaka as nonsense.

Thank you very much.

 

[syo]

I asked because you said other than the Buddha being the 9th avatar, everything else is fairy tales or something to that nature.

Thus, if you do accept the Tipitaka, it does not say anything about being an avatar, and it has the Buddhas stories or attha katha, and the formulas and the discipline and the deep philosophy.

How do you marry the two? That is, everything else being fairy tales, and you not dismissing the Tipitaka as nonsense.

Thank you very much.

Tripitaka is about the avatar but not Vishnu exclusively.

 

[firedragon]

Tripitaka is about the avatar but not Vishnu exclusively.

I understand the Tipitaka is the Buddhas teachings. If you wish you could call him the avatar. Nothing about Vishnu. True.

So what you seem to be saying is that you do accept the Tipitaka, and that it is about the Buddha who is an avatar of Vishnu, and thats it. It does not have any repercussions on him being an avatar. That's how I understand you. I could be wrong.

My question was due to it being completely about what the Buddha taught, but in it, he never says he was an avatar.

Nevermind. I think I understand your view. Thank you very much for engaging and giving your view. Cheers.

 

[sun rise]

Hey thanks for that. Very interesting. If it's not based on scripture, it's not based on the Buddha. So how is it called Buddhism?

There are a set of teachings but not from God. They're from someone considered to have started off life as an ordinary human who became enlightened. It's "scripture" but not quite as we often think of it in the Abrahamic religions.. The basis is that what he attained anyone can attain and there is a way to do it: the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. The Buddhist magazine Tricycle. For example: has this which is a fundamental part of Buddhist "scripture". The centers I visited were on applying these 8 to everyday life such as picking up litter and meditation. They were not about going into "scripture" as such but in how to apply a few simple ideas in life.

The Noble Eightfold Path

1. Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
2. Right thought (Samma sankappa)
3. Right speech (Samma vaca)
4. Right action (Samma kammanta)
5. Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
6. Right effort (Samma vayama)
7. Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
8. Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

Practically the whole teaching of the Buddha, to which he devoted himself during 45 years, deals in some way or other with this path. He explained it in different ways and in different words to different people, according to the stage of their development and their capacity to understand and follow him. But the essence of those many thousand discourses scattered in the Buddhist scriptures is found in the noble eightfold path.

Key for me is that it's the same message that is in various places but with different words. Sometimes the words of a teacher can be most provocative such as "If you meet the Buddha, kill him:" From that link:

If you are familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, you will recognize that Linji is talking about Buddha Nature, which is the fundamental nature of all beings. In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion.