Buddhism

[firedragon]

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.

I know that the "scripture" is from a man and not God. I know the said history of the Tipitaka etc etc etc. I know the arya atta angika magga. My question was based on what you said about your school of thought in Buddhism that you spoke of is not based on scripture. If it's not based on scripture it cannot be based on the Buddha's teachings because how else would the Buddha's teachings be encapsulated? If it's not based on the Buddha's teachings how could it be called Buddhism? It's just a logical question based on your statement "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.".

I am not well versed in Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

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”.
<...>

The first words from Buddha's first sermon after his enlightenment define the Middle Path:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
​

To put it into western terms: the middle path is the conscious mind (ego) mediating between the id (pleasure principle--devotion to sense pleasures) and the superego (perfecting principle--devotion to self-affliction,) which produces vision and knowledge--development of the conscious mind (ego.) You are examining the repressed stuff in your unconscious mind and intelligently resolving it.

-----------------
As for the Mahayana method of how to discern Buddhadharma from Buddhism in drag, please see the Four Dharma Seals. (There is a link to them in my signature line.)

I hope this helps.

 

[firedragon]

The first words from Buddha's first sermon after his enlightenment define the Middle Path:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
​

To put it into western terms: the middle path is the conscious mind (ego) mediating between the id (pleasure principle--devotion to sense pleasures) and the superego (perfecting principle--devotion to self-affliction,) which produces vision and knowledge--development of the conscious mind (ego.) You are examining the repressed stuff in your unconscious mind and intelligently resolving it.

-----------------
As for the Mahayana method of how to discern Buddhadharma from Buddhism in drag, please see the Four Dharma Seals. (There is a link to them in my signature line.)

I hope this helps.

Thank you so much Crossfire. Really appreciate it.

Yes you are correct, these are known to be the earliest writings after the Buddha. The Tipitaka. You know what? The link you gave I read through it. I have some issues with it. I mean, not with what you said about it, just some issues with the way they had done it. Some parts are missing. Maybe because they are insignificant. Or I am just missing some words. Maybe I finally should start using glasses or something.

For example, it begins with "Isipathane Migadhaaye". These are two different names. But the web page in English says "in the game refuge". It's actually pretty bad in my opinion. Miigadhaaya is an actual place in Isipathana. So it should be "In Isipathana, at a place called Migadhaaya". Of course this does not affect the message. And this seems to drop the book name. I cant understand why because the name of the book gives a context that's very important. Also what I find is that he translates as sensual pleasures which makes it some kind of sexual pleasure seeking. But Kam can mean craving.

Nevermind that. If you could be kind enough to respond to the last question in the thread also I will be really grateful.

 

[crossfire]

Thank you so much Crossfire. Really appreciate it.

Yes you are correct, these are known to be the earliest writings after the Buddha. The Tipitaka. You know what? The link you gave I read through it. I have some issues with it. I mean, not with what you said about it, just some issues with the way they had done it. Some parts are missing. Maybe because they are insignificant. Or I am just missing some words. Maybe I finally should start using glasses or something.

For example, it begins with "Isipathane Migadhaaye". These are two different names. But the web page in English says "in the game refuge". It's actually pretty bad in my opinion. Miigadhaaya is an actual place in Isipathana. So it should be "In Isipathana, at a place called Migadhaaya". Of course this does not affect the message. And this seems to drop the book name. I cant understand why because the name of the book gives a context that's very important. Also what I find is that he translates as sensual pleasures which makes it some kind of sexual pleasure seeking. But Kam can mean craving.

Nevermind that. If you could be kind enough to respond to the last question in the thread also I will be really grateful.

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.

What is Buddha's position? What exactly do you mean about "almost atheistic" or "completely natural?" What exactly do you mean about "divine?"
Buddha was great friends with Sakka, King of the Devas. Buddha taught the Devas the Buddhadharma.
Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (accesstoinsight.org)
Buddha gave a discourse on the all-embracing net of views here, if this will answer your question:
Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views (accesstoinsight.org)

 

[firedragon]

What is Buddha's position? What exactly do you mean about "almost atheistic" or "completely natural?" What exactly do you mean about "divine?"
Buddha was great friends with Sakka, King of the Devas. Buddha taught the Devas the Buddhadharma.
Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions (accesstoinsight.org)
Buddha gave a discourse on the all-embracing net of views here, if this will answer your question:
Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views (accesstoinsight.org)

Sure Crossfire. What i mean is that, lets say the situation with the Nalagiri Elephant, or Angulimala, as examples, the Buddha had powers on them. Also as I mentioned in the OP, he had Irdhi.

How could the Buddha achieve so much powers? Is that atheistic??

Thats the question.

 

[crossfire]

Sure Crossfire. What i mean is that, lets say the situation with the Nalagiri Elephant, or Angulimala, as examples, the Buddha had powers on them. Also as I mentioned in the OP, he had Irdhi.

How could the Buddha achieve so much powers? Is that atheistic??

Thats the question.

How is theism required for the siddhis?
Here is a sutta for a practice for developing some of the siddhis:
Kayagata-sati Sutta: Mindfulness Immersed in the Body (accesstoinsight.org)

 

[firedragon]

How is theism required for the siddhis?
Here is a sutta for a practice for developing some of the siddhis:
Kayagata-sati Sutta: Mindfulness Immersed in the Body (accesstoinsight.org)

Nice. Thank you. ).

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Buddhism is atheistic.

There is no deity (or deities) recognized by the Buddha - which meets the dictionary definition of the english word atheism.

In Sanskrit, the word used for atheism is nastika. However, nastika is more vague as it mean non-believer. Over times, this has been interpreted in different ways - non-belief in an afterlife, non-belief in the Veda, non-belief in Vishnu. etc. Medieval Hindus classified all types of Buddhism (Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc) as Nastika systems due to their non-belief in the Veda.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Actually, that is a Vaishnava claim. As usual, it can be freely accepted, rejected or taken with some measure of reserve.

More to the point, it is not a Buddhist claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

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”.

Most people understand the middle path to be the path of developing skill in balancing spiritual and mundane/concrete concerns and ambitions without losing a hold in either.

It is not particularly mysterious nor particularly difficult really. It is a path. A skill that can be developed with practice.

Most of the time the true challenges consist in accepting that prices have to be paid to commit to whatever direction seems to be the most sensible at any given time. It can be hard to let go of delusions and vain hopes.

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?

You may hold supernatural views of Buddhism, of course. There isn't really any way of stopping people from doing that. But that is not usually encouraged.

As for the divine, I don't think that Buddhism truly uses that concept. Certainly not in an Abrahamic way. It may be more clarifying to talk of the Sacred instead.

 

[syo]

Actually, that is a Vaishnava claim. As usual, it can be freely accepted, rejected or taken with some measure of reserve.

More to the point, it is not a Buddhist claim.

According to you, what is Buddha?

 

[LuisDantas]

According to you, what is Buddha?

According to the context and intent, it may be a state of awakening or instead a historical or hypothetical person or entity.

 

[firedragon]

Most people understand the middle path to be the path of developing skill in balancing spiritual and mundane/concrete concerns and ambitions without losing a hold in either.

This is generally called the shallow understanding in Buddhism. Literally. It's called Chathukkang. They also have a concept called Ahi Dhamma which is the deeper philosophy which madhyama prathipadha cannot be given physical examples. Because there is no void in reality but madhyama prathipadha is to seek understanding of the void.

You may hold supernatural views of Buddhism, of course. There isn't really any way of stopping people from doing that. But that is not usually encouraged.

I don't know about encouragement but the Vinaya is for the mahana, and they are required to seek sovan. Which means they will achieve special powers. This is all over the Tipitaka attakatha's.

As for the divine, I don't think that Buddhism truly uses that concept. Certainly not in an Abrahamic way. It may be more clarifying to talk of the Sacred instead.

Abrahamic understanding is not relevant. I am purely referring to the Buddhist teachings. I agree with you that when thinking of Buddhism it should never looked at from the angle of Abrahamic faiths. I am not.

For example, in the Tipitaka it refers to "dhikkhena" which is the direct translation to "divine". Direct. In Visuddhi magga, chuthuppaatha gnaanakatha you will see goddesses called "divine". In Mahanama Sutta, many types of Gods are discussed. And Thawthisa is a heaven.

There are many references to the divine. I know that people are generally not advised to believe in Gods and worship Gods etc etc, and I do know that the Buddhist teachings are not to worship any Gods. I wish to hear views on how this reconciliation between the mention of the divine, divine powers etc can be done.

Thank you so much for your post.

 

[firedragon]

According to the context and intent, it may be a state of awakening or instead a historical or hypothetical person or entity.

Buddha means "Buddhiya pathittaaya". As in the knowledge or intellect is maximum and set in stone. Firm. No question about it. Complete.

"A state of awakening" will be Sovan. (Pronounced "Sow+varn (Like Barn)")

 

[sun rise]

I know that the "scripture" is from a man and not God. I know the said history of the Tipitaka etc etc etc. I know the arya atta angika magga. My question was based on what you said about your school of thought in Buddhism that you spoke of is not based on scripture. If it's not based on scripture it cannot be based on the Buddha's teachings because how else would the Buddha's teachings be encapsulated?

I was vague in my reply earlier.

There would be no Islam without the Quran. The same is true for Christianity and Judaism because all three are based on a scripture. A lot of effort is expended by all three to determine the meaning of the scripture and to apply it in various situations. In addition, in all three the religion is based on a Prophet or prophets or in the case of Christianity the Son of God. Those scriptures are considered true because of their divine origin.

None of that applies to the Buddhism I studied. And ordinary people or at least psychologists who are versed in India traditions could have written the core teachings.

So what I meant is that Buddhism is not dependent on there having been a historical Buddha who gave teachings that form scripture but instead on common sense understandings that are meant to be put into practice.

It's also why people can be both Buddhists and members of another religion there is no fundamental divine scripture that determines a set of beliefs.

 

[sayak83]

Sure Crossfire. What i mean is that, lets say the situation with the Nalagiri Elephant, or Angulimala, as examples, the Buddha had powers on them. Also as I mentioned in the OP, he had Irdhi.

How could the Buddha achieve so much powers? Is that atheistic??

Thats the question.

There is a difference between atheism and physicalism. Buddha does believe in creator deities, but mentions many supra physical realms and entities that are falsely believed to be gods by ppl. So I would say that traditional Buddhism is atheistic but not a physicalist/materialist worldview.

 

[firedragon]

I was vague in my reply earlier.

There would be no Islam without the Quran. The same is true for Christianity and Judaism because all three are based on a scripture. A lot of effort is expended by all three to determine the meaning of the scripture and to apply it in various situations. In addition, in all three the religion is based on a Prophet or prophets or in the case of Christianity the Son of God. Those scriptures are considered true because of their divine origin.

None of that applies to the Buddhism I studied. And ordinary people or at least psychologists who are versed in India traditions could have written the core teachings.

So what I meant is that Buddhism is not dependent on there having been a historical Buddha who gave teachings that form scripture but instead on common sense understandings that are meant to be put into practice.

It's also why people can be both Buddhists and members of another religion there is no fundamental divine scripture that determines a set of beliefs.

Okay Sun Rise. That explains your school of thought. I understand now. You called it Tibetan right?

Thank you very much for taking your time to come back and clear it up for me. Interesting. Now I understand some core things in Mahayana buddhism. Very different to Theravadha. So now I understand the core difference.

Thank you.

 

[sayak83]

I was vague in my reply earlier.

There would be no Islam without the Quran. The same is true for Christianity and Judaism because all three are based on a scripture. A lot of effort is expended by all three to determine the meaning of the scripture and to apply it in various situations. In addition, in all three the religion is based on a Prophet or prophets or in the case of Christianity the Son of God. Those scriptures are considered true because of their divine origin.

None of that applies to the Buddhism I studied. And ordinary people or at least psychologists who are versed in India traditions could have written the core teachings.

So what I meant is that Buddhism is not dependent on there having been a historical Buddha who gave teachings that form scripture but instead on common sense understandings that are meant to be put into practice.

It's also why people can be both Buddhists and members of another religion there is no fundamental divine scripture that determines a set of beliefs.

Do further make the point.
Buddha is to Buddhism what Einstein is to Relativity. Siddhartha Gautama was historically the first Buddha and was the first to discover the path and one of its greatest practitioners and explicators. But there are and will be other masters who teachings and writings have added many many things towards understanding and practice of the path as well after him, and these are also of equal value.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is generally called the shallow understanding in Buddhism. Literally. It's called Chathukkang. They also have a concept called Ahi Dhamma which is the deeper philosophy which madhyama prathipadha cannot be given physical examples. Because there is no void in reality but madhyama prathipadha is to seek understanding of the void.



I don't know about encouragement but the Vinaya is for the mahana, and they are required to seek sovan. Which means they will achieve special powers. This is all over the Tipitaka attakatha's.




Abrahamic understanding is not relevant. I am purely referring to the Buddhist teachings. I agree with you that when thinking of Buddhism it should never looked at from the angle of Abrahamic faiths. I am not.

For example, in the Tipitaka it refers to "dhikkhena" which is the direct translation to "divine". Direct. In Visuddhi magga, chuthuppaatha gnaanakatha you will see goddesses called "divine". In Mahanama Sutta, many types of Gods are discussed. And Thawthisa is a heaven.

There are many references to the divine. I know that people are generally not advised to believe in Gods and worship Gods etc etc, and I do know that the Buddhist teachings are not to worship any Gods. I wish to hear views on how this reconciliation between the mention of the divine, divine powers etc can be done.

Thank you so much for your post.

For the record, I don't lend any significance to your statements. I know your ways and I have no time for them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddha means "Buddhiya pathittaaya". As in the knowledge or intellect is maximum and set in stone. Firm. No question about it. Complete.

"A state of awakening" will be Sovan. (Pronounced "Sow+varn (Like Barn)")

Thanks, o eternal sage of all dogma.

I will duly ignore what you say, as you ought to know I would.

It is only fair.