Easy comparison of forms of Buddhism?

[LuisDantas]

So what do the Theravada think should happen to everyone else who doesn't make it? Is it a religion where they only care about themselves?

Of course not.

That would contradict the very idea of annulling the ego......!!

Besides other core ideas of the Buddhadharmma, indeed.

In any case, how do they know that the earlier canon from the Pali language are any less bogus than the later Sanskrit texts? Besides, they don't even know if the whole philosophy ever was related to someone named Gautama Siddharta.

That is why we evaluate the texts for their own worth, not their origin.

 

[duvduv]

So I guess there is nothing wrong with viewing Gautama in his original setting as a Vedic holy man, and the Buddha of the later traditions as something else (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, Pure Land, etc.).

 

[LuisDantas]

So I guess there is nothing wrong with viewing Gautama in his original setting as a Vedic holy man, and the Buddha of the later traditions as something else (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, Pure Land, etc.).

Pretty much any take is valid as long as you take responsibility for it.

 

[duvduv]

Someone wrote me and said he considers Gautama Siddharta simply as a reformer in ancient Hinduism, a Vedic guru/yogi who never intended to establish a new movement or religion per the teachings prior to Anananda and Negarjuna.

 

[duvduv]

Could someone tell me whether Buddhist tradition ever cited Gautama Siddharta as explaining WHY mankind is in the condition of Dukka in the first place? WHO put us there and WHY? What is the purpose of coming down here, facing the endless cycle and either being aware or unaware of the need for Nirvana/Samadhi? Presumably any of his disciples would have asked him that question. And as Sanatana Dharma Indians they would have had the context of Vedic teachings. But what explanation would they have had for the WHY of rebirth, suffering, karma, liberation, etc.?

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone wrote me and said he considers Gautama Siddharta simply as a reformer in ancient Hinduism, a Vedic guru/yogi who never intended to establish a new movement or religion per the teachings prior to Anananda and Negarjuna.

There are many people who think so.

Of course, those people tend to be Hindus, not Buddhists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could someone tell me whether Buddhist tradition ever cited Gautama Siddharta as explaining WHY mankind is in the condition of Dukka in the first place?

Because we are lacking in skillful means.

The Poisoned Arrow: A Buddhist Story about Living in the Present - Exploring your mind

WHO put us there and WHY? What is the purpose of coming down here, facing the endless cycle and either being aware or unaware of the need for Nirvana/Samadhi? Presumably any of his disciples would have asked him that question. And as Sanatana Dharma Indians they would have had the context of Vedic teachings. But what explanation would they have had for the WHY of rebirth, suffering, karma, liberation, etc.?

I assume that those questions may make and even seem pressing for some people who hold a certain form of theistic beliefs.

They are generally perceived as uninteresting and of questionable practical value in Buddhist circles, though.


Still, Buddhists are people, and I am sure that at some point some of us had similar worries. There are certainly examples here and there of people dealing with those, and even creating divine aspects for those express purposes.

 

[duvduv]

Luis, this is not an idle issue. This is an important metaphysical issue because rebirth, karma and nirvana are metaphysical realities and it is only logical that someone would ask Buddha what is the source of these metaphysical realities along with the existence of man and his free will to seek enlightenment in the first place. I'd like this to be addressed from informed sources if they exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, this is not an idle issue. This is an important metaphysical issue because rebirth, karma and nirvana are metaphysical realities and it is only logical that someone would ask Buddha what is the source of these metaphysical realities along with the existence of man and his free will to seek enlightenment in the first place. I'd like this to be addressed from informed sources if they exist.

General perception within Buddhist circles AFAIK is that those are simply not very important, to a large extent because they are metaphysical.

You are mistaken about Karma and Rebirth, anyway. Those are not nearly as abstract issues as you seem to believe. Nor is Nibanna either, IMO.

There are many, many exceptions, many people who make those matters metaphysical anyway, because we deal with actual people who often value metaphysics and we can't leave them hanging.

You will find some approaches to the matter in Vajrayana, others in various Japanese schools.

Not all of them are very informed or advisable, IMO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't see how Buddhism could be effective if you're carrying around the baggage of the metaphysical and what not as you practice . Such things need to run their course anyways.

 

[duvduv]

Karma and rebirth ARE metaphysical because they cannot be proven empirically and must rely on faith for acceptance. This is essentially a religious concept. However, beyond that we still need to know WHY the world is the way it is and WHO made it this way together with all the 4 Noble Paths and 8 Path.

 

[MonkeyFire]

peace of mind creates non-violence, happiness, and knowledge at the same time, and is only prevented by your own ignorance over anger which is the opposite of being passive.

 

[LuisDantas]

Karma and rebirth ARE metaphysical because they cannot be proven empirically and must rely on faith for acceptance. This is essentially a religious concept. However, beyond that we still need to know WHY the world is the way it is and WHO made it this way together with all the 4 Noble Paths and 8 Path.

Go convince the Tathagata and come back with his validation of your claims, then we will talk.

 

[duvduv]

I find it interesting that it is impossible here to engage in substantive intellectual debate, and that the first choice seems to be sarcasm and avoidance?