What makes you interested towards Dharmic Religions ?

[ratikala]

Ahh ... but now you have added to your statement ???

There is such a thing as allowing too much leeway.

Even in Mahayana, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to center one's practice on the concept of a hypothetical creator God.

firstly no one said ...'center ones practice' , ...and no one said ..'creator god'

what I said and you have chosen to egnore is a manifestation of the '' Dharmakaya''

Such is valid religious practice, sure, but not at all very Buddhist, if Buddhist at all.

I think you are confusing the abrahamic veiw of god with the mahayana veiw of ultimate reality .

 

[LuisDantas]

what I said and you have chosen to egnore is a manifestation of the '' Dharmakaya''

Yes, I do ignore that.

I don't claim to understand what is meant by that, so I will not judge its validity as religious practice or even as specifically Buddhist practice.

I think you are confusing the abrahamic veiw of god with the mahayana veiw of ultimate reality .

Actually, my goal is to avoid such a confusion, which some people make a point of attempting nonetheless.

 

[ratikala]

If you say so. I stand by what I said. I won't lie to you nor to Chinu about what I believe to be correct.

That is indeed correct speech, or as close to it as I can manage.

right speach , ...I wont give you a mahayana version but your own theravadin ...

The Samaññaphala Sutta, Kevatta Sutta and Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta

Abandoning false speech... He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world... Abandoning divisive speech... What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here...Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord...
Abandoning abusive speech... He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing and pleasing to people at large...
Abandoning idle chatter... He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, and the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal...​

sorry to have to highlight , but please refer particularly to the portions in red .


saying who is or is not a buddhist is both hurtfull and divisive , sadly calling people ' ignorant, misinformed, confused, dishonest and even all-out insane'' is not condusive to any harmonious state of co existance
​

The Abhaya Sutta elaborates:[38][39]

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.
​

we mst be carefull not to think that right speach is only that which is in accordance with the truth , and we must be carefull to differentiate truth from oppinion .

and if we do not know then we should say so or remain silent .

 

[ratikala]

Yes, I do ignore that.

I don't claim to understand what is meant by that, so I will not judge its validity as religious practice or even as specifically Buddhist practice.

then instead of ignoring and discounting something which a large number of buddhists accept , ....enquire ?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you think that applies? I respectfully, but emphatically, disagree.

In fact, I must disagree. And also point out that you are judging me at least as much as you believe me to be doing.

 

[ratikala]

So you think that applies?

yes I most humbly do :namaste

I respectfully, but emphatically, disagree.

your prerogative :namaste

In fact, I must disagree. And also point out that you are judging me at least as much as you believe me to be doing.

I am not judging , simply countering your arguement :namaste ....

... I have called no one '' ' ignorant, misinformed, confused, dishonest and even all-out insane'' ....

 

[crossfire]

There is always deistic Hinduism. It's the approach I find working out better for me. No rituals, no dogma.

It's not so much the categorization of god belief for me, but the focus on processes, rather than things. Focusing on and clinging to things, and categorizing processes according to things doesn't lead to liberation. {As evidenced by this thread}

 

[Jainarayan]

It's not so much the categorization of god belief for me, but the focus on processes, rather than things. Focusing on and clinging to things, and categorizing processes according to things doesn't lead to liberation. {As evidenced by this thread}

I don't disagree with you, and I think we're actually saying the same thing. Deistic Hinduism for me is belief in God, belief in Sanātana Dharma principles (for the most part), and if I have to anthropomorphize God (as some deists do), it is with a Hindu form.

However, I have come to eschew rituals and what I call superstitious silliness beliefs (sorry to offend anyone's beliefs and sensibilities). Nor do I believe in any scriptures of any faith being 'revealed'. My departure from classical deism is that, though there are many like me, I believe God does have a hand in maintaining and guiding the universe, and perhaps... a big perhaps... a part in our lives.

I like the verse from the Hua Hu Ching, and a quote ttributed to the Buddha:

Dualistic thinking is a sickness.
Religion is a distortion.
Materialism is cruel.
Blind spirituality is unreal.
Chanting is no more holy than listening to the
murmur of a stream; counting prayer beads no more
sacred than simply breathing; religious robes no
more spiritual than work clothes.
If you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don’t get
caught up in spiritual superficialities.
Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and
concepts.
Find contentment in the practice of undiscriminating
virtue, the only true power.
Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating
light throughout the world and illuminating your
own darkness, your virtue becomes a sanctuary for
yourself and all beings.
This is what is meant by embodying the Tao. - Lao Tze Hua Hu Ching Chapter 47

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and
is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. – The Buddha

 

[Vinayaka]

If you are interested in Dharmic Religions, than what makes you interested towards Dharmic Religions ?

Interested? I'd say it's a little more than that, for me. Compare: "I'm interested in Hinduism." versus "I'm a Hindu."

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not judging,

Oh, you are judging me all right, make no mistake.

And it is ok. I just will not submit to your judgement, because I find it uncalled for.

 

[YmirGF]

I was drawn to the Dharmic religions because they seemed to know about the experiences I was having - however vaguely. I just didn't get that sense from the Abrahamic religions.

But... upon closer examination I began to realize that I could not formally adopt any of them and had to go it alone.

 

[Ablaze]

If you are interested in Dharmic Religions, than what makes you interested towards Dharmic Religions ?

My interest in Dharmic Religions comes from intensive practice in Buddha Dharma. Having seen directly, first-hand, for myself the fruits of the practice, I strive on untiringly.

 

[chinu]

Interested? I'd say it's a little more than that, for me. Compare: "I'm interested in Hinduism." versus "I'm a Hindu."

Its "The one who is interested in being one with Brahman " versus " The one who is in oneness with Brahman "

isn't it that ?

 

[Monotheist 101]

If the OP was "What makes you uninterested in Dharmic religions?"

I would have said the idols and the colorful pictures..

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

Yes.

I suppose you could make a case that there are lines of Buddhism that are not fully compatible with strong atheism. But a better case can be made that those lines are not fully Buddhist.

dear luis , it is the above statment that I am trying to counter ,... I have no wish to be judgemental but to deffend many millions of buddhists who have un shakable faith in both the buddha himself and the adi buddha (the primordial buddha) . To them being buddhist is about taking refuge in buddha , dharma and sangha .

your statment above seems to imply that buddhism is fully compatable with atheism , and that there would be a strong case to say that non atheistic buddhists wernt truely buddhist ?

where as I have been trying to explain that it would be fairer to say that buddhism is 'non theistic' , meaning that it dosent necssarily concern it self with strongly theistic or strongly atheistic sentiments , buddhism is bringing the practitioner from a state if ignorance to a state of full knowledge , so what I am trying to say is that it would be wrong for the unenlightened to hold any strong veiw as such could be veiwed as attatchments or fetters

 

[LuisDantas]

dear luis , it is the above statment that I am trying to counter ,

Good to see that I did not misjudge you

... I have no wish to be judgemental but to deffend many millions of buddhists who have un shakable faith in both the buddha himself and the adi buddha (the primordial buddha) . To them being buddhist is about taking refuge in buddha , dharma and sangha .

Uh? Why would those people need to be "defended" from what I say?

your statment above seems to imply that buddhism is fully compatable with atheism ,

Bugger. Really?

I was hoping that it would state as much as opposed to imply that. I hate to be misunderstood.

I will try harder next time, Ratikala.

and that there would be a strong case to say that non atheistic buddhists wernt truely buddhist ?

Oh, no.

That is only true when they center their practice in the idea that there must be a Creator God of some kind, therefore failing to have a basic grasp of the Four Seals, particularly Interdependent Origination and Impermanence.

It happens. There are a few otherwise very fine Faiths around that do in fact commit such a mistake.

where as I have been trying to explain that it would be fairer to say that buddhism is 'non theistic' , meaning that it dosent necssarily concern it self with strongly theistic or strongly atheistic sentiments ,

But it does, as already noted. It is incompatible with strong theism. And there are a few challenges to strong atheist sentiments as well. Truth be told, exciting challenges at that.

buddhism is bringing the practitioner from a state if ignorance to a state of full knowledge , so what I am trying to say is that it would be wrong for the unenlightened to hold any strong veiw as such could be veiwed as attatchments or fetters

I hope you good luck in your practice.

And I still reject your judgement, which I do consider rather biased and unadvisable, I find myself in need to say.

I'm afraid it is simply not a good idea to attempt to sell me such a notion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Its "The one who is interested in being one with Brahman " versus " The one who is in oneness with Brahman "

isn't it that ?

Now that ratio would be a million to one, or higher, no?

 

[ratikala]

Mr Dantas , Sir .....

....... language please !!!

your statment above seems to imply that buddhism is fully compatable with atheism ,

Bugger. Really?

I was hoping that it would state as much as opposed to imply that. I hate to be misunderstood.

I will try harder next time, Ratikala.

that you wish it to be a bold statment is noted
I was only being polite , .....

but after the above language I see you do not do polite ? ...or is this your idea of humor ?

and that there would be a strong case to say that non atheistic buddhists wernt truely buddhist ?

Oh, no.

That is only true when they center their practice in the idea that there must be a Creator God of some kind, therefore failing to have a basic grasp of the Four Seals, particularly Interdependent Origination and Impermanence.

It happens. There are a few otherwise very fine Faiths around that do in fact commit such a mistake.

your sarcasam strikes again , ....?

you seem to be clinging to the idea of a creator god when you know that I am refering to god as the absolute , the truth body of every buddha throughout time , and is the essence and the uniting princile of all beings .

this is a subtle point that I would at least like you to consider , .... please , .. for the sake of an interesting conversation .


you constantly refer back to the four seals , ....

All Compound things , ..... (things composed of elements )are Imperminant
All Stained Emotions Are Painful ....(all conditioned emotions)
All Phenomena Are Empty...(all inherent phenomena)
Nirvana Is Peace ......(I prefer nirbana is bliss , ...but that is just me)

this is fine but the absolute is beyond above and outside of compound things therefore is not imperminant , just as the ultimate truth or reality is unchanging .

and dependant origination refers only to compound things .

where as I have been trying to explain that it would be fairer to say that buddhism is 'non theistic' , meaning that it dosent necssarily concern it self with strongly theistic or strongly atheistic sentiments ,

But it does, as already noted. It is incompatible with strong theism. And there are a few challenges to strong atheist sentiments as well. Truth be told, exciting challenges at that.

''but it does '', .... does what ? concern it self with the existance or non existance of the absolute ? , .....well if it does , it should not , buddha didnt concern himself with this issue and wouldnt be drawn into it therefore as buddhists we should not .....

as I have been trying to say buddhism should remain non theistic , meaning that it shouldnt overly consern it self with either extreme . there fore one canot have acceptance of atheism withput acceptance of theism , ....surely that is fair and all encompasing ?

so yes ''exciting chalenges'' from both sides

I hope you good luck in your practice.

thank you , and you in yours :namaste

And I still reject your judgement, which I do consider rather biased and unadvisable, I find myself in need to say.

you may reject what you wish , I have no problem with that

I'm afraid it is simply not a good idea to attempt to sell me such a notion.

I have no wish to sell anything to you , my reason for writting this is simply to give counterballance to your argument , and is for the sake of any others reading , who also are free to accept or reject what ever they please , but it is better first to consider it fairly .

I simply wish to present a different face of buddhism , one that is not intolerant of different veiws :namaste

 

[LuisDantas]

I simply wish to present a different face of buddhism , one that is not intolerant of different veiws :namaste

You want to present a mistaken picture of basic Buddhist doctrine.

Sorry, but that is what it is. I will not condone your efforts.

and that there would be a strong case to say that non atheistic buddhists wernt truely buddhist ?

Oh, no.

That is only true when they center their practice in the idea that there must be a Creator God of some kind, therefore failing to have a basic grasp of the Four Seals, particularly Interdependent Origination and Impermanence.

It happens. There are a few otherwise very fine Faiths around that do in fact commit such a mistake.

your sarcasam strikes again , ....?

Sarcasm?

Make no mistake. I mean it, and very seriously at that. Every word.

Well-meaning as they can be, attempts at presenting Buddhist practice as "compatible with definite Theism" are quite a mistake and must be discouraged.

you seem to be clinging to the idea of a creator god when you know that I am refering to god as the absolute , the truth body of every buddha throughout time , and is the essence and the uniting princile of all beings.

this is a subtle point that I would at least like you to consider , .... please , .. for the sake of an interesting conversation.

That is a concept. Like any other concept, it can be abused. And I must say that you seem to be inviting me to accept its abuse.

 

[ratikala]

You want to present a mistaken picture of basic Buddhist doctrine.

no I would like you to consider something with an open mind .

Sorry, but that is what it is. I will not condone your efforts.

thank you for your opinion .

Sarcasm?

Make no mistake. I mean it, and very seriously at that. Every word.

just as you mean ....'' Bugger. Really? ''

well if it isnt warped humor it is rudness , ....... I have allready quoted you the full instruction on 'Rght Speach' (from your own tradition) so please if you claim to be buddhist please practice it .

make no mistake I also am being very serious if anything is to be disscoraged in a buddhist it is rudeness ,


many thanks