PDA

View Full Version : The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist



Pink_trike
07 Apr 10, 03:25
An interesting article by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche published in the Washington Post:

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

"What Buddhism is, at this point, is certainly out of the Buddha's hands. His teachings passed into the hands of his followers thousands of years ago. They passed from wandering beggars to monastic institutions, from the illiterate to the learned, from the esoteric East to the outspoken West. In its travels, Buddhism has been many things to many people. But what did the Buddha intend when he taught?"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/the_bud dha_wasnt_a_buddhist.html (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/the_buddha_wasnt_a_buddhist.html)

[ I wasn't sure where to post this. Mods, please move as needed ].

andyrobyn
07 Apr 10, 03:51
Thanks Pink_trike ...

Seems the right spot to have a discussion on the points raised to me,
also - from a quick initial read
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

thundreams
07 Apr 10, 04:04
I really loved the article and appropreate for todays western world.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/good.gif http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif.

gerrymob
07 Apr 10, 09:05
Very intereting article, nice and simple, to me exactly what Buddhism is about.

And was the word Buddhism used in the lifetime of the Buddah? Do we know when the word came into use as as followers of the Buddah's teachings.

Peace

Gerry

andyrobyn
07 Apr 10, 10:31
And was the word Buddhism used in the lifetime of the Buddah? Do we know when the word came into use as as followers of the Buddah's teachings.

Good question, hopefully some members who have knowledge about early Buddhism will comment to it.

My thoughts are that if Lord Buddha was alive and teaching in the West today he would still not be concerned with promoting beliefs and religious labels or encouraging debates about doctrine which can distract from the practice necessary to enable us to experience the innate clarity of the mind.

Aloka
07 Apr 10, 10:49
My thoughts are that if Lord Buddha was alive and teaching in the West today he would still not be concerned with promoting beliefs and religious labels or encouraging debates about doctrine which can distract from the practice necessary to enable us to experience the innate clarity of the mind.

My thoughts are that he might be pretty astonished at most of what is labeled as "Buddhism" in general !http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Sobeh
07 Apr 10, 13:13
And was the word Buddhism used in the lifetime of the Buddah?

"DhammaVinaya"



Do we know when the word came into use as as followers of the Buddah's teachings.

The Tibetan word for Buddhism is, unless I mistake my notes, nangpa, which has to do with 'going within'. So for the most part, the name used for the DhammaVinaya in other cultures is developed according to their understanding of what best encapsulates that which sets it apart.

"Buddhism" shows up first in Western academic literature, and so is very modern. The root "-ism" (via the Greek '-ismos') relates to beliefs, and reflects the comparisons with Christianity that were ongoing at that time; Islam was first called 'Mohammadism' and nangpa was called 'Lamaism', so you see how the Western mind first approached these things.

Pink_trike
07 Apr 10, 18:00
The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

Esho
07 Apr 10, 22:13
from post #1

Great Article Pink dear,

I just want to recall this quote of it, here and tell that I have always understand buddhism as a science of mind never as a religion. A kind of guide for the day to day life.

"If you search "world religions," you'll find "Buddhism" on every list. Does that make Buddhism a religion? Does it mean that because I'm a Buddhist, I'm "religious"? I can argue that Buddhism is a science of mind -- a way of exploring how we think, feel and act that leads us to profound truths about who we are. I can also say that Buddhism is a philosophy of life -- a way to live that maximizes our chances for happiness"

But I am still a little reluctant to tell about philosophy just because in western culture can be confused with the academic field of it. In the east philosophy is deeply rooted in experience and daily life... In the west, it tends to be an academic field for speculation and all those speculations are tinted with personal afflictions and turmoils about human existence. What the buddha taught was far from this aspect of the term "philosophy".

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Sobeh
07 Apr 10, 22:45
I'm pretty much coming down on the side of saying:

"Buddhism is a religion,"

...purely as a skillful means to earning charity status with local governments.

frank
07 Apr 10, 23:34
from post #10

<span style="color:#FF0000">No need to be a whore</span>, the lay people will,(or will not) support the monastery.
A while ago Prince Charles wanted to visit Chithurst,during retreat time. Chithurst wrote back and said your welcome to visit another time.


<span style="color:#009933">Please be mindful with your speech, Frank. (Admin)</span>

frank
07 Apr 10, 23:35
from post #8

Terse.

Aloka
08 Apr 10, 00:09
the lay people will,(or will not) support the monastery.

Its not as simple as that, Frank. In this country a monastery couldn't just open up and then be financed and supported by lay people - it would be illegal. I think religious charity status has to be given first .

frank
08 Apr 10, 00:43
Yes the money donated has to be treated in an appropriate manner,(including the legal aspect) that is why there is a steward and committee to look after the worldly stuff.

Pink_trike
08 Apr 10, 18:44
My thoughts are that if Lord Buddha was alive and teaching in the West today

I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

Element
09 Apr 10, 21:22
An interesting article by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche published in the Washington Post:

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

Just some advertising by another guru.

Just a kind of self-administered psychotherapy.

The Buddha taught faith as a spiritual power plus wisdom.

If things like the five precepts, greed, hatred & delusion, impermanence & unsatisfactoriness must be questioned then a little self-administered psychotherapy is useful.

Sit in meditation and watch our mind's own suffering because that is the fruit for those attracted to such teachings as Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

But the Buddha said the following:

It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.
The Buddha was certainly a Dhammist and his disciples where certainly Buddhists. They walked the path directly, straightforwardly. As soon as they heard the teaching, they applied it.

The Buddha taught the Dhamma so we would not have to replicate his search.


Religion, on the other hand, often provides us with answers to life's big questions from the start.

He saw beyond all belief systems to the profound reality of the mind itself -- a state of clear awareness and supreme happiness.
Another guru stuck in infatuation with consciousness, who has not sought to verify the big questions the buddha answered.

Just half of the journey really.

This is what happens when one does not rely on an appropriate guide or map.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
09 Apr 10, 23:26
Another guru stuck in infatuation with consciousness, who has not sought to verify the big questions the buddha answered.



This is what happens when one does not rely on an appropriate guide or map.

I'm assuming that you must have studied with Ponlop Rinpoche for quite some time, or at least you're very familiar with his extensive and thorough teachings ranging from beginner level to atiyoga level that are based on his training that began when he was 12 years old, and his 16 years of monastic study that resulted in the equivalent of a ph.d. in the study of the sutras - in order to have arrived at these rather dismissive conclusions?

Surely you didn't arrive at your conclusions about him and what he has/hasn't done, based on that brief article in the Washington Post that was aimed at a general non-buddhist reading audience, right?

If so, then your comments sound like they are directed at some straw man in your imagination... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
09 Apr 10, 23:48
It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.

If there ever was a "Sid", let alone a "The Buddha", it is highly unlikely that he ever said "It is in dependence on me...". This is inconsistent with the message that exists underneath the tangled jungle of religious obfuscation and abstractification that "Buddhism" has cultivated on top of the Dharma.

frank
10 Apr 10, 01:01
It is in dependence on me

I don't think l'm taking this out of context,but it sounds to me very like the line attributed to Jesus,along the lines of; None shall enter the kingdom of god except through me.
Pretty stunning thing to lay claim to eh?

Element
10 Apr 10, 01:58
Pretty stunning thing to lay claim to eh?

No.


When a person has admirable people as friends, companions & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend....

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life) (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

frank
10 Apr 10, 02:03
from post #20

I was referring to Jesus's claim

Element
10 Apr 10, 02:07
This is inconsistent with the message that exists underneath the tangled jungle of religious obfuscation and abstractification that "Buddhism" has cultivated on top of the Dharma.

Your reasoning here contradicts your guru worship of the lama.

The efficacy of the suttas have carried the teachings for hundreds of years.

If they were void of efficacy, they would not be here.

Yet you claim a certain lama to be more enlightened than the suttas.

One, contadiction has been shown by falling into religious faith with this guru. The guru is teaching a doctrine of non-belief, which you believe, which makes it a belief. The Buddha taught correctly that all practise has faith as its first power.

Two, ignorance has been shown regarding the law of cause & effect. At a certain time in the world, arises the Teacher. The Teacher finds & teaches the Way, hidden by humanity's ignorance. Yet this is denied. This is ignorance. This is ignorant "detachment" or denial.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Element
10 Apr 10, 02:14
I was referring to Jesus's claim

For his religion, his claim is fine.

His religion teaches he is the Son of God yet as Son of God he loves & forgives unconditionally and promises Eternal Life.

Beats spending your life stressing & worrying about "your" next rebirth because you stepped on an ant.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Element
10 Apr 10, 02:28
12 years old, and his 16 years of monastic study that resulted in the equivalent of a ph.d. in the study of the sutras - in order to have arrived at these rather dismissive conclusions?

Monks have had 20 years of monastic study and then disrobed so they could marry. There are millions of PHDs but more defilements than qualifications. Most who causes the GFC had PHDs.

That said if one googles Ponlop Rinpoche and reincarnation, one will find more than enough "religion".

As I said, the newspaper article is advertising. The fish swim to the dharma centre for the brainwashing.

http://dpr.info/media/www.DPR.info%20-%20Taking%20Refuge%20as%20a%20Pr otection%20Against%20Suffering.pdf (http://dpr.info/media/www.DPR.info%20-%20Taking%20Refuge%20as%20a%20Protection%20Against %20Suffering.pdf)

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

frank
10 Apr 10, 03:40
The fish swim to the dharma centre for the brainwashing.

Think it was Lenin that said "women are like herrings"...of course l distance myself from this statement.

Pink_trike
10 Apr 10, 04:19
Yet you claim a certain lama to be more enlightened than the suttas

I claimed no such thing.



The guru is teaching a doctrine of non-belief, which you believe, which makes it a belief.

Don't get me going about "enlightened", and probably best not to characterize what I believe since you only have the stories in your head to go on. You don't don't this lama or me well enough to be making such grandiose statements about either of us. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

andyrobyn
10 Apr 10, 12:43
The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

Hi Pink_trike .... would you agree that this can been extended to any " ism " really? sounds less terse - to use Frank's terminology.




I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

Is it not in the intention of the person who is using the title? again we get into semantics and difficulties with language - agree he would not seek to be referred to in a way which would be harmful to others.

Pink_trike
10 Apr 10, 19:19
Hi andyrobyn,



pink_trike said: The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

andyrobyn said: Hi Pink_trike .... would you agree that this can been extended to any " ism " really? sounds less terse - to use Frank's terminology.


Yes, an understanding of the Dharma dissolves any mental fiction, and any conceptual tool used to make a point.

It was and is meant to be terse. Terseness has its place.



pink_trike said: I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

andyrobyn said: Is it not in the intention of the person who is using the title?

Siddhārtha Gautama, aka "The Buddha" is a mythological and anthropomorphic conceptual tool that was carefully architected to reflect a classical shamanic-type journey/experience into the depths of the mind and the breadth of the world in a way that was intended to make this ancient journey/experience easily understandable and accessible to every human being.

This journey that "he" experienced and "his" dedication to sharing it is an anthropomorphic/ mythological story that was common all over the globe for thousands of years in various forms prior to the alleged life and times of "The Buddha". The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration.

I won't assume your intention for using the term - but I can't think of any intention that wouldn't be radically at odds with the realizations that the Dharma, as described in Buddhist mythology, is intended to provoke in us. When we refer to Buddhist mythology's central conceptual tool as "The Lord Buddha" and believe this fiction literally, we create the very clouds of delusion and obfuscation that an understanding and practice of the Dharma is intended to dissolve away.

The mythological story of Sid's excellent adventure falls into the same category as Alice's journey into Wonderland and Dorothy's journey into Oz. We understand them as conceptual tools designed to take us on a journey into the mind. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" is no different, even though the teachings are more thorough. Dorothy declined to the the Queen of the little people. No one bows to Alice or Dorothy and refers to them as "The Lord"...that would be just silly, wouldn't it? Worse than silly, it would be the very madness that the Dharma is the antidote for. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

andyrobyn
10 Apr 10, 23:19
When we refer to Buddhist mythology's central conceptual tool as "The Lord Buddha" and believe this fiction literally, we create the very clouds of delusion and obfuscation that an understanding and practice of the Dharma is intended to dissolve away.

In this context, I agree it is not a helpful use of language and he would seek to reject it's use http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Esho
10 Apr 10, 23:33
from post #29

Of course Andy, I feel Pink has a good point...



from post #28

What is a Buddha? Someone who has awaken... About what she/he has awaken... about her/his suffering, the origin of suffering and has realized the cessation of suffering through the Right View of the Eightfold Noble Path... About this, there is any kind of mystery.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Aloka
10 Apr 10, 23:39
The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration.

Actually, offline I've heard more than one Tibetan Buddhist teacher use the term 'Lord Buddha' to refer to the Buddha.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 00:42
Yes, but even so nearly all experienced teachers are likely referring to a multilayered conceptual tool absent a literal belief in a flesh and blood human that lived sometime between 2,300 and 3,500 years ago who sat under a literal fig tree and grappled with literal armies of Mara.

Nearly all students of Tibetan Buddhism are commonly engaged with it at a very surface layer. All premodern mythology is multilayered - Tibetan Buddhist mythology is richly and complexly multilayered and multi-disciplined (the artificial borders between areas of knowledge that the West has carved aren't present in ancient perceptions of reality). Experienced Tibetan teachers know that in addition to this conceptual tool ("The Buddha") being the anthropomorphic face that serves as the focal point and road map of the journey/experience, it is also a very complex multilayered multifunctional symbol that directs those who are trained to far-reaching information and awareness regarding the processes and mechanics of the material/phenomenal worlds as well.

It's important to remember that in Tibetan Buddhist mythology (and all of Buddhist mythology) as with nearly all ancient mythologies/cosmologies, the distinction between "inner" and "outer" worlds, between the material world and the phenomenal world, is fluid and artificial, and both are represented by the same set of conceptual tools. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" reflects the axis of the journey (the being who is journeying/experiencing), the patterns of the journey/experience itself, and the corresponding patterns of the journey/experience as they appear and function in every aspect of the phenomenal and material worlds. As above, so below. As inner, so outer.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:00
Replying to Pink_trike:
from post #28

What is a Buddha? Someone who has awaken... About what she/he has awaken... about her/his suffering, the origin of suffering and has realized the cessation of suffering through the Right View of the Eightfold Noble Path... About this, there is any kind of mystery.

Yes, it's this simple and this profound. The multilayered conceptual map known as "Buddha" mirrors the nature and patterns of reality. Therefore, the nature and patterns of reality (including us) are the multilayered conceptual map known as "Buddha". We have a hard time grasping this in Western culture.

When we internalize and experience this map, dissolving our blinders, we recognize our integral Buddha nature...we see that we are Buddha.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 01:03
When we internalize and experience this map, dissolving our blinders, we recognize our integral Buddha nature...we see that we are Buddha.

This is similar to the concept of Buddha Nature in Zen tradtition hold from Bodhidharma to Dogen Zengi...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 01:05
We can play with word symbols and will never pin it down completely. We can never fully express what it is. However, we can say what it does .... In this way words and concepts are created by the mind and they describe those realities with which symbolic thinking deals with.
Lord Buddha conceptualises the ideal, the example to be followed, maybe?

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:22
No need to be a whore



Please be mindful with your speech, Frank. (Admin)

speaking of words...

In this usage "whore" is grammatically appropriate and culturally acceptable.

The word is no longer regarded solely as a noun with the limited meaning of one who engages in sexual intercourse for money.

In addition to the noun definition, Princeton University's wordnet defines it as a verb that means compromise oneself for money or other gains.

Merriam Webster defines it, in addition to being a noun, as a venal or unscrupulous person and to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire.

Noun: prostitute. Verb: immoral and corrupt.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:29
Lord Buddha conceptualises the ideal, the example to be followed, maybe?

Except that "lord" represents "authority" and "Lord Buddha" is an externalization of our innate authority...our innate authority and birthright is projected onto a paternalistic external father figure, creating the same infantilization and perceptual chasm that exists in Christianity...causing people to chase and grasp at "The Buddha" (external authority) instead of doing the work.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 01:35
causing people to chase and grasp at "The Buddha" instead of doing the work.

We call this to have suport in the teachings... not in the person.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:42
We can play with word symbols and will never pin it down completely

True...as Humpty Dumpty and Alice told us:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 01:45
Love it ... especially .....

"Of course you don't – till I tell you

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 01:50
Lord can also refer to someone who is a leader or has great influence in a chosen area ... think that this is the inference that is most useful

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:57
This is my favorite part...



"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 01:58
The alternate is to believe we know what others are saying !!!

In astrology, a lord is a planet having dominating influence on a chart .. this is the dominate meaning for me due to my experiences.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 01:59
Or abandon belief and test the path. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Esho
11 Apr 10, 02:00
from post #44

Yes... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 02:01
Or abandon belief and test the path

the two are not mutually exclusive though in this instance, surely? Buddha's authority suggests we do test the path.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 02:08
In astrology, a lord is a planet having dominating influence on a chart .. this is the dominate meaning for me due to my experiences.

In the antecedent roots of Buddhist mythology, and still present in deeper layers of Tibetan Buddhist mythology, "Buddha" was an astronomy term and represented a particular recurring celestial configuration and it's relationship to a particular planet in the solar system that mirrored a particular configuration of awareness that was possible for those humans that trained their mind to be receptive to it.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 02:09
from post #46

Not necesarly... but first we have to test the path... then comes confidence in it, not exactly "belief". Personaly I feel belief more for a religious temper... and the buddha was not intended for a religion.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 02:19
the two are not mutually exclusive though in this instance, surely? Buddha's authority suggests we do test the path.

Again, it depends on which "Buddha" is being referenced. The multilayered conceptual map? Or a literal flesh and blood "Buddha" that bears only slight and distorted resemblance to the conceptual map?

Esho
11 Apr 10, 02:23
The multilayered conceptual map? Or a literal flesh and blood "Buddha"

Exactly... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Esho
11 Apr 10, 02:25
Buddha's authority suggests we do test the path.

Personaly I would take out the word "authority". I feel Buddhism has nothing to do with authority figures... just guides or fingers pointing to the moon.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 02:38
I feel Buddhism has nothing to do with authority figures... just guides or fingers pointing to the moon.

Agree, and there is no need to see Buddha as an authority figure ... it is authority from the teachings.

Many people do have problems with authority figures - in the need to have them or have difficulty relating to perception of them due to previous experiences.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 02:45
Many people do have problems with authority figures

Yes it is true... also in Zen we have a special accent to keep aware of taking a teacher as an authority in the sense of a dogmatic imposition that is completly against a spiritual growth and maturity.

We have also a beautifull Koan about "killing the Buddha..." the solution of this koan comes only in the silent practice of zazen.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 02:45
In this usage "whore" is grammatically appropriate and culturally acceptable.

The word is no longer regarded solely as a noun with the limited meaning of one who engages in sexual intercourse for money.

In addition to the noun definition, Princeton University's wordnet defines it as a verb that means compromise oneself for money or other gains.

Merriam Webster defines it, in addition to being a noun, as a venal or unscrupulous person and to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire.

Noun: prostitute. Verb: immoral and corrupt.

I think I'll be the one to decide whether I think its appropriate here or not if you don't mind thanks - based on its usage and meaning in the part of the world where I live - which is a term which is highly offensive to women because its used with the intention of degrading them - as well as in its application to anyone male or female in general.

Its primarily a word of abuse, whatever other usage may have developed.

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 02:50
literal belief in a flesh and blood human that lived sometime between 2,300 and 3,500 years ago who sat under a literal fig tree and grappled with literal armies of Mara.

Have listened into some interesting offline discussions recently regarding the actual date of Buddha - there is much evidence from astronomical sources and Greek history to suggest that he was born earlier than the usual teachings ... have not looked online for sources of this as it is not important to my practice - like discussion here though it is interesting and assists to keep an open mind which is important http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 03:28
from post #55

Just as a matter of interest, Professor Richard Gombrich dated the death of the Buddha as about 405 BC in his lecture "Kindness and Compassion as a means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism"

URL (http://www.ocbs.org/content/view/61/82/)

Professor Gombrich is a scholar of Pali, Sanskrit, and Buddhist studies.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 03:33
Professor Gombrich is a scholar of Pali, Sanskrit, and Buddhist studies.

and a great essayist that makes his findings realy enjoyable...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 04:24
a great essayist that makes his findings realy enjoyable...



As this section of the essay displays - this also gives a good indication of how best I see that we can rely on the authority of the teachings -

quoted in full here ... from URL (http://www.ocbs.org/content/view/61/82/)

The corpus of the Buddha's sermons is rich and varied, and it is not always prima facie obvious that he is everywhere saying the same thing.

Since he preached for forty-five years and was evidently a man of supreme intelligence and originality, it would indeed be astonishing, unparalleled, and to my mind disappointing if over that span he had done
nothing but repeat himself, or indeed had never changed his mind.

Needless to say, however, his followers were not all of such high calibre.

Despite the Buddha's explicit disclaimer, they ascribed to him omniscience from the moment of his Enlightenment, so that a change of mind was not admissible. By the same token, he could not be inconsistent.

The Buddha was famous for adapting the expression of his message to his audience – a trait which became known later as his "skill in means" – and commentators used this fact to explain that apparent discrepancies were due to variations in expression made for homiletic purposes; they were merely metaphorical, or some other form of indirect expression.

What we have in the texts, of course, is not a perfect record of the Buddha's intentions, let alone of his actual words, but records of what various monks (and perhaps nuns) believed him to have said and meant.

The collection of sermons cannot possibly be ascribed in its
entirety to Ónanda or any other single monk. Many monks figure in the texts themselves as interlocutors with the Buddha and with each other, and the texts must in most cases reflect their testimony.

These monks and their successors were not merely of diverse character and intelligence; they had been converted as adults from other beliefs and practices, backgrounds which must have coloured their understanding.

It is hard for me to conceive how in this great mass of texts we should not hear, even if muted, various voices giving their own opinions of what the Buddha had meant to say.

But of course we can fail to hear them if we are determined to be deaf.

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 05:05
It's worth noting that Professor Gombrich, whilst having a great interest in Buddhism, isn't actually a Buddhist himself.

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 09:57
from post #28


Siddhārtha Gautama, aka "The Buddha" is a mythological and anthropomorphic conceptual tool that was carefully architected to reflect a classical shamanic-type journey/experience into the depths of the mind and the breadth of the world in a way that was intended to make this ancient journey/experience easily understandable and accessible to every human being.

Do you have any evidence in order to support your opinion, please, PT ?

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 10:23
There's archeological evidence for places mentioned in the Pali Canon. Buddha and Dharma are also mentioned in the edits of the Indian Buddhist King Asoka (304BC - 232 BC)

URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel386.html)

frank
11 Apr 10, 11:23
The term "Lord" seems to be creating some excitement,maybe it can be seen as nothing more than a mark of respect?

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 11:25
The term "Lord" seems to be creating some excitement,maybe it can be seen as nothing more than a mark of respect?

Yes, I agree.

frank
11 Apr 10, 11:33
As the person who introduced the term,(whore)l should point out the obvious that l was not intending to upset anyone.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Aloka
11 Apr 10, 11:37
from post #64

Ok Frank dear, all's well. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/peace.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 11:46
frank #62: The term "Lord" seems to be creating some excitement,maybe it can be seen as nothing more than a mark of respect?

My intention in the post when I utilised the term was to show respect for the teachings : the extent of influence and understanding uniquely expressed in the teachings remains despite whatever can be said about the development of " Buddhism."

frank
11 Apr 10, 11:46
In the antecedent roots of Buddhist mythology, and still present in deeper layers of Tibetan Buddhist mythology, "Buddha" was an astronomy term

So is "Buddha" still an astrological term?
maybe a little background on this would be of interest.
Of course as Buddhist we know that this was one of the 'science's' Buddha didn't approve of.

Life's Highest Blessings
The Maha Mangala Sutta

Wrong livelihood is one that harms others, e.g., trading in arms, slaves, intoxicants and professions involving killing, cheating, <u>astrology</u> or other prognosticating trickery.

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 11:51
As the person who introduced the term,(whore)l should point out the obvious that l was not intending to upset anyone.

Likewise, neither was I in introducing the term Lord - the discussion generated has been fruitful though - not sure about the effects of the term you chose to use frank ... agree with Dazz's initial comments, and can also see you did not intend to upset anyone.

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 12:00
So is "Buddha" still an astrological term?

I believe Pink_trike stated in post #47 it was from an astronomical understanding, of a particular recurring celestial configuration and it's implications rather than an astrological term.

frank
11 Apr 10, 12:05
from post #69

Sorry Andy but Pink posted as follows;



was an astronomy term

So my question remains. maybe Pink can step in here and explain what s/he meant?

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 12:10
Yes, astronomy rather than astrology as you posted at #67 ... I hope also that Pink_trike is still interested in this discussion http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Esho
11 Apr 10, 14:05
The term "Lord" seems to be creating some excitement,maybe it can be seen as nothing more than a mark of respect?

that is the way I undrestand it... thanks Frank.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



from post #64

I know...
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif


frank #67: Wrong livelihood is one that harms others, e.g., trading in arms, slaves, intoxicants and professions involving killing, cheating, astrology or other prognosticating trickery.
This is realy insightfull... how many people has a living cheating people with astrology and other sort of things like that...

Esho
11 Apr 10, 14:12
from post #58

Thanks Andy dear... I downloaded the entire article...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 19:32
Pink_trike #47:
In the antecedent roots of Buddhist mythology, and still present in deeper layers of Tibetan Buddhist mythology, "Buddha" was an astronomy term

So is "Buddha" still an astrological term?

Hi Frank,

Please note that I used the word "astronomy", not astrology...in order to emphasis the brilliant scientific knowledge that elder cultures had of the celestial mechanics. Astronomy/astrology (as one word) better describes this knowledge than either word separately. Astronomy/Astrology as one concept can be described as:

As above, so below...as internal, so external.

While not written from a Buddhist perspective, I recommend this book:

Empires of Time - Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures by Anthony Aveni

...for a good introduction into how elder cultures incorporated complex, detailed knowledge of astronomy into everyday life.

(Anthony is an astronomer, archeologist, and anthropologist)

Buddhism's goal, like all ancient views, was to trigger an integrated view of material/phenomenal existence - knowing where we are and what time it is (space/time). Buddhism is a sophisticated, complex, strategically-constructed multilayered map of time/space (external/internal & above/below) and our conscious place within it.

jack
11 Apr 10, 19:49
I believe the term Buddha implies the qualities the person known as Siddartha Gautama had and to say a person is a Buddhist, should mean, the cultivation and practice of similar qualities within that person. That's all.

So, in that sense to say something like the "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist", in all honesty, it means nothing useful, whatever it means and however we perceive it. The emphasis was and should always be on the qualities and practice, and I believe that is exactly what it means to be Buddhist.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 19:54
I think it is useful to examine the "ist" part of "The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist".

jack
11 Apr 10, 19:57
I think it is useful to examine the "ist" part of "The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist".

If it makes you happy! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 20:01
It isn't about "happy", it's about clarity.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Samana
11 Apr 10, 20:07
from post #75

Well said Jack. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif There is nothing in this thread which will make any difference to my faith in the Buddha, his methods or to my practice.

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 20:24
I think if Sid showed up here today he'd be surprised to know that what he was teaching, the Dharma, was replaced with something called "Buddhism". http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

jack
11 Apr 10, 20:31
I think if Sid showed up here today he'd be surprised to know that what he was teaching, the Dharma, was replaced with something called "Buddhism".

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

jack
11 Apr 10, 20:34
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Samana
11 Apr 10, 20:45
I think if Sid showed up here today he'd be surprised to know that what he was teaching, the Dharma, was replaced with something called "Buddhism".

That's just speculating. He might be really cool about it and chill out over a BigMac and fries.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Esho
11 Apr 10, 21:45
I think it is useful to examine the "ist" part of "The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist".

and also the "ism" aspect of it Pink dear,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
11 Apr 10, 22:07
from post #84



and also the "ism" aspect

indeed. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

andyrobyn
11 Apr 10, 22:23
Of course as Buddhist we know that this was one of the 'science's' Buddha didn't approve of.

Have to get going right now, wanted to respond to this .... think the message is that the answers must come from within, looking at the stars or whatever, relying on what someone else will tell you about what will happen in the future will not bring about the end of suffering .... aspects of truth are reflected in nature everywhere and in Tibetan Buddhism knowledge in astronomy/astrology has been cultivated - does not seek to replace what can only be achieved through practice.

Esho
11 Apr 10, 22:39
Hello Andy dear,

I keep this part...



the answers must come from within,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

frank
12 Apr 10, 11:44
relying on what someone else will tell you about what will happen in the future will not bring about the end of suffering .... ..does not seek to replace what can only be achieved through practice.

Sounds about right

frank
12 Apr 10, 12:35
Buddhism's goal, like all ancient views, was to trigger an integrated view of material/phenomenal existence -

Sorry Pink, Buddhism's goal is the cessation of suffering.
Everything else is something extra to figure.
A study of time/space,(they are the same 'thing') only further entrenches our belief in the samsaric realm.

halfcajun
12 Apr 10, 13:49
Hello y'all:
Great thread...learning a lot.
Bill

Esho
12 Apr 10, 13:58
from post #89

I feel here Frank has a good point... Buddha is to awake from our sufferings and overcome them. And that is the work to do.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Esho
12 Apr 10, 14:41
from post #90

Yes Bill... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Pink_trike
12 Apr 10, 17:55
Pink_trike #74:
Buddhism's goal, like all ancient views, was to trigger an integrated view of material/phenomenal existence -

Sorry Pink, Buddhism's goal is the cessation of suffering.
Everything else is something extra to figure.
A study of time/space,(they are the same 'thing') only further entrenches our belief in the samsaric realm.

The integration is the cessation. The path is the goal.

Esho
12 Apr 10, 18:11
The integration is the cessation.

Hi Pink,

The way I can understand this is that when we overcome the illusion about a separated self, then we have cessation. It is told that this illusory separation is one of the sources of suffering...

Anyway... any comments are wellcome...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
12 Apr 10, 18:38
The way I can understand this is that when we overcome the illusion about a separated self, then we have cessation. It is told that this illusory separation is one of the sources of suffering...


Yes, this is how I view it.

When we no longer perceive a solid "self" separate from the phenomenal world's patterns, appearances, and circumstances - then our perception is integrated and consistent with the nature of reality. This perceptual integration is the cessation of agitation and dissatisfaction - we're perceptually united with the bursting of momentness.

gerrymob
12 Apr 10, 18:39
from post #75

jack

I have seen nothing where the followers of the Buddha Gotama were called Buddhists.

The same can be said of the followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. He did not know what a Christian was because whilst he was alive there weren't any.

Somewhere along the way after the death of the Buddah and Jesus Christ their followers became Buddhists and Christians but I don't know when.

Peace

Gerry

Esho
12 Apr 10, 18:53
from post #95

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
12 Apr 10, 18:54
the bursting of momentness.

Yes I experienced some of that when my council tax bill for £1500 came through the letterbox recently ! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/mrgreen.gif

Esho
12 Apr 10, 19:19
from post #98

that is maybe because you and your tax bill were fully integrated... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Aloka
12 Apr 10, 19:21
that is maybe because you and your tax bill were fully integrated...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/washing.gif

Pink_trike
12 Apr 10, 20:10
that is maybe because you and your tax bill were fully integrated...

Of course...how not? Dazzle saw the light! Don't fight it, Daz...go with it. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Aloka
12 Apr 10, 20:22
Don't fight it, Daz...go with it

I'm trying....... http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/zonked.gif

andyrobyn
12 Apr 10, 22:09
Message and not the messenger comes to mind for me ... having respect for the the clarity of the teachings from the historical Buddha means being able to deal with a lot of mystery ... wanting to pin it down with simple concepts will lead us to harbouring ill will towards others who do not accept our narrow understandings.

frank
13 Apr 10, 03:34
It is told that this illusory separation is one of the sources of suffering...

Kaarine l would agree except to say that the feeling of 'separation' is the core of suffering,from which 'Ignorance' of our separation is suffering.

frank
13 Apr 10, 03:38
from post #98

Fight em dazz their just trying it on.

Aloka
13 Apr 10, 09:02
.




Fight em dazz their just trying it on.

<CENTER> http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/snow_play.jpg (http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/snow_play.jpg)<div class="txtSm">(Click on picture to see larger image)[/QUOTE]</CENTER>

plwk
13 Apr 10, 10:49
The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist
And da point is.....http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/coffee.gif

frank
13 Apr 10, 12:23
from post #107

Indeed.

Esho
13 Apr 10, 13:55
from post #104

Very very true Frank, at the end of this story... separateteness (mine v.s yours) is the core of suffering... Separation endangers our sense of self... so we run away from what we dislike and we attach tightly to what we like... all this in the state of Ignorance as the absence of Right View.

Thanks Frank,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sobeh
13 Apr 10, 16:07
the feeling of 'separation' is the core of suffering

In Theravada it's threefold, pertaining to separation from pleasant feelings, contact with unpleasant feelings, and ignorance in cases of neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings.

Element
15 Apr 10, 11:31
In Theravada it's threefold, pertaining to separation from pleasant feelings, contact with unpleasant feelings and ignorance in cases of neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings.

piyehi [the loved] vippayogo [separation from] dukkho [is suffering]

piyehi = love = affection = piyavagga (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.16.budd.html) = craving = defilement

When & where did the Buddha advise feeling is related to suffering?


'The (bottomless) pit,' O monks, is rather a name for painful bodily feelings. When an untaught worldling is afflicted by painful bodily feelings, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He is then said to be an untaught worldling who cannot withstand the bottomless pit and cannot gain a foothold in it. But when a well-taught noble disciple is afflicted by painful bodily feelings, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught.

Patala Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.004.nypo.html)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/saucer.gif


...whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he abides contemplating impermanence in those feelings, contemplating fading away, contemplating cessation, contemplating relinquishment. Contemplating thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.

Culatanhasankhaya Sutta
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/love.gif


Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element...

The Nibbana-element (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/flower.gif

Element
15 Apr 10, 11:39
In Theravada it's threefold, pertaining to separation from pleasant feelings, contact with unpleasant feelings, and ignorance in cases of neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/read.gif


With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain or neither pleasure nor pain.

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed.

That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.

Chachakka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html)

Element
15 Apr 10, 11:44
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/read.gif


"In the sky, O monks, various kinds of winds are blowing: winds from the east, west, north and south, winds carrying dust and winds without dust, winds hot and cold, gentle and fierce. Similarly, monks, there arise in this body various kinds of feelings: pleasant feelings arise, painful feelings arise and neutral feelings arise."

Just as in the sky above winds of various kinds are blowing:
Coming from the east or west, blowing from the north or south,
Some carry dust and others not, cold are some and others hot,
Some are fierce and others mild — their blowing is so different.

So also in this body here, feelings of different kind arise:
The pleasant feelings and the painful and the neutral ones.

But if a monk is ardent and does not neglect
To practice mindfulness and comprehension clear,
The nature of all feelings will he understand,
And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
When once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
All measure and concept he has transcended.

Akasa Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.012.nypo.html)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/saucer.gif

Sobeh
15 Apr 10, 16:59
When & where did the Buddha advise feeling is related to suffering?



from post #112

I see you answered your own question. Kudos!

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Allis
08 May 10, 16:44
from post #1

of corse he wa not as little as Christ was a Christian!