The Error of the Buddha

[bindo]

[ralis]

[Marblehead]

I ain't sayin' nuttin'.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Wow. Every time i read something like this, there is a better appreciation of the (presumed) declaration

of the Buddha when He said, "After 48 years, I taught nothing."

 

 

Namaste? Namaste...

[Encephalon]

Imagine what would happen if we generalized the subject of music the way the subject of Buddhism gets generalized. When speaking of music, it would all be the same. Brittany Spears, Stravinsky, Bach, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Shakira, children's lullabies, all the same, all equal in sophistication, all emoting the same reaction, all worthy of the same artistic merit...

 

This is Wilkinson's Straw Dog. The number of misrepresentations in this essay are too numerous and too convoluted to possibly plow through in this forum. The intellectual level that has been attained by the decades-old academic dialogue between Buddhism and the physical, biological, social and behavioral sciences leaves Wilkinson's ancient animosities in the dust. When I was at Maharishi International University, back in the 90s, the contempt for Buddhist thought was off the charts. Buddha recognized the corrupt Hindu orthodoxy of his day for what it was, and some folks are still holding the grudge.

 

The fact that the Buddha realized the constructed nature of the self and the world(s) we create, 2,500 years before our own postmodern realization, our modern pyschological and ecological sciences, is THE testament to his imaginative genius. He lived in the Iron Age, but with respect to the Big Questions, he was way ahead of anyone at the time (with the exception of Lao Tse, of course).

 

 

 

PS - For one of the most respected pieces of contemporary Buddhist scholarship pertaining to agnostic Buddhism, you can pick up "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Batchelor's yet-to-be-released book is entitled "Confessions of a Buddhist Aetheist." Stripped of all the orthodoxies that typically acrete around original ideas, the essence of what the Buddha taught is remarkably consistent with cutting edge science of all kinds. Sadly, his teachings get bantered about with all the recklessness of Jesus' alleged teachings. Hard to avoid, I presume.

[Marblehead]

Thank you, Blasto, for that point of consideration. You know the one I'm speaking to.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Bindo, who are you?

.

[Non]

Forshang Buddhism is a supposed "new buddhist thought" religion, calling for the modernization of buddhism.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Non

[Pero]

[bindo]

Imagine what would happen if we generalized the subject of music the way the subject of Buddhism gets generalized. When speaking of music, it would all be the same. Brittany Spears, Stravinsky, Bach, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Shakira, children's lullabies, all the same, all equal in sophistication, all emoting the same reaction, all worthy of the same artistic merit...

 

This is Wilkinson's Straw Dog. The number of misrepresentations in this essay are too numerous and too convoluted to possibly plow through in this forum. The intellectual level that has been attained by the decades-old academic dialogue between Buddhism and the physical, biological, social and behavioral sciences leaves Wilkinson's ancient animosities in the dust. When I was at Maharishi International University, back in the 90s, the contempt for Buddhist thought was off the charts. Buddha recognized the corrupt Hindu orthodoxy of his day for what it was, and some folks are still holding the grudge.

 

The fact that the Buddha realized the constructed nature of the self and the world(s) we create, 2,500 years before our own postmodern realization, our modern pyschological and ecological sciences, is THE testament to his imaginative genius. He lived in the Iron Age, but with respect to the Big Questions, he was way ahead of anyone at the time (with the exception of Lao Tse, of course).

PS - For one of the most respected pieces of contemporary Buddhist scholarship pertaining to agnostic Buddhism, you can pick up "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Batchelor's yet-to-be-released book is entitled "Confessions of a Buddhist Aetheist." Stripped of all the orthodoxies that typically acrete around original ideas, the essence of what the Buddha taught is remarkably consistent with cutting edge science of all kinds. Sadly, his teachings get bantered about with all the recklessness of Jesus' alleged teachings. Hard to avoid, I presume.

Please don't assume this article speaks 100% for me! I didn't write it. The title of the article sucks, among other problems. I don't believe Buddha made an error, but I do believe in spiritual evolution.

 

As a student of Sri Aurobindo's teachings, I can assure you he had nothing but great respect for Buddha.

 

There are so many differing opinions about the true teachings of the Buddha that one is either forced to generalize or say nothing. Otherwise a simple article would become book length so everyone could be addressed.

 

While his tone could be a little softer, I don't think the author shows contempt for Buddhism. He is only suggesting there is more, beyond what the Buddha taught.

 

Despite what is written on the internet, Sri Aurobindo is not a Hindu. He was in his younger years for some 12 years only. Later becoming somewhat critical of Hinduism, at least as a formal religion. (But that's a whole different topic).

 

I agree Buddha (and Lao Tzu) were way ahead of their time. I also believe Sri Aurobindo is way ahead of our present time.

 

I think this article was based on the following quote by Sri Aurobindo.

 

"The traditions of the past are very great in their own place, in the past, but I do not see why we should merely repeat them and not go farther. In the spiritual development of the consciousness upon earth the great past ought to be followed by a greater future."

 

Sri Aurobindo The Integral Yoga p.35

Edited January 8, 2010 by bindo

[goldisheavy]

[markern]

[Astral Monk]

[Gerard]

I haven't read that "brick" because I certainly know that is product of a Western egotistic mind. Anyway I flicked through it briefly and all I see is words and more words. One simple smile has more power than 10,000 words.

 

Experience Buddhism first before criticising it, certainly walk on your sandals any spiritual path before assuming you know a great deal of it.

[innerspace_cadet]

Humans suffered 2,500 years ago, when the Buddha walked the earth, and they suffer now. If anything the nutshell of the Buddha's teachings is "I teach suffering and the end of suffering." We didn't "evolve" out of suffering; in fact, we are pretty much the same humans we have been for the past 100,000 years. Humans don't "evolve" that fast in 2,500 years. If it was a bad idea to cling to temporary things 2,500 years ago, I can pretty much guarantee it's a bad idea now. And I can speak from personal experience.

[xabir2005]

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[bindo]

let me ask you to not put Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo in the same category. Wilber has it wrong about Sri Aurobindo, and some have gone so far as to say the only thing Wilber and Aurobindo have in common is the word "integral".

 

Also, Sri Aurobindo's understanding of the nature of reality is not Advaitic non-dual Brahman.

 

I think the author is simply saying that when the Buddha arrived and began speaking out, he was stirring up some shit. I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought he was a little koo koo de la cabeza and defended what was the current beliefs.

 

Looking back, it's easy to see the Buddhas greatness and his significant contribution to the world.

 

So, if Buddha could step up. challenge the current beliefs, and change the rules for spiritual advancement, why can't someone else do it in the present time? There were people before the Buddha who claimed to have the ultimate truth(s), and maybe they did have a partial truth, but not the whole enchilada. Then, the Buddha arrives and says he has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

So, nobody is allowed to come after the Buddha and say, "No, I've taken it farther still!"?...why not?

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I know slightly more than nothing about Buddhism. It's just that everyone seems to be defending every reference to Buddhism when that is not the point.

 

What's in question is the Buddhas ultimate realization. Is it only his ultimate realization? Or is it thee ultimate realization for all time? (don't even try to answer that).

 

The author believes there is room for someone to come along and take it farther to realize an even greater piece of the 'truth pie". And then, in the future, someone else will come along to take it farther still. And so on, and so on...

 

This makes perfect sense to me. Though I understand the resistance to the idea. I'm the same way about Sri Aurobindo as you guys are about the Buddha.

 

When you say, "but the Buddha said this", I say, "So what? Sri Aurobindo says that".

Edited January 8, 2010 by bindo

[forestofclarity]

All methods are just methods. People get so attached to the methods!

 

If you're to the South of where you want to go, you need to go North. If you're East, you need to go West. If you're South, going South won't due.

 

So the question is not: which method is best. The question is, which method is best for you.

[Sunya]

Edited January 8, 2010 by mikaelz

[Pero]

So, nobody is allowed to come after the Buddha and say, "No, I've taken it farther still!"?...why not?

 

Don't be ridiculous. Who's forbidding you to say so? No one. You think Buddhism doesn't get it? That's fine, follow something else, no one is preventing you. However don't expect Buddhist will follow your ideas. Buddhist = follower of Buddhist teachings. Buddhist. Not Bindoist or whichever else. For Buddhists Buddha has taken it as far as it goes.

 

 

What's in question is the Buddhas ultimate realization.

 

It isn't in questioned by Buddhists.

 

When you say, "but the Buddha said this", I say, "So what? Sri Aurobindo says that".

 

And that is fine for you, just don't expect it to be accepted in discussions with Buddhists.

 

for Buddhism there is no beginning or end

 

Not sure what exactly you meant here, but it's said that samsara doesn't have a begining but it does have an end.

[lino]

[lino]

 

If we take an unvarnished look at what Buddha taught, not the kind of humanism it has morphed into today, it can only be understood as a strategy of escapism based on a denial of the World, the Feminine Principle and the Human Soul.

 

 

If it was based on denial of the World, it would be a completely monastic "religion".

When are Compassion and Loving-kindness not Feminine Principles?

It is based on the stripping of the 10 fetters from the Human Soul.

[bindo]

@mikaelz - you've completely missed the point

 

@pero - you've not only completely missed the point, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

Edited January 8, 2010 by bindo

[Pero]

@pero - you've not only completely missed the point, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

 

If so my apologies. Would you mind then telling me what was the point?

[xabir2005]

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005