A god was key in saving Buddhism

[Encephalon]

A statement on this site (or string) that directly says or implys that all religions and those who practice them are "insane" is not any kind of rational or intellectual challenge to me Blasto, and imo if you see such as being so then your unasked for advice is further compounded in a bad way. (although in some small way I think you may mean well) Btw, imo your continued projections towards me and the strangely twisted, smarter than thou academic stance could use some introspection towards your own person, I'm not that interested in it frankly. Good luck.

 

Newsflash - You're the one who entered a forum and posted an argument that A God was key in saving Buddhism!! If you can't handle the rigors of anonymous intellectual sparring then you're not old enough to play in here.

[3bob]

Newsflash - You're the one who entered a forum and posted an argument that A God was key in saving Buddhism!! If you can't handle the rigors of anonymous intellectual sparring then you're not old enough to play in here.

 

The intially used "argument" text was a quoted translation from a well recognized and known source for Buddhist doctrine; granted certain comments of mine or the string title related to it could have been better. Further, and which is not news here is that there has been some intellectual "sparring" as you call it, for instance Xabir (among several others) has been very rational and non-insulting in this string. Hurah.

 

Om

Edited June 5, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

Well said. Blasto's post above reeks of much haughtiness. It makes one wonder why seemingly intelligent people quite often find it difficult to germinate their seed of humility.

 

jK's post hardly represented a challenge. The way i see it, he was making a declaration, and one that left quite a bit to be desired actually. This is 3Bob's thread, and if jK is truly an ambassador of Raja Yoga or whatever, the least he could do, having chosen not to engage in sensible discussion, was to either keep his views to himself, and/or show a bit of respect to the OP in what he writes. It really is not that hard, especially for those who have had the privilege to count themselves as academicians.

 

Sorry Bob.. its not my intention to comment on your behalf. I am just blowing off a bit of steam here.

 

No apology needed CowTao. I feel that many here admire and appreciate your gentleman-ness.

 

Om

[3bob]

A related tangent that some have commented on:

 

In various Buddhist texts I've come across there are titles and terms such as Goddess and goddess, Lord, H.H. or His Holiness, etc.. It seems to me that there is some incongruity about the usage of capital letters with some of these terms and also some incongruity with such terms themselves since they are now or were originally used in religions that Buddhists do not follow? Does anyone know the history behind why Buddhists have seemingly adopted or adapted terms such as these to their way? And are there commonly accepted rules in the usage of capital letters with same?

 

Thanks for any information.

Edited June 5, 2010 by 3bob

[Encephalon]

Well said. Blasto's post above reeks of much haughtiness. It makes one wonder why seemingly intelligent people quite often find it difficult to germinate their seed of humility.

 

jK's post hardly represented a challenge. The way i see it, he was making a declaration, and one that left quite a bit to be desired actually. This is 3Bob's thread, and if jK is truly an ambassador of Raja Yoga or whatever, the least he could do, having chosen not to engage in sensible discussion, was to either keep his views to himself, and/or show a bit of respect to the OP in what he writes. It really is not that hard, especially for those who have had the privilege to count themselves as academicians.

 

Sorry Bob.. its not my intention to comment on your behalf. I am just blowing off a bit of steam here.

[/quot

 

Fine. Guilty as charged. I'm the pedantic ass of the forum, with a knowledge base rendered moot by my lack of wisdom, humility and compassion.

 

I have noticed, however, that my points have never been addressed on their own terms. If one wishes to post contentious or poorly reasoned arguments without expecting them to be rebutted, what is the purpose of the debate in the first place? I'm not attacking him personally, but I do believe that many of us come here to learn, to delight in the life of the mind, and take responsibility for the integrity of the ideas we pose to one another. I don't believe this is an unreasonable expectation.

[~jK~]

Let's see... on the subject of Insainity: Religions were responsible for how many wars just in the past 1,000 years? (Hint, begin with the Holy Crusades that are continuing today) Then Try looking into the history of the dark ages, The history of Roman Emperor Constantine, Salem witch killings, the rape of children in the churches, the church against; science, evolution, ... etc, etc, etc.

 

Now contrast that with Buddhism

:

 

"

Buddhism is an Education, Not a Religion

Below Excerpt is from: http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm

 

　　According to the Webster's Dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows, "An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion."

Buddhism is not a religion because: First, the Buddha is not a 'supernatural being power'. The Buddha is simply a person who has reached Complete Understanding of the reality of life and the universe. Life refers to ourselves, and universe refers to our living environment. The Buddha taught that all beings possess the same ability within to reach Complete Understanding of themselves and their environment, and free themselves from all sufferings to attain utmost happiness. All beings can become Buddhas, and all beings and the Buddha are equal by nature. The Buddha is not a God, but a teacher, who teaches us the way to restore Wisdom and Understanding by conquering the greed, hatred, and ignorance which blind us at the present moment. The word 'Buddha' is a Sanskrit word, when translated it means, "Wisdom, Awareness/Understanding". We call the founder of Buddhism Shakyamuni 'Buddha' because He has attained Complete Understanding and Wisdom of life and the universe. Buddhism is His education to us, it is His teaching which shines the way to Buddhahood.

 

　　Second, Buddhism is not a religion because 'belief' in the Buddha's teachings is not blind belief, blind faith, and far from superstition. Shakyamuni Buddha taught us not to blindly believe what he tells us, he wants us to try the teachings and prove them for ourselves. The Buddha wants us to know, not merely believe. The Buddha's teachings flow from his own experience of the way to understand the true face of life and the univ`rse, and show us a path of our own to taste the truth for ourselves. This is much like a good friend telling us of his trip to Europe, the sights he has seen, and the way to go there and see for ourselves. The Buddha uses a perfectly scientific way of showing us reality in its true form.

 

　　Third, Buddhism is not a religion because all the 'rites and celebrations' are not centered on a supernatural being, but rather the people attending the assemblies. The ceremonies and celebrations in Buddhism all serve an educational purpose, a reminder of the Buddha's teachings and encouragement to all students who practice it. For example, the Thousand Buddhas Repentance Ceremony practiced during Chinese New Year is to help the participants cultivate a humble heart and respect for others. The point of all 'ceremonies' is to help others awaken from delusion and return to Wisdom and Understanding.

 

　　Finally, Buddhism is not a religion because the 'devotion' used in Buddhism is not one based on emotion, but one based on reason. Students of the Buddha are devoted to their practice of maintaining Purity of Mind because this practice brings true happiness. We are devoted to help others and the Society attain Complete Understanding and Wisdom. Only through Complete Understanding and Wisdom can we realize our true selves and living environment. The Buddha's education is truly not a religion but an education, teaching us the way to break through ignorance and arrive at a perfect understanding of ourselves and everything around us.

"

[3bob]

Let's see... on the subject of Insainity: Religions were responsible for how many wars just in the past 1,000 years? (Hint, begin with the Holy Crusades that are continuing today) Then Try looking into the history of the dark ages, The history of Roman Emperor Constantine, Salem witch killings, the rape of children in the churches, the church against; science, evolution, ... etc, etc, etc.

 

Why and who was responsible for this to even have a chance to start in the beginning of all things when there was only light and mist? Find and name them for us so they can be given the full blame and be punished for what they did not stop way back when.

 

Then come see me...

[~jK~]

Why and who was responsible for this to even have a chance to start in the beginning of all things when there was only light and mist? Find and name them for us so they can be given the full blame and be punished for what they did not stop way back when.

 

Then come see me...

Why come see you when you can't see yourself?

Besides, there was no "Why and who was responsible for this to even have a chance to start "

I've said it before and I'll say it one more time for those mentaly challanged: There is no god - and I'll add that the jesus thing was an invention for the weak minded and corrupt that commit what they cannot forgive themselves as the only person that can forgive you is you. Live with it as a person responsible for your own actions.

[3bob]

Why come see you when you can't see yourself?

Besides, there was no "Why and who was responsible for this to even have a chance to start "

 

"The names change but..." and if you can not see that in 100 years or in the 4,000+ years of the more or less recorded history of mankind then there is nothing more to talk about since you believe you are 100% correct. (oops the 'b' word)

Edited June 5, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

A related tangent that some have commented on:

 

In various Buddhist texts I've come across there are titles and terms such as Goddess and goddess, Lord, H.H. or His Holiness, etc.. It seems to me that there is some incongruity about the usage of capital letters with some of these terms and also some incongruity with such terms themselves since they are now or were originally used in religions that Buddhists do not follow? Does anyone know the history behind why Buddhists have seemingly adopted or adapted terms such as these to their way? And are there commonly accepted rules in the usage of capital letters with same?

 

Thanks for any information.

 

They are just used for reverence. There are many Buddhist Bodhisattva Gods in Buddhist cosmology or even Gods that appear in Hinduism as absolute monarchs of the universe but are considered to be Buddhas in Buddhist cosmology that merely appear as monarchs for those that still need such a "God" crutch to evolve personally on the spiritual path. When the Buddha is called the Lord of the universe, it is merely in reference to him clearly cutting through the nature of Samsara, his diamond like realization of the nature of everything, not that he created the universe or that he is the soul of the universe or anything that would be associated with Theistic interpretations of the same words.

[styrofoamdog]

It's not just one story from one sutra. It is the standard reason for why the Buddha Dharma was taught by Shakyamuni Buddha. It is featured not only in the Sutra Pitaka, but also in the vinayas of the various schools. It is also in the Lotus Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra.

 

After the enlightenment of Shakyamuni Buddha, he saw no reason to teach others because his teaching was completely inconceivable. That is, it can't be apprehended by thought or the Five Skandhas --- this is the true Dharma of Buddhism, the Prajnaparamita, Vajrasamadhi, Zen, Dao, or any other synonyms for the highest practice and truth. It is something beyond all cognition, and therefore Shakyamuni Buddha may have just meditated peacefully and never spoken about it to anyone. However, a king of the brahma heavens pleads with the Buddha that if he would only speak, there are virtuous devas and humans who would listen and be able to understand. If he would only show them the way to buddhahood, they would believe it and practice with discipline, wisdom, and samadhi. Therefore, the Buddha agreed and taught innumerable methods to cultivate these three things, always pointing toward the truth and bringing people closer. However, to actually attain buddhahood and enlightenment is completely beyond any thought, cognition, or ordinary methods. The highest levels of Daoism are the same, and there is no talk of immortality or ordinary methods of meditation. This is the way that Laozi taught, which is why practically nobody understands him, just as with the Prajnaparamita sutras.

 

To become enlightened means to attain the Dharmakaya, which is why Zen, Dzogchen, and Prajnaparamita seem so paradoxical and difficult. These all focus very strongly on buddhahood and on cultivating enlightenment. They continually point to the inconceivable truth while eschewing set methods. However, in practice, all schools of Buddhism have meditation methods and other skillful means to cultivate the Sambhogakaya, or to help one see truth and cultivate the Dharmakaya. These skillful means are very obvious in Theravada Buddhism and especially in Tibetan Buddhism where they start with samadhi and cultivating the Sambhogakaya with different methods of yoga. These are all just skillful means set up by the Buddha to help people. If someone takes any set method of meditation as the ultimate Dharma, that's not Buddhism, that's just samadhi, which many yogis could cultivate to very high levels before the Buddha (and to this day many in India have samadhi attainments).

 

There were immortal rishis in India as well, who probably brought their methods over to China during the early history of Daoism. However, no "immortal" is actually immortal absolutely, they are still subject to karma. If they do not stay in a human body, they can be considered devas, or gods. The Buddhist sutras speak about them and their methods, but also mention that they hold deviant views of eternalism, and are cultivating with a sense of self. The methods they use are fine, and they can live indefinitely even on Earth, but they become attached to them so they cannot make progress to become a buddha. Immortality is by definition the existence of a notion of a self, and with it the notion of others, all sentient beings, and life (qi). These are all things to be eschewed at the higher levels of Buddhism, as the Diamond Sutra teaches over and over and over and over.

 

Still, if you want to learn how to cultivate an immortal body and become a deva who dwells in the heavens, then the teachings of Buddhism do encompass that. The Shurangama Sutra teaches anything you would need to know to cultivate the samadhi requisite to do this, in very concrete terms. Buddhism is very systematic and detailed in its coverage of this, including not only practice methods, but also the detailed theory. However, few people read the sutras or understand them.

[Trunk]

...

Thank you,

a pleasure to read.

[3bob]

Thank you,

a pleasure to read.

 

I'll second that

[3bob]

Some quotes:

 

 

Well said. Blasto's post above reeks of much haughtiness. It makes one wonder why seemingly intelligent people quite often find it difficult to germinate their seed of humility.

 

jK's post hardly represented a challenge. The way i see it, he was making a declaration, and one that left quite a bit to be desired actually. This is 3Bob's thread, and if jK is truly an ambassador of Raja Yoga or whatever, the least he could do, having chosen not to engage in sensible discussion, was to either keep his views to himself, and/or show a bit of respect to the OP in what he writes. It really is not that hard, especially for those who have had the privilege to count themselves as academicians.

 

Sorry Bob.. its not my intention to comment on your behalf. I am just blowing off a bit of steam here.

[/quote

-------------------------------------------------

From Blasto:

 

Fine. Guilty as charged. I'm the pedantic ass of the forum, with a knowledge base rendered moot by my lack of wisdom, humility and compassion.

 

I have noticed, however, that my points have never been addressed on their own terms. If one wishes to post contentious or poorly reasoned arguments without expecting them to be rebutted, what is the purpose of the debate in the first place? I'm not attacking him personally, but I do believe that many of us come here to learn, to delight in the life of the mind, and take responsibility for the integrity of the ideas we pose to one another. I don't believe this is an unreasonable expectation.

 

Thus, how could we ever really stay pissed off when there are so many better things to do? (like run on the beach with unbound and exuberant abandon... )

Edited June 6, 2010 by 3bob

[Tao99]

Edited June 13, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

 

After the enlightenment of Shakyamuni Buddha, he saw no reason to teach others because his teaching was completely inconceivable. That is, it can't be apprehended by thought or the Five Skandhas --- this is the true Dharma of Buddhism, the Prajnaparamita, Vajrasamadhi, Zen, Dao, or any other synonyms for the highest practice and truth. It is something beyond all cognition, and therefore Shakyamuni Buddha may have just meditated peacefully and never spoken about it to anyone.

 

Yes, but the Dharmakaya is not a something, it's a result body realized through the methods of Buddhadharma, also a realization of the nature of the all, not beyond the all as a substratum. As it say's, "Samsara is Nirvana" rightly realized. There is not a beyond the beyond source of existence, but there is a beyond the beyond source of realization that is Buddhahood resulting in the Sambhogakaya and the realization of Dharmakaya, basically "dependent origination/emptiness". This is a different approach and not the same realization as lets say, Brahman which is considered a beyond the all substratum of the all that always is and always will be, that all things arise in and out of and through and are in essence. This is not the same as Tatathagatagarbha or Dharmakaya.

 

Styrofoamdog,

 

Thank you for your post. It's very nicely said.

[mat black]

thank you for a clear and informative post styrofoam dog. and yes, the Shurangama Sutra is very thourough, very important.

[adept]

.

Edited July 20, 2010 by adept

[mat black]

How is it important ?

It is abig text yes probably best to go slow.

It is important for many reasons including the four clear and un-alterable instructions on purity

Master hua sums it up well

In Buddhism all the sutras are very important, but the Shurangama Sutra is even more important. Wherever the Shurangama Sutra is, the Proper Dharma abides in the world. When the Shurangama Sutra is gone, that is a sign of the Dharma Ending Age. In the Extinction of the Dharma Sutra it says that in the Dharma Ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra will become extinct first. Then gradually the other Sutras will also become extinct. The Shurangama Sutra is the true body of the Buddha; the sarira (relics) of the Buddha; the stupa of the Buddha.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Shurangama_Sutra

commentary is here

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/Shurangama.htm

[nac]

OP: "Saving"? The deva realm has always been one of the six major psychological landscapes inhabited by sentient beings according to Buddhist cosmology.

[3bob]

OP: "Saving"? The deva realm has always been one of the six major psychological landscapes inhabited by sentient beings according to Buddhist cosmology.

 

It doesn't take much effort to type Nac, Nac... btw, does it take much effort to type Bob compared to OP?

 

From the Buddha:

"...Enough now with teaching

What only with difficulty I reached.

This Dhamma is not easily realized

by those overcome with aversion & passion.

 

What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see,

going against the flow those delighting in passion,

cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't see.

 

As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma. Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own awareness the line of thinking in the Blessed One's awareness, thought: "The world is lost! The world is destroyed! The mind of the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Rightly Self-awakened One inclines to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma!..."

 

Thus considering the lines above to me there was in a sense a certain "saving"; although whatever term you may feel is more appropriate (?) go ahead and submit it to us.

 

Om

Edited June 12, 2010 by 3bob

[nac]

[3bob]

[nac]

Nope. Just as I thought, you probably don't get it at all.

 

I'm afraid this is one lesson you'll have to learn through your own experiences, that is, if you're genuinely interested.

[3bob]

Nope. Just as I thought, you probably don't get it at all.

 

I'm afraid this is one lesson you'll have to learn through your own experiences, that is, if you're genuinely interested.

 

Well you can play your mind game, or you can try to relate or give a reply that further helps explain what you are getting at or even mention lines of doctrine.

 

Otherwise catch you later aligator...

 

Om