Apech Posted July 6, 2013 I guess we can blame the whole thing on buddha himself since he didn't practice compassion himself. "Gautama Siddārtha blamed Devadatta saying that he was doomed to the Niraya Hell for his deeds, and it is reported that shortly thereafter he did in fact fall into Hell." Its nothing to do with blaming anyone. What is your motivation in taking a single quote out of context? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 I wish it were true, but experience tells me otherwise. Yes, there are Buddhists who follow the way of compassion, but you'd be shocked how easy it is to sway them in another direction. I know of Buddhists who traveled outside the country to study with big-name monks and at famous temples, but deliberately ignored suffering going on around them. They cared only about their training lineage. I have known such people even in San Francisco, home to the famous San Francisco Zen Center. Relative bodhicitta = compassion arises from ultimate bodhicitta which is awakened mind ... it has nothing to with sentimental attachment to those around you or whether you travel to another country to study and so on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 Relative bodhicitta = compassion arises from ultimate bodhicitta which is awakened mind ... it has nothing to with sentimental attachment to those around you or whether you travel to another country to study and so on. Apech, are you saying that the awakened mind does not sense suffering from people with whom it has a "sentimental attachment"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 The Mahayana goal is to become an omniscient Buddha, so that you may benefit infinite sentient beings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Let me guess, Brunnholzl must be a scholar, and you took his word for it. I didn't say Milarepa was a scholar. But Milarepa was highly educated in Buddhism. In Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana, you are supposed to: 1) receive full teachings 2) become a lay person (if not one already), go to a cave etc. and put teachings into practice. So everyone in Tibetan Buddhism rags on scholars, not just Milarepa. Edited July 6, 2013 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 Apech, are you saying that the awakened mind does not sense suffering from people with whom it has a "sentimental attachment"? No I am saying compassion is the motivating factor for buddha activity and has nothing to do with sentimental attachment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 The Mahayana goal is to become an omniscient Buddha, so that you may benefit infinite sentient beings. Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 No I am saying compassion is the motivating factor for buddha activity and has nothing to do with sentimental attachment. Yes, well, the people I am talking about have no sentimental attachment to others and yet ignored suffering. However, they may have had a sentimental attachment to money, as they live quite well. They may also have a sentimental attachment to ideology. Even Buddhist ideology can be turned to "the dark side". Wirathu, the terrorist monk of Burma, is an example of how easy it can happen, imperceptibly easy, until one day, he called himself the Burmese Bin Laden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 Yes, well, the people I am talking about have no sentimental attachment to others and yet ignored suffering. However, they may have had a sentimental attachment to money, as they live quite well. They may also have a sentimental attachment to ideology. Even Buddhist ideology can be turned to "the dark side". Wirathu, the terrorist monk of Burma, is an example of how easy it can happen, imperceptibly easy, until one day, he called himself the Burmese Bin Laden. Human beings are so ignorant and confused that they can anything to whatever their obsessions dictate. Ok you have made that point several times now ... anything else to say? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 Ok you have made that point several times now ... anything else to say? Apech, I didn't mean to offend. However, it's always important to remind people to be vigilant about their own understanding of path. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 Apech, I didn't mean to offend. However, it's always important to remind people to be vigilant about their own understanding of path. I'm not offended in any way. In fact the fact that this man wirathu is so unusual as he is a buddhist and yet preaches hate is a kind of testament to the fact that buddhists generally would be against this sort of thing. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Apech, I didn't mean to offend. However, it's always important to remind people to be vigilant about their own understanding of path. Right, you have no understanding. That's the problem. You are supposed to work on your own suffering first and become an omniscient Buddha. Edited July 6, 2013 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 Right, you have no understanding. That's the problem. You are supposed to work on your own suffering first and become an omniscient Buddha. Which of us has perfect understanding? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 Which of us has perfect understanding? Dudjom Rinpoche. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Right, you have no understanding. That's the problem. You are supposed to work on your own suffering first and become an omniscient Buddha. Oh no. What you are saying is to ignore brothers who go astray and work on yourself only. Oh no. That is why Wirathu has gained so much power, and he is gaining more power every day. This is an example of what I call insularity in Buddhism (and many other religions). You ignore suffering to work on yourself. Edited July 6, 2013 by silas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) You ignore suffering to work on yourself. Are you not a suffering human being yourself? Learn Buddhadharma, end your own suffering, and then maybe you can help others. What you are saying is to ignore brothers Who is ignoring others? I already said the starting point of Mahayana is the bodhisattva motivation to become an omniscient Buddha to benefit infinite sentient beings. This motivation is key throughout all of Vajrayana. Edited July 6, 2013 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 Dudjom Rinpoche. I meant on here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) he called himself the Burmese Bin Laden. Ridiculous. Wirathu is engaging in defensive action against Islamic atrocties. Why would he call himself Bin Laden, who was the perpetuator of such Islamic atrocities? Edited July 6, 2013 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Are you not a suffering human being yourself? Learn Buddhadharma, end your own suffering, and then maybe you can help others. Who is ignoring others? I already said the starting point of Mahayana is the bodhisattva motivation to become an omniscient Buddha to benefit infinite sentient beings. This motivation is key throughout all of Vajrayana. Then, are you saying to ignore the suffering of others until you become an "omniscient Buddha"? If a homeless man is being beaten up on the street, do you say "I am not an omniscient Buddha yet, so I should not go help him"? >>Ridiculous. Wirathu is engaging in defensive action against Islamic atrocties. Why would he call himself Bin Laden, who was the perpetuator of such Islamic atrocities... This link to the Democratic Voice Of Burma (among many other sources) says that Wirathu calls himself the Burmese Bin Laden. Edited July 6, 2013 by silas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted July 6, 2013 Then, are you saying to ignore the suffering of others until you become an "omniscient Buddha"? If a homeless man is being beaten up on the street, do you say "I am not an omniscient Buddha yet, so I should not go help him"? Read "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher" and other similar books such as "A Torch Lighting the Way to Freedom", which dumb down Buddhism. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Read "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher" and other similar books such as "A Torch Lighting the Way to Freedom", which dumb down Buddhism. If you can't explain the rationale in simple words, then you are confirming that it's proper to ignore the suffering of others until you become an "omniscient Buddha". Could a Buddhist tell a homeless man being beaten up that his suffering is an illusion and walk away and still be on the Path? Edited July 6, 2013 by silas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 If you can't explain the rationale in simple words, then you are confirming that it's proper to ignore the suffering of others until you become an "omniscient Buddha". Could a Buddhist tell a homeless man being beaten up that his suffering is an illusion and walk away and still be on the Path? You would try to help but that should not be confused with the compassion of a buddha - its just normal human activity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 You would try to help but that should not be confused with the compassion of a buddha - its just normal human activity. What do you mean: that helping others is just "normal human activity" and that the compassion of the Buddha has nothing to do with helping others? Is the "compassion of the Buddha" just a state of mind? If someone walks away from the homeless man being hurt but "feels the compassion of the Buddha", then he is still on the Path? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 6, 2013 What do you mean: that helping others is just "normal human activity" and that the compassion of the Buddha has nothing to do with helping others? Is the "compassion of the Buddha" just a state of mind? If someone walks away from the homeless man being hurt but "feels the compassion of the Buddha", then he is still on the Path? The compassion of the Buddha is his motivation for teaching others to liberate them from (unnecessary) dukkha (suffering being a poor translation of this state). It arises spontaneously from his realisation of emptiness. People who are not Buddhas try to lead good lives because that's what the Buddha taught as the basis for dharma. Leading a good life means being kind to others and trying not to cause harm and so on. So you try not to cause harm, not to take what is not freely given and not to spread falsehood. This is a skilful way of living which will help support understanding and practice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silas Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) The compassion of the Buddha is his motivation for teaching others to liberate them from (unnecessary) dukkha (suffering being a poor translation of this state). It arises spontaneously from his realisation of emptiness. People who are not Buddhas try to lead good lives because that's what the Buddha taught as the basis for dharma. Leading a good life means being kind to others and trying not to cause harm and so on. So you try not to cause harm, not to take what is not freely given and not to spread falsehood. This is a skilful way of living which will help support understanding and practice. So, the compassion of the Buddha is "motivation" for "teaching others" to free them from a state of mind of suffering. It is not actually about helping others physically if they are in danger? Thus, in your view, if a Buddhist saw a homeless man being hurt, he could teach the homeless man to free him from the suffering, but it is optional for the Buddhist to actually stop the attack. Do good deeds have no connection to compassion in Buddhism? Edited July 6, 2013 by silas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
