For gatito

[3bob]

Gatito,

 

Great quote and point in your locked string but most "traditional" Buddhists are also sticking to the traditional "no-self" interpretations. Btw and imo the historic Buddha did not make things any easier along these lines in relation to the point it sounds like you are trying to make considering most of His traditional and recorded doctrines... Thus and because of such key and fundamental differences about "Self" and no-self doctrines I think one has to question themselves if they believe they are speaking for Buddhism without the traditional and commonly accepted meanings - although there is still a very great deal to be appreciated about and learned from Buddhism.

 

(aka common ground)

Edited August 3, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I think it's disrespectful to both Buddhism and Vedanta to try to merge them together as though they secretly say the same thing... they are distinct, overlapping paths designed for different seekers, and deserve to be compared equally, acknowledging similarities and differences.

 

How can anyone who has not been comprehensively brainwashed by the religious cults of Pseudobuddhism attempt to assert that they don't actually exist!?

Yes, it is foolish to say literally 'I do not exist'. As Alan Wallace said, the question isn't 'do I exist?' but 'in what manner do I exist?'.

 

Anatta (anatman - literally "no atman") points to the truth that there is no individual self (atman) and that there is only universal Self (Brahman - aka Consciousness).

Well, that's not the Buddhist POV. If this said 'from the perspective of Vedanta...', that would be true, but this is presenting Vedanta and claiming that it is Buddhism.

 

In Buddhism there is no Brahman, no Self. The emptiness teachings are quite clear about that, particularly on how the 6 sense consciousnesses depend on contact. I can see how misunderstanding the tathagatagarbha stuff could lead to thinking Buddhism says that though (this is a topic I'll eventually cover in the 'Lessons in Buddhism' thread in my PPF).

 

Anatta means that there is no self, as in no central core of identity. There are just the aggregates - form, feeling, cognition, volition, consciousness - none of which, nor any combination of which, are 'I', 'me', or 'mine'.

 

But this doesn't deny the existence of the person, on the basis of which the word 'I' can be used meaningfully. It is just that the person is simply a bundle of processes, no more 'self' than a river. A river has no self - but it still exists. The only difference with people is that people have mental components, as well as physical.

 

So: "Anatta (anatman - literally "no atman") points to the truth that there is no individual self (atman) and that there is only universal Self (Brahman - aka Consciousness) and that there are only dependently originated processes."

[gatito]

Buddhism 101 Course here in my PPF for those who don't get it: -

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/35579-buddhism-101/

(thetaobums.com/topic/35579-buddhism-101)

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Buddhism 101 Course here in my PPF for those who don't get it...

For those who don't get what? What you're saying is not Buddhism, and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. I would not start a thread in my PPF claiming to be about Vedanta, and then go on to write about Buddhism. I don't get what your motivation is here.

 

To not agree with Buddhist concepts and to explain why is absolutely fair enough. I have no interest at all in trying to convince you that anatta is true. I'm by no means joining the ranks of the fundies. But stop speaking for another tradition using your own voice as though you understand the tradition better than its own practitioners do. It's dishonest, arrogant and needlessly disrespectful.

 

If you'd said "I don't agree with the Buddhist concept of anatta because... I would agree if it stated that there is no self, but there is the Self", that could have been the start of a productive exchange of ideas. But that's not what you did - you said " anatta means there's no self, but there is the Self", dishonestly presenting that as the Buddhist concept when you surely know full well that it is not.

 

As 3bob saidsaid nicely:

 

...I think one has to question themselves if they believe they are speaking for Buddhism without the traditional and commonly accepted meanings - although there is still a very great deal to be appreciated about and learned from Buddhism....

[3bob]

Seemingly strange but true is the fact that Lama's and Sat Guru's don't get together very often for a spicy tofu cook-out and a Bud light.

 

Seeker of the Tao has re-given the traditional Buddhist POV, thus imo enough said here about an endless river of disagreement along the lines of Self and no-self. (so after whatever point it should become clear to let it go)

 

Btw, we also wouldn't want to get Buddhism mixed up with Taoism would we?

Edited August 6, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

Well it would be better to say something like "for those interested in my take" than "for those who don't get it"...

[gatito]

Seemingly strange but true is the fact that Lama's and Sat Guru's don't get together very often for a spicy tofu cook-out and a Bud light.

 

Seeker of the Tao has re-given the traditional Buddhist POV, thus imo enough said here about an endless river of disagreement along the lines of Self and no-self. (so after whatever point it should become clear to let it go)

 

Btw, we also wouldn't want to get Buddhism mixed up with Taoism would we?

Speaking as a Buddhist, and a Taoist I can't see any difference between them.

 

Furthermore, if I had the slightest interest in discussing my Buddhism 101 thread, I'd have left it unlocked or posted it in the "Dzogchen" Dogma Regurgitation sub-forum (if I'd wanted to troll any of the possibly remaining Pseudobuddhists).

 

If anyone's seriously interested in a discussion about Buddhism, then I'd be happy to meet them face-to-face or talk to them on the phone and they can email me to arrange a meeting or for my phone number, as I no longer have access to the Personal Messenger system here.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I'm terminally bored with the misunderstood, dogmatic, religious nonsense and the ill-mannered posturing of Pseudobuddhists like the very belatedly banned alwayson/RonzomFan/Paul who want to try to push their unexamined belief system from a position of unenlightened ignorance of the Truth.

 

Presumably anyone with any modicum of intelligence will read the title of the thread that you started in the Hindu subforum together with your latest post and demonstrate that they're able to let it go now.

 

On the other hand, anyone who wants to continue to prove my point should feel free to continue.

[gatito]

Well it would be better to say something like "for those interested in my take" than "for those who don't get it"...

For those intersted in my take, I disagree with you about that 3bob

[3bob]

I know that my take on the Upanishads (and related Vedic based texts) do not match the take of most traditional Buddhists regarding same, thus they have their take and I have mine. Hell, maybe I'm slightly anarchistic with a live and let others have their take to, more so when they let me have mine...

[gatito]

Maybe "traditional Buddhists" are completely clueless because they're following the regurgitation of misunderstood pseudointellectual interpretations of a few specific techniques of a dead teacher instead of looking to their own direct first-hand experience and/or a living embodyment of the Truth...?

If they actually knew what they were talking about they wouldn't need to rely on constant appeals to authority, which are further removed from the Truth by their reinterpretation by some ignorant priest.

In my original (interactive) Buddhism 101, I actually started with a version of this: -

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

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

 

...and almost immediately a consistently abusive pseudointellectual Pseudobuddhist popped-up like a blind whack-a-mole or a common krait and posted some unenlightened pseudointellectual pseudoscholar's re-interpretation of this quote, which basically stated that everyone should actually do the opposite of this excellent advice and listen to the self-appointed Buddhist priesthood instesd.

Where do these people get the idea that they have the right to tell someone that they're not a Buddhist or to reinterpret the words of Siddhartha to mean the opposite of what they actually mean when allowed to stand on their own merit...?

I prefer my Buddhism unadulterated - like women and whisky.

Edited August 8, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

Maybe "traditional Buddhists" are completely clueless because they're following the regurgitation of misunderstood pseudointellectual interpretations of a few specific techniques of a dead teacher instead of looking to their own direct first-hand experience and/or a living embodyment of the Truth...?

 

If they actually knew what they were talking about they wouldn't need to rely on constant appeals to authority, which are further removed from the Truth by their reinterpretation by some ignorant priest.

 

In my original (interactive) Buddhism 101, I actually started with a version of this: -

 

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

 

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

 

...and almost immediately a consistently abusive pseudointellectual Pseudobuddhist popped-up like a blind whack-a-mole or a common krait and posted some unenlightened pseudointellectual pseudoscholar's re-interpretation of this quote, which basically stated that everyone should actually do the opposite of this excellent advice and listen to the self-appointed Buddhist priesthood instesd.

 

Where do these people get the idea that they have the right to tell someone that they're not a Buddhist or to reinterpret the words of Siddhartha to mean the opposite of what they actually mean when allowed to stand on their own merit...?

 

I prefer my Buddhism unadulterated - like women and whisky.

 

 

That fake Buddha quote, commonly circulated among the internet (http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/), was originally inspired from the "Kalama Sutta" which was addressed to individuals who were not already a disciple of the Buddha. The Buddha states to one of his followers (nearing his death) in the "Mahaparinibbana Sutta": "Therefore, Ananda dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge." Venerable Sariputta (1 of 2 chief disciples of Buddha) explains the Buddha's Dhamma to the sangha of monks in the "Mahahatthipadopama Sutta": "He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination."

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil

[Simple_Jack]

Maybe "traditional Buddhists" are completely clueless because they're following the regurgitation of misunderstood pseudointellectual interpretations of a few specific techniques of a dead teacher instead of looking to their own direct first-hand experience and/or a living embodyment of the Truth...?

 

The choice one faces is do we believe what you assert, or do we believe our own tradition?

~Loppon Namdrol

[gatito]

 

The choice one faces is do we believe what you assert, or do we believe our own tradition?

~Loppon Namdrol

There's a separate "Buddhism 101 Questions" forum next to "Buddhism 101" where Loppon Namdrol can ask for advice more discretely if he wants.

 

You can also pass on any questions from him to me by PM if too embarrassed to put them directly.

 

However, on this occasion, I'm happy to deal with his question here:-

 

Dear Loppon Namdrol

 

You should neither blindly believe me nor should you blindly believe your own tradition.

 

Instead, you should adopt a scientific approach.

 

Hope that helps.

 

PS As I said to Simple_Jack, you can freely ask sincere questions in my Buddhism 101 Questions forum but please stop repeatedly insulting Hindus as all the Hindus that I know are very nice people.

 

[dawei]

~~~ THREAD CLEANUP: No need to troll it. Moved to Pit ~~~

[gatito]

Can I continue to troll it there, as it's my thread?

 

[gatito]

For those who don't get what? What you're saying is not Buddhism, and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. I would not start a thread in my PPF claiming to be about Vedanta, and then go on to write about Buddhism. I don't get what your motivation is here.

 

To not agree with Buddhist concepts and to explain why is absolutely fair enough. I have no interest at all in trying to convince you that anatta is true. I'm by no means joining the ranks of the fundies. But stop speaking for another tradition using your own voice as though you understand the tradition better than its own practitioners do. It's dishonest, arrogant and needlessly disrespectful.

 

If you'd said "I don't agree with the Buddhist concept of anatta because... I would agree if it stated that there is no self, but there is the Self", that could have been the start of a productive exchange of ideas. But that's not what you did - you said " anatta means there's no self, but there is the Self", dishonestly presenting that as the Buddhist concept when you surely know full well that it is not.

 

As 3bob saidsaid nicely:

 

 

I had answered your question by bumping a previous post that answed it but unfortunately my "Bump" ended up in the Pit as well by mistake (presumably).

 

You can find it there (or feel free to ask any other questions in my Buddhism 101 Questions forum).

Edited December 4, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

Dear Loppon Namdrol

 

You should neither blindly believe me nor should you blindly believe your own tradition.

 

Instead, you should adopt a scientific approach.

 

Its a possibility he has since he was taught the 8-limbed system of yoga (i.e. Yoga Sutras of Patanjali) and Samkhya from a teacher named Srivatsa Ramaswami:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=252146#p252146

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=204991#p204991

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=262985#p262985

 

http://www.bhaisajya.guru/our-teachers/

 

In either case, he's ultimately chosen the path of buddhadharma.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Its a possibility he has since he was taught the 8-limbed system of yoga (i.e. Yoga Sutras of Patanjali) and Samkhya from a teacher named Srivatsa Ramaswami:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=252146#p252146

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=204991#p204991

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=262985#p262985

 

http://www.bhaisajya.guru/our-teachers/

 

In either case, he's ultimately chosen the path of buddhadharma.

 

If one is to teach the Dharma scientifically, then much of the belief systems and superstitions need to be jettisoned immediately. A proper scientific methodology is a stepwise process such that the process is exact and anyone can duplicate it. Honestly I don't see that in the Buddhadharma.

 

As far as the Tibetan medicine goes, I believe there has been very little scientific research if any as as to the efficacy of such a system that still retains techniques that are from the medieval period.

 

This Tibetan Dr. practices bloodletting. I couldn't believe it!

 

Aku Padma

Renowned physician who specializes in external therapies such as bloodletting and moxibustion.

 

[Simple_Jack]

It should be obvious to anyone by now that science, for you, is representative of ultimate truth. As for Tibetan Medicine or Ayurveda: I have no experience with these systems so I can't say whether it's efficacious or not.

[Brian]

 

 

If one is to teach the Dharma scientifically, then much of the belief systems and superstitions need to be jettisoned immediately. A proper scientific methodology is a stepwise process such that the process is exact and anyone can duplicate it. Honestly I don't see that in the Buddhadharma.

 

As far as the Tibetan medicine goes, I believe there has been very little scientific research if any as as to the efficacy of such a system that still retains techniques that are from the medieval period.

 

This Tibetan Dr. practices bloodletting. I couldn't believe it!

 

Aku Padma

 

Renowned physician who specializes in external therapies such as bloodletting and moxibustion.

 

 

 

Lots of patients with haemochromatosis, maybe???

 

[ralis]

It should be obvious to anyone by now that science, for you, is representative of ultimate truth. As for Tibetan Medicine or Ayurveda: I have no experience with these systems so I can't say whether it's efficacious or not.

 

I never said science is the ultimate truth. In fact no one has proved there is any ultimate truth. So you can't decide if bloodletting is an appropriate therapy?

[Simple_Jack]

Secular-materialism does not apply to Dharma (most of which would be considered religious superstition).

[ralis]

Lots of patients with haemochromatosis, maybe???

 

 

If this Dr. is able to make that diagnosis, but one can donate blood or have a medical person draw an appropriate amount of blood to reduce the iron content.

[Simple_Jack]

There's also measures dealing with sicknesses caused by certain classes of spirits in Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda. Am I going to dismiss the entire system based on that? No. Why? Because they both deal heavily with tantric anatomy.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack