Buddhism?

[Μορφέας]

how about christianity, any christians here?

[No_One]

I was christened one and also had my "beanie" removed....does that count?

[chilli]

Bit of a non-sequitur isn't it Tepa?

Shiva, do you mean you were circumcised? You are probably aware this is a Jewish practice, not a Christian one... although I too had my little man mutilated only about seven years ago.

I was sort of raised as a Christian, in that my mum took us to church when we were kids and told us we better be good for when Jesus came back, but sent somewhat conflicting messages in that she was a homeless alcoholic who liked to get pissed with me and stoned with my 5 year old brother... although that was during a bit of a low point. But those low points were quite frequent, but she still went to church so it was all a bit confusing.

Am I a Christian now? I don't call myself one, but I've been going to an Anglican church with my wife sporadically recently, and it is hard to let go of the memes you were raised with, even when you are riddled with doubt... so many of the structures of what was once quite a strong faith are still apparent in my thought processes.

I still like Jesus though.

[Auxin]

I hear what your saying komodo, and I dont mean to imply that the totality of the dhamma should be held in perpetual doubt (unreasonable doubt is a hinderance) or that all of buddhism is scepticism (dunno where I might have implied the latter ). I also dont know where I might have implied that I reached the conclusion that rebirth in the poppin-outa-momma-covered-in-goo sense does not exist I said I have not reached the conclusion that it does exist and I make no real effort to find out because I consider it to be up there near the 'imponderables' group and I do not think its particularly important anyway. If I am reborn in the goo sense its not like I'll remember the previous life, and if I am going to be goo-reborn its not like I can predict any facet of that future state with any accuracy. Present moment is enough to occupy any intelligent and mindful person so I'm training to be mindful enough to abide there. The Buddha said thats the go too, the present moment, and that spending your time postulating about future rebirth states is a waste of time.

Sorry but the fundies-only buddhist clubs that kick people out for questioning and trying to grow annoys me. Heck I've had vajreyanists say I'm not a buddhist because I've never had a wrinkled tibetan blow smoke at me, thats not buddhism either! This is not supposed to be a personality cult in dogmatic decay , its supposed to be a path to self-improvement.

[nabraxas]

The Buddha's refusal to "elucidate" that the saint exists after death, or does not exist, or both, or neither, produces one of the basic principles of Buddhist thought, the Fourfold Negation (or "tetralemma"). The Greek Hellenistic philosopher Pyrrho of Elis picked up this idea while in India with the army of Alexander the Great, and taught a skepticism where we are to "suspend judgment" in all things, refusing to say of anything either that it is, or that it is not, or both, or neither. The Buddhist origin of this is unmistakable, even if we did not also have credible evidence of Pyrrho having been in India. In Buddhism itself, a stronger idea developed, not just that these issues do not "tend to edification," but that the nature of reality is such that these rational alternates cannot apply to it, so that, in fact, the saint neither exists after death nor does not exist nor both nor neither -- because, whatever the nature of the saint's existence, it is beyond rational comprehension, beyond the affirmation or denial of any possible predicate.

edit: http://www.friesian.com/divebomb.htm

Edited June 25, 2007 by nabraxas

[dqd]

...I still like Jesus though.

Same here... bit o broccoli, nice white sauce... lovely!

Palatable religion

All jokes people... if I were to believe it would be the 'one god' theorum... the many gods/goddesses/trees etc many faces of the one, truly non-denominational god.

Would be nice...

[komodo]

hm i'm really not sure what buddhism means to you auxin. a philosophy and practise drawn as directly as possible (given translation, time, etc.) from the early buddhist schools, or some kind of general theory whereby you look at things and make up your own mind about them, or something else entirely?

...doesnt mean I'm "not buddhist".

what exactly does it mean to be buddhist, to you?

[Auxin]

I'm starting to wonder if you've been listening.

[chilli]

Although I know dqd was just joking around, it's interesting that the idea of syncretism has come through in his post with regards to Christianity in the same way as it has in komodo's posts regarding Buddhism.

I'm not convinced anyone can legitimately lay claim to the correct interpretation of any ancient religious text, and it's fraught with the same if not more difficulty in Buddhism as in Christianity given the intervening time period between their founders' existence and the first recorded teachings, and also the paucity and variation of extant manuscripts.

Primarily though, throughout history different groups have interpreted the sacred writings of both religions in varying ways and in our contemporary culture of overwhelming cultural and religious pluralism some measure of syncretism is unavoidable and perhaps even desirable. The virtual dichotomy komodo has presented here is unnecessary and misleading.

[jonangpa]

I'm studing Buddha Teachings, especially Third Turning Wheel of Dharma. Jonang Tradition.

Jonangpas deeply concentrate on Kalachakra Tantra.

[komodo]

auxin, sorry if it seemed i wasnt. thought it might make an interesting discussion; how different people reach an understanding of what it means to be buddhist, but i guess not worth getting into, like many of the things people say in these threads.

thanks for mentioning the kalachakra tantra jonangpa, i'm having a read about it now. i haven't any personal experience with vajrayana schools, but as i have lost interest in theravada over the years it might be a path by which i can reexamine buddhism.

Edited June 28, 2007 by komodo

[Auxin]

The problem is that buddhology isnt very buddhist, and debates about what constitutes a 'true' buddhist generally ends in elitist cliques that separate and annoy people. Its often far more polite than, say a debate on what constitutes a true white person, but its generally equally unproductive.

[No_One]

it's interesting that the idea of syncretism has come through in his post with regards to Christianity in the same way as it has in komodo's posts regarding Buddhism.

Personally I've found syncretism to be an important part of my own personal development.

They say what makes an artist good is their decison making ability i.e. where to and where not to put the paint etc.

I believe that we're all artists painting a convas that will be the legacy of our life. To make good decisions about where we direct our brush so to speak I think it's good to be aware of as much truth as possible.

Newton once said that he only did what he did because he was sitting on the shoulders of giants i.e. the thinkers/artists that came before him.If he had only read one book he probably wouldn't have left the legacy he did, if he read a thousand books and he probably wouldn't have left the legacy he did, if he read a thousand books and then distilled that knowledge into an essence he could put to practical use he probably could have worked out what gravity was or what the laws of motion are, who knows?.

So what am I on about?

Ghandi reckons we're all climbing the same mountain but finding our own ways to get to the top, you can read all you like about how to climb but thoughts aren't measurable until they're put into action. Free your mind of thought and what are you going to put into action? Passivity (at my age) is boring.

I think it's important to know about the all the documented climbing styles i.e. religions but the end of the day it's up to you to decide how your gonna climb or even if you are going to climb, if you enjoy the view from where you are then what's the point of climbing? I think reminding yourself of what the top of the mountain is (reading the bible, reading the vedas, having Devine Moments of Truth, etc.) and being aware of where you are in relation to that pinnacle (knowing the self) and being happy i.e. at peace with it is what's really important.

The problem is that buddhology isnt very buddhist, and debates about what constitutes a 'true' buddhist generally ends in elitist cliques that separate and annoy people. Its often far more polite than, say a debate on what constitutes a true white person, but its generally equally unproductive.

I agree, labeling your SELF detaches it from the nothingness.

From zero comes one, one returns to zero, what happens in between?

"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness"....Dalai Lama

Claiming your a Buddhist IMO means you have contemplated or are in the process of contemplating the thoughts/interpretation of reality documented by Buddha. Christians have Jesus, Muslims have Allah, Emo's have Good Charlotte, Scientists have Einstein, etc.

I think there comes a point where you're mind/understanding of reality becomes an exact replica of theirs and you can either stop and become passive or find a way to improve on it or teach it to others.

Peace

[chilli]

Personally I've found syncretism to be an important part of my own personal development.

"...in our contemporary culture of overwhelming cultural and religious pluralism some measure of syncretism is unavoidable and perhaps even desirable."

[komodo]

what constitutes a 'true' buddhist

that wasn't really what i was asking auxin. i don't believe there is such a thing, as there are so many teachings and schools etc. i have my ideas about it, but i don't hold them to be 'true'. in your first post auxin, you argued that my conception of buddhism was in error, i think that a concern with 'true buddhism' is something you aren't above.

to compare my question to a neo-nazi preconception of absolute race is ridiculous, and hardly qualified by something as superficial as politeness.

Edited June 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

in your first post auxin, you argued that my conception of buddhism was in error, i think that a concern with 'true buddhism' is something you aren't above.

I think auxin was taking issue with your espousal of 'fundamentals,' not your personal beliefs.

Nice to see you've finally started rolling out the innuendo though... I was starting to get bored.

[Auxin]

in your first post auxin, you argued that my conception of buddhism was in error, i think that a concern with 'true buddhism' is something you aren't above.

Actually I just pointed out that you were incorrectly assigning authorship of some teachings to the buddha, ie. 'buddha nature'.

to compare my question to a neo-nazi preconception of absolute race is ridiculous

I never said that!

But your extremist knee-jerk reaction and reflexive false application of systems of hate is precisely the sort of emotion driven confrontationalism I was warning of. Thank you for making sure my point wasnt too subtle for people (on a side note you should probably examine the hate in you that automatically equated a matter of physical anthropology to "neo-nazi" groups, having undercurrents like that in your mind is bad for your cardiovascular system).

[komodo]

i did think your post indicated you have a firm concept of buddhism that is related to certain teachings, and still do, but if that isn't the case, perhaps its more of a loose syncretic concept that you have, in which case yes, my question as to what you defined buddhism as was misdirected.

the rest is off topic and personal, try illegalbrain for that kind of thing, i'm out.

[Auxin]

Well I didnt mean you should examine it openly here... I meant on the meditation cushion or somesuch.

[chilli]

the rest is off topic and personal, try illegalbrain for that kind of thing, i'm out.

komodo, as much as you try and project your problems onto me, the fact remains that you seem to engender this kind of reaction from many of the people you have a conversation with... your unwillingness to accept auxin's explanation and to insist on imputing your ideas about what he believes onto him is typical, and I think is the reason why these things often seem to take a 'personal' turn... it certainly is what I have complained about repeatedly in the past, and I have seen you do it with other members as well.

Maybe instead of justifying your rudeness and obstinacy by boxing away any criticism of it as OT and 'personal', you would be better served actually listening to what someone else is actually saying, instead of arrogantly projecting your own misconceptions onto them.

This is all very Buddhist of me isn't it? I am obviously quite enlightened.

[phloom]

They say those who know don't talk, and those who talk dont.....yadayada. Hmmm shows what i know *smiley face

There are some really good zen poems out there____illustrates the middle way quite well

on another thought though....if we were all zen monks, there wouldnt be much action and colour, would there??

[komodo]

ok i guess my posts aren't welcome here? no worries, like i said, i'm out.

Edited July 1, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

which people are they?

Just me I guess ;)

You told me "i often get defensive reactions from people when i argue with them" and I've witnessed this on these forums with people other than myself.

Personally, I find that when I get consistent reactions from a variety of people it says more about me than them... or at least it shows me what elements are within my control in my interactions with them.

Like, I know I can be hypercritical, hypersensitive and maybe histrionic because of the reactions I get from you and I'm sorry about the times its offended you.

[No_One]

i'm really not sure what buddhism means to you auxin. a philosophy and practise drawn as directly as possible (given translation, time, etc.) from the early buddhist schools, or some kind of general theory whereby you look at things and make up your own mind about them, or something else entirely?

what exactly does it mean to be buddhist, to you?

that wasn't really what i was asking auxin. i don't believe there is such a thing, as there are so many teachings and schools etc. i have my ideas about it, but i don't hold them to be 'true'.

When we're young and learning to ride a bike we have training wheels, after a while you pick up the basics and you take off your training wheels, at what point does the realisation come that you know enough about how to ride a bike to take off you're training wheels?

Were the training wheels a tool or were they a part of the bike?

If you can ride without training wheels what's the point of leaving them on?

Apparently you never forget how to ride a bike but when did/do you know you could ride and were ready to take them off?

Why would a cyclist leave their training wheels on once they know how to ride?

Why would a monk claiming to have attained enlightenment from reading/practicing the Buddhas teachings continue reading the teachings?

What I'm getting at is your explanantion of the processes involved in riding a bike is going to be different to mine, what works for me might not work for someone else e.g. singing the national anthem and pedalling on every second beat might be someone elses way and mine might be to pretend I'm climbing stairs, at the end of the day the common-link is riding a bike - you either can or you can't.

We all learn in different ways.

I learnt to ride using training wheels and I took my training wheels off once I semi-knew I could ride, after I did I stacked it frequently but with more repitition/practice I soon learnt how to ride without stacking it, this was enough for me - I didn't feel the need to be able to do jumps etc. - the ones that do jumps IMO are BMX bandits.

Monks are the BMX bandits of Buddhism. Buddhism IMO is simply one type of training wheel(s) you can also employ when learning how to ride the spiritual-bike, there are other trianing wheels out there and which one, if any, you choose is totally up to the individual, ultimately your still just a rider in the eyes of the universe no matter what you call yourself.

Buddha's not a god/truth/reality, he teaches you to see god/truth/reality - well his interpretation of it anyway.

Peace

[chilli]

Hehe, I jumped on your post before you changed it again... its nice that we are both usually up at the same time anyway.

so what are you actually saying brain? i shouldn't post what i do? i should butt out and leave the conversation to you?

I'm not 'actually' saying anything, I think I'm being fairly straightforward, although I would probably be the last person to know for sure.

i should take on a different online persona?

Do you find the Shiva theory about me having multiple personalities convincing? I think that its kind of neat if people really do think I have other personalities online, but also weird.

seems to me you've manufactured a personal conflict, maybe you feel inadequate? beats me. i'm not really curious even, just feel like i should have a go at unravelling your issues before i stop posting my philosophical ideas here altogether just to be rid of your energetic muck.

I don't think I manufactured a personal conflict, I think we have quite conflicting personalities and that it comes out when we talk... you interpret this as unpleasantness, I see it as a necessary evil and possibly a chance to grow (for me).

Like I said, sorry if it feels like I'm working out my personal issues on you, I'm not trying to, its just the kind of thing that I take care of as it comes up and it usually comes up in my interactions with others.

Although I admit I sort of did pick the fight in this thread, I probably am feeling inadequate or something like it.

*edit*

No komodo, I hope you don't go I think you are one of the most insightful people in this forum.

Edited July 1, 2007 by IllegalBrain