An important question to BUDHISTS about BUDHISM

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So do some insane people.
I'm not sure what your point is.

I say he spoke in parables as in not to be taken literally.

An enlightened master only speaks with the purpose of getting people to be aware of themselves.
Buddha probably saw the main obstacle in monks that wanted to get a taste of blisfulness, but could´t get in touch with their "souls", so Buddha said: "There is no soul", in order for them to vanish their idea of what a "soul" really is.

If you have an idea of what your soul is, and you try to reach it, you won´t be able. Because in order to get in touch with your soul, you need to get rid of every thought, including the though that your brain say its your soul. You cannot reach your soul with your brain, but with non-thinking.

This is my understanding of this statement.

 

[heliocentric]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. plop.

Exactly, thats what im talking about.
Nickelodeon gets it, if you're enlightened you'll get it too!

 

[spidergoat]

An enlightened master only speaks with the purpose of getting people to be aware of themselves.

So they never say, "pass the potatoes?".

 

[Zephyr]

So they never say, "pass the potatoes?".

That is only a way of getting people to be aware of the enlightened master's, and hence their own, earthly needs.

 

[ida]

Maybe, these explanations can help:

1. The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces, made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), Perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha).
These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He did not found any eternal soul, but these 5 aggregates/forces. Many people still have the misconception that the
soul is the consciousness.
So, what is happened when a person dies?
What we ordinarily mean by death is the cessation of the body's vital functions. When the physical body loses its vitality it can no longer support the current of consciousness, the mental side of the process. But as long as there is a clinging to life, a desire to go on existing, the current of consciousness does not come to a stop with the body's loss of life. Rather when death takes place, the mental current, driven by the thirst for more existence, will spring up again with the support of a new physical body.

2. Without the necessity of sustaining the concept of a creator God, Buddhist have practised and introduced Buddhism very peacefully, for more than 2,500 years, all over the world.

This is because of : The basis of buddhism is morality, mental culture and Wisdom.

Buddhist practised morality because they believed in the power of "Kamma".
Kamma is an impersonal, natural law that operates in accordance with our actions. The pain and happiness man experiences are the result of his own deeds, words, and thoughts reacting on themselves.
According to Buddhism, kamma explains the inequalities that exist among mankind. These inequalities are due not only to heredity, environment, nature, but also kamma, the result of our own acctions.

Without morality, buddhist can not reach mental culture and wisdom.

For a budhist to attain the ultimate goal --> nibbana, he/she has to develop the Noble Eightfold Path which consists of the morality, mental culture and wisdom mentioned above.
Vigorous activity for good is indispensable for one's own happiness.
So, Without relying on prayer to some supernatural forces to influence karmic results, the Buddhist will practise a good morality in his/her life
n.b.: For those who have interest on buddhism, a book by K.Sri Dhammananda "What Buddhists Believe" can be a good guide.

 

[ida]

Maybe, these explanations can help:

1. The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces, made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), Perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha).
These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He did not found any eternal soul, but these 5 aggregates/forces. Many people still have the misconception that the
soul is the consciousness.
So, what is happened when a person dies?
What we ordinarily mean by death is the cessation of the body's vital functions. When the physical body loses its vitality it can no longer support the current of consciousness, the mental side of the process. But as long as there is a clinging to life, a desire to go on existing, the current of consciousness does not come to a stop with the body's loss of life. Rather when death takes place, the mental current, driven by the thirst for more existence, will spring up again with the support of a new physical body.

2. Without the necessity of sustaining the concept of a creator God, Buddhist have practised and introduced Buddhism very peacefully, for more than 2,500 years, all over the world.

This is because of : The basis of buddhism is morality, mental culture and Wisdom.

Buddhist practised morality because they believed in the power of "Kamma".
Kamma is an impersonal, natural law that operates in accordance with our actions. The pain and happiness man experiences are the result of his own deeds, words, and thoughts reacting on themselves.
According to Buddhism, kamma explains the inequalities that exist among mankind. These inequalities are due not only to heredity, environment, nature, but also kamma, the result of our own acctions.

Without morality, buddhist can not reach mental culture and wisdom.

For a budhist to attain the ultimate goal --> nibbana, he/she has to develop the Noble Eightfold Path which consists of the morality, mental culture and wisdom mentioned above.
Vigorous activity for good is indispensable for one's own happiness.
So, Without relying on prayer to some supernatural forces to influence karmic results, the Buddhist will practise a good morality in his/her life

n.b.: For those who have interest on buddhism, a book by K.Sri Dhammananda "What Buddhists Believe" can be a good guide.

 

[swarm]

I really appreciate and like the concepts of BUDDHISM. But, i have trouble understanding one important concept which Buddha taught us.

Unlike many other things, religions in particular, the concepts of Buddhism are secondary to the actual practice of Buddhism. There are schools of Buddhism, Ch'an and Zen for example, which purposefully obfuscate the concepts so that you can't use them before you penetrate the practice.

So don't worry too much about not getting the concepts. If you do the eight fold path, the concepts will fall in place as your practice matures.

Ok, on the the concept fest...

Buddhism says that there is no SOUL, no SELF and it is only an illusion.

This is one of the three marks of existence: anicca (impermanence), anatta (no soul), and dukkha (dissatisfaction/suffering). These are the foundational realizations that the Buddha had, from which all else in Buddhism is based.

At the same time, BUDDHISM talks about re-incarnation. What does Buddha mean when he talks about re-incarnation?

Actually looking at the records it seems that reincarnation was tagged on after the Buddha's death because its lack was socially unacceptable.

Reincarnation makes no sense in Buddhism. First and foremost because there is nothing to reincarnate.

But let's set reason aside and pretend there is reincarnation. Buddhism is how you stop reincarnating. A Buddha is not reincarnated, that's the whole point. The roots of suffering have been cut off. The fires of desire which lead to incarnation extinguished.

So even if there is reincarnation, there is no further reincarnation in Buddhism

Now that said there are a lot of people, even Buddhists who aught to know better, who really hate the idea of no soul and really like the comfort of reincarnation.

Unfortunately, and this is the third strike against reincarnation, they like it so much the put off to imaginary next lives what they must do with this one.

If there is no soul, no self and no re-incarnation (i guess Buddhism even says there is no GOD as we perceive it today) how can we teach our generation to be good and behave properly?

There is no soul and no reincarnation and no god and never has been and yet we manage any way. It just we may not have realized this before and so used poor methods. With our new realization we can use the most effective means of teaching others to be good and behave properly - setting a good example.

Fear of unknown is what keeps most of the people from becoming barbarics. Don't you think so?

Did you need it?

 

[one_raven]

swarm,

I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but I could swear I read what Siddhartha said about reincarnation in the Pali Canon.
There is no earlier Buddhist text than that.
Why do you think it was a letr addition.

By the way, are you Shambhala?

 

[swarm]

Doing good through fear is horrible, but still better than doing bad through courage.....

You are mistaken.

 

[swarm]

I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but I could swear I read what Siddhartha said about reincarnation in the Pali Canon.
There is no earlier Buddhist text than that.
Why do you think it was a letr addition.

It was a very boring study of the wording of the earliest texts and what is known about the early sangha and councils. If I run into it online I'll happily punish people with it. But like vegitarianism they made a very strong case for reincarnation being added on to appease the sensibilities of the common folk who took it for granted.

By the way, are you Shambhala?

No. In fact I'm not exactly sure what Shambhala consists of, though occasionally I meet people who say they are that. I'm basically just a secular buddhist.

 

[swarm]

Enlightened persons only say things in order to show you your own ego, and in order for you to seek your own truths.
They speak mostly in parables.

No they don't. They only speak in parables as a last resort. Even remaining silent is better.

They mainly speak clearly and directly to the point.

You just mostly hear them in parables.

 

[one_raven]

It was a very boring study of the wording of the earliest texts and what is known about the early sangha and councils. If I run into it online I'll happily punish people with it. But like vegitarianism they made a very strong case for reincarnation being added on to appease the sensibilities of the common folk who took it for granted.

I would very much like to read it, because I have never read anything like that, plus I have read contrary in the Pali.

I know the Buddha never said one should be a vegetarian, but that was just an appeasement to the host village of the Sangha, in that it is rude for beggars to be choosers (as with teh rest of these rules, there was a specific event which caused it to come about).
Host communities should be aware of the Dhamma, and aware that Buddhists should not kill - as such, those not living off alms in a Sangha really have no excuse to be otherwise if they want to follow the Dhamma, but then, one really can;t follow the Dhamma without being in a Sangha, so the point is really moot.

 

[swarm]

I would very much like to read it, because I have never read anything like that, plus I have read contrary in the Pali.

I'll keep an eye out for it.

I know the Buddha never said one should be a vegetarian...

I really ought to keep a list of key quotes. The Buddha was actually specifically asked if vegetarianism was necessary and specifically rejected it. Something along the lines of it isn't what you eat that makes one impure.

Generally among Theravadans who beg I understand the idea is as long as the meat wasn't killed specifically for their consumption its ok. But even there the Buddha was flexible. He gets invited to an inappropriate feast and is asked about it and basically says, look this is the high point of this guy's year. I'm not going to rain on his parade about the food he serves me.

 

[one_raven]

The only major religion in the world (as far as I am aware) that mandates the adherents be vegetarian is Jainism.

The Buddhist rules of conduct are based on two major considerations (in order).
1.) The Bhikkhu (Sangha) not being a nuisance to the host community.
2.) The Bhikkhu (Sangha) leaving the lightest footprint as possible and obstructing the course of nature as little as possible.

(Though I have no idea where the restriction on garlic comes from - maybe bad breath for the Bhikkhu?)


"I allow anything falling while being presented to be picked up by oneself and eaten. Why is that? Because it has been relinquished by the benefactors." — Cv.V.26

"One should not consume human flesh. Whoever should do so: a grave offense. And one should not consume meat without having reflected on it (on what it is). Whoever should do so: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.VI.23.9

"One should not consume elephant flesh ... horse flesh ... dog flesh ... snake flesh ... lion flesh ... tiger flesh ... leopard flesh ... bear flesh ... hyena flesh. Whoever should do so: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.VI.23.10-15

"One should not knowingly consume meat killed on purpose (for a bhikkhu). Whoever should consume it: an offense of wrong doing. I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected (that it was killed on purpose for a bhikkhu)." — Mv.VI.31.14

"I allow all fruit that is non-staple." — Mv.VI.38

"A mango is not to be consumed. Whoever should consume one: an offense of wrong doing." — Cv.V.5.1 (This rule was later repealed by the rules at Cv.V.5.2)

"I allow mango peels." ... "I allow that fruit made allowable for contemplatives in any of five ways be consumed: damaged by fire, damaged by a knife, damaged by a fingernail, seedless, or with the seeds removed. I allow that fruit made allowable for contemplatives in any of these five ways be consumed." — Cv.V.5.2

"I allow that fruit that has not been made allowable be consumed if it is without seeds, or if the seeds are discharged." — Mv.VI.21

"Although green gram, even when digested, sprouts, I allow that green gram be consumed as much as you like (§)." — Mv.VI.16.2

"I allow conjey and honey-lumps." — Mv.VI.24.7

"When invited to a certain place, one should not consume the eating-conjey of another (donor). Whoever should consume it is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule (Pc 33)." — Mv.VI.25.7

"I allow the five products of a cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, butter, ghee." — Mv.VI.34.21

"I allow eight juice drinks: mango juice drink, rose apple juice drink, seed-banana juice drink, seedless banana juice drink, madhu (Bassia pierrei? Bassia latifolia?) juice drink, grape juice drink, water-lily root juice drink, phārusaka (Bouea burmanica (Anacardiaceae)?) juice drink. I allow all fruit juice except for the juice of grain. I allow all leaf-juice except for the juice of cooked (§) vegetables. I allow all flower juice except for the juice of liquorice flowers. I allow fresh sugar cane juice." — Mv.VI.35.6

"I allow all vegetables and all non-staple foods made with flour." — Mv.VI.36.8

"Garlic should not be eaten. Whoever should eat it: an offense of wrong doing." — Cv.V.34.1

"I allow that garlic be eaten in the event of illness." — Cv.V.34.2


I can't find the passage right now to back me up, but I have read about how refusing alms is terribly rude and will make a nuisance of the Sangha. These considerations trump the other rules based on the Dhamma and right action.
I'll keep looking.

 

[swarm]

(Though I have no idea where the restriction on garlic comes from - maybe bad breath for the Bhikkhu?)

If there is one thing monastic orders accumulate, its odd rules about something that offended some up tight abbot centuries ago.

Reading through the early days I've noticed the Buddha is really reticent to provide any rules at all to the first bhikkhus. Its only after he becomes popular, attracts glory seekers and there are too many people for him to interact with directly that he starts giving direction. Even then it tends to be minimal, which is not surprising since I don't think he was envisioning a monastic order originally. The hundreds of rules for the order were probably a compilation effort of the first council of the accumulation from the drift into monasticism.

There are a number of Mahayana orders that are vegetarian, but Buddhism is generally too pragmatic to try and force everyone vegetarian. But they certainly frown extra heavy at you.

 

[swarm]

Here is a couple articles that broach the topic. The wiki article actually does a good job of capturing some of the issues...of course the one article spelled it out in gory detail remains elusive.

General: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

More specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

good naturalistic review: http://dtstrainphilosophy.blogspot.com/2006/05/naturalistic-approach-to-buddhist.html

 

[one_raven]

Thanks, I will check them out.

Here is a chapter from a book on the Buddhist Monastic Code by favorite Pali Canon translator and interpeter by far, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff):

The Food Chapter

 

[one_raven]

General: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

I have read this book, and, to be honest, I wasn't very impressed with it.
It reads as if it was written by a westerner with a Buddhism-Lite approach trying to soften the Dahmma for mass consumption for a western audience.

While I agree that Transmigration of the soul was certainly not a Buddhist concept (but likely a confusion with some Hindu concepts of reincarnation) Siddhartha did talk of his many past lives in his suttas.

Not that I want to completely discount the article, but it just doesn't convince me, nor does it back up what it says with Pali references or any specific sutta quotes.

On to the other two.

 

[one_raven]

More specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

That is actually a very good article.
I have always liked the anology of a match lighting a candle.

I do take issue with the view of Anatta expressed in the article.

Did you read the article I posted at the beginning of this thread?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

I was lucky enough to discuss this article a bit with Thanissaro a few years ago, and I am completely convinced of his assertion that Anatta is a strategy, rather than an assertion.
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

 

[swarm]

Something else to consider...the main problem with rebirth comes from trying to understand it as something which happens after death. But why not go with the more reasonable explanation? Rebirth is just birth of the next generation. Here we have a direct and obvious fruition of karma. We know exactly what is being reborn and there is no need for supernatural explanations.