Why not be a Jain

[ronnewmexico]

Jainism has several differing forms and sects perhaps I will limit this to a discussion of a more common form of Jainism.

But why not become Jain instead of Buddhist.

In Jainism one finds a eternal soul which can be very satisfying and really isn't a continum of consciousness...sort of about the same?

There are no Jain armies nor nations...why.... Jainists are absolute pacifists and cannnot abscribe to such things as military even police really
So absolute pacifism may be found in it. One may find buddhist soldiers armies governments nations some at times engaged in warfare...never will you find that in Jainism. In fact many Jains will only do things of a financial nature as to occupation as that is considered overall to be less harm producing.

Vegetarians....Jains are absolute vegetarians must be by their faith.

There is that old buddhist bugaboo called emptiness...but really is that so important? REally it seems we threaten great nihilism if we endeavor to study that thing without about many many years of compassionate service and certain religious practices before we may even look at that..so how can "that" be so important.

Jains do not just become enlightened and then abandon compassion as there are enlightened teachers called tirthankar one of which last taught about 2500 years ago who teach, similiar to buddhism. And if one is enlightened as human they become a arihant who teaches until they die..so really what is the difference. ONe may become a simple realized person who dies and cannot communicate with humans due to form seperateness but teacher one seemingly could become,and then communicate. Compasssion being inherant to the realization

So if one wants to ba a absolute pacifist and a absolute vegetarian and still find a soul, and still find compassion..why not Jain

They pray and do ceremony but only to those that are like themselves as all things have soul as they do.No creator god will be found.
Gods found may be more fortunate and advanced but it seems they are like us with souls and all souls are exactly alike such as bugs gods human have the same soul.

So...why not. Emptiness seems much to complicated we must find and measure all things one against another, there are few if any absolutes within the context of emptiness. So why bother with it at all...it is so complicated and makes everything so hard to ascertain..why not a simple but superior moral path...some Jains go to a extent of sweeping the ground before them to prevent killing..is that not a great thing to do.
Eat little they do as eating kills always

Please don't go to Jainist things finding absurd quotes or intentions, as one could equally find that in Buddhism as Mt Samuru being the center of the world those things being out of context and applied but not relevent.

REally in this day and time what application emptiness? Why not eternal soul that we can bring through total nonharm to enlightenment...why not?

Have you considered this thing? No threat then nihilism be...none at all. Would that not be comforting to be absolutely certain in things of diet what one can do and not do and all those other things..are not religions supposed to provide those things of comfort?

A link that very briefly touches on Jainism...http://www.patheos.com/Library/Jainism.html..for those that are not familiar.
Jains like buddhists do not consider themselves hindus.

A brief touch on the religious concepts....

"Jainist beliefs and practices:
The universe exists as a series of layers, both heavens and hells. It had no beginning and will have no ending. It consists of:
The supreme abode: This is located at the top of the universe and is where Siddha, the liberated souls, live.
The upper world: 30 heavens where celestial beings live.
Middle world: the earth and the rest of the universe.
Nether world: 7 hells with various levels of misery and punishments
The Nigoda, or base: where the lowest forms of life reside
Universe space: layers of clouds which surround the upper world
Space beyond: an infinite volume without soul, matter, time, medium of motion or medium of rest.
Everyone is bound within the universe by one's karma -- the accumulated evil deeds that one has done. (The Jainist definition of karma differs from the Hindu and Buddhist meaning. To a follower of Jainism, all karma is bad. To Hindus and Buddhists, karma can result from a good or a bad deed.)
Moksha (liberation from an endless succession of lives through reincarnation) is achieved by enlightenment, which can be attained only through asceticism.
Jainism is based on three general principles called the three Ratnas (jewels). They are: Right faith.
Right knowledge.
Right action.
They are expected to follow five principles of living: Ahimsa: "non violence in all parts of a person -- mental, verbal and physical." 3 Committing an act of violence against a human, animal, or even a vegetable generates negative karma which in turn adversely affects one's next life.
Satya: speaking truth; avoiding falsehood
Asteya: to not steal from others
Brahma-charya: (soul conduct); remaining sexually monogamous to one's spouse only
Aparigraha: detach from people, places and material things. Avoiding the collection of excessive material possessions, abstaining from over-indulgence, restricting one's needs, etc.
Jains follow a vegetarian diet. (At least one information source incorrectly states that they follow a frutarian diet -- the practice of only eating that which will not kill the plant or animal from which it is taken. e.g. milk, fruit, nuts.) They are not permitted to eat root vegetables because of the many living creatures that they contain. Also, to uproot a root vegetable kills it.
They often read their sacred texts daily.
Jains are recommended to pass through four stages during their lifetime:
Brahmacharya-ashrama: the life of a student
Gruhasth-ashrama: family life
Vanaprasth-ashrama: family and social services
Sanyast-ashrama: life as a monk; a period of renunciation
Divisions among Jains"
There are two groups of Jains:
The Digambaras (literally "sky clad" or naked): Their monks carry asceticism to the point of rejecting even clothing (even when they appear in public).
The Shvetambaras (literally "white clad"): their monks wear simple white robes. The laity are permitted to wear clothes of any color. "


A quote..generally it seems true.

[David N. Snyder]

At least the Jains don't have endless debates about vegetarianism.

For them it is settled -- all must be vegetarian, in all their forms, lay and clergy.

No creator god, just like Buddhism.
No caste system, just like Buddhism.

The eternal soul is comforting for those who want a permanent existence.

But the problem is, are they right? It might be comforting, but what if they are wrong?

They certainly have not been as successful as Buddhism in numbers, spreading their Dharma and I think some of their "extreme" views may be part of the reason.

Their concept of karma is also much different and more extreme, to the most part taking out intention.

But they are very similar to Buddhism and I have heard they are very nice and compassionate people.

[ronnewmexico]

Are they right..no of course not....but how many really found their thing on that thing of rightness? Is that thing really important to ending the suffering of humans if buddhism is all about ending that suffering as it says it is?

I'd guess very few..That right thing in most forms of buddhism is only accessible to a very very advanced and/or dilligent person. And some forms of buddhism seem to really not abscribe to it at all perhaps just in irrelevent part.

So I'd say they are not right but it may not be relevent at all.
What better protection from nihilism could a tibetan lama or other teacher of other school for instance have..then to never discuss that thing at all?
Are we ripe for that thing...I'd guess it seems not. So why discuss or involve oneself in it at all.
How many completely true things do we find in these things of religion than what matter that?

Is that particular true thing we know absolutely necessary as human to know..it seems in some forms of buddhism to attain enlightenment as human(as far as we can go as human)...it seems not necessary to know that thing. So wrong perhaps what importance?. Perhaps it be necessary as human to be wrongly conceiving some certain things to reach this thing as human? Perhaps that is the case.

I feel impelled to know what is wrong or right but could that be but eqoism and unnecessary in this thing of enlightenment? As human at least.
Perhaps it is very important only for skyfarers....?

[David N. Snyder]

Bhante Dhammika has some very nice things to say about Jains in some of his blog posts:

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/02/a ... emple.html

And especially here:

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/01/gentle-faith.html

From that post:

Jainism is probably the most humane, rational, complete and noble of all religions. Of course, if they threw bombs around, hijacked planes, threatened violence or formed aggressive political parties, the media would be full of articles explaining what Jainism ‘really’ teaches. But of course Jains don’t do such things. They don’t push their faith, they don’t demand special treatment, they don’t try to influence politics, they just quietly do their own thing with a ‘live and let live’ outlook.

If there were 3 billion Jains, or even 300 million, rather than just 3 million of them the world would be that much more peaceful.

[ronnewmexico]

My personal supposition is that most buddhists in the west are just not exposed to Jainism.
They try try try to fit these ideals of strict pacifism and strict vegetarianism into buddhism.
Buddhism may accomode those but really they are not necessarily part and parcel of buddhism
They are part and parcel of jainism and include as mentioned many many similiarites such as no creator diety.
I find few buddhists of the western variety seem to think of their soul as anything other than eternal the continum being considered by them in that context.

So perhaps in this place in this day and time...that is a very real option they may consider. It may for them be a superior option.

The buddha did at first refuse to teach saying it was just to difficult to understand and that was in that place and time.
Right now in these places would he teach? Can anyone really apprehend the differences between the two or is there just fitting jain thing(unknowingly) into buddhist vehicle?

Personally I am no buddhist nor jain, nor am I trying to send anyone any way(I use buddhist tool only). It just seems simpler as choice if they know such choice exists.

[adinatha]

The problem with Jainism is both their view of eternal soul and their lack of method for realizing emptiness. Remember, emptiness isn't so much a view as it is the direct perception of reality that leads to profound peace. Such a realization is dependent upon method. Buddhists have it. Jains don't. Jain meditation is just shamatha and japa. The fruit of their method is the formless realms, so is bound within samsara.

Adhering to tenets is not a realization of the truth. Thinking, "I'm right," or "this is right; this is true" is dualistic conceptual practice that is the seed of suffering for oneself and others. Often when strict vegetarians see people eating meat, they feel disgusted or even enraged. If even on part of their food touched even one part of a spoon that touched meat, they won't eat. This is suffering. If there is a killer like bin Laden who is set on killing whole nations, a pacifist will let it happen. A bodhisattva who realizes emptiness of self and other will not fear a lower rebirth to prevent such widespread suffering. Of course, the Three Vows are very important and stand in cause and effect relationship with realization, but without the lineage of ultimate realization that explicates profound emptiness, one will not achieve freedom from suffering by following rules.

Of course the realization of emptiness and bodhicitta are the fundamentals of Buddhism. It is just a fact that there is no happiness other then with this realization. The danger that Buddhism faces today is that its lineages and methodologies are becoming obscured in the West by the vast variety of translations and approaches. It appears to be a chaos, and folks cannot get the deep meanings. You have to find a guru from an unbroken lineage of realization and rely on him or her. Relying on yourself and these message boards will prove fruitless.

If you are still asking "who knows, maybe their right?," then, you simply have not grasped the thrust of the logic that trounces all extremist views of eternalism and nihilism. Emptiness is not nihilism. It is your mind. It's nature is primordial peace. Don't forget that.

[Will]

Do they accept converts?

[ronnewmexico]

Very funny Will

Adn..no offense but if I were jain I would take that as being biased against jain.

"Thinking, "I'm right," or "this is right; this is true" is dualistic conceptual practice that is the seed of suffering for oneself and others."...we can find evidence perhaps some pretty closely that buddhists hold things like this as well as any other. I may look around here but it is not necessary as it is obvious.
Their method for realizing enlightenment is basically removing all the karma which prevents us seeing what is our natural soul. By compassion for all things of sentient nature. Seems quite similiar to buddhism but without perhaps one may say the bells and whistles of great compassion.

They always are greatly compassionate going as mentioned to great extreems to prevent harm and when enlightened in some form as tirthankar teaching what is needed to know in that time and place.

CAn one do this as human...."]the realization of emptiness and bodhicitta are the fundamentals of Buddhism. It is just a fact that there is no happiness other then with this realization"If fully realized certainly. But many buddhist schools assert that full enlightenment or realization of emptiness cannnot be attained as human.
One advances as much as one can as human then must go to some other place to really be fully enlightened. The buddha being considered as simple example, not real human. HOw one as human can best advance to that place not that one may actually realize full enlightenment as human...there are differing views on this thing in buddhism it seems.


Me personally...I abscribe to no buddhist nor jainist view. I am not looking for anything except perhaps on occasion useful tools..my path is clear to me. I have no uncertainties, no questions not here or elsewhere beyond what I find before me. I am stateing that to qualify this as not a personal discussion, which it is why it is here and not in the personal section.

So this is not about me but about this issue..western buddhist I am contending may be better served by jainism than buddhism...it fits them better.
Happiness..jains seem happy and their religion claims happiness when enlightened.

Jains I would reasonably say could make this very same statement with one little replacement.."It is your mind. It's nature is primordial peace. Don't forget that. ..coming up with the same thing basically in practice and effect.

YOu will find if I for instance started a thread on this.. many buddhist advocating for a completely pacifist approach to this and saying things such as...if I am a higher buddhist that wants only to attain enlightenment and not just a ordinary buddhist I do this...."If there is a killer like bin Laden who is set on killing whole nations, a pacifist will let it happen." be completely pacifist. We could find a thread on that I'd guess around here somewhere one may say that in approximation...

so is not Jain the better vehicle for them? It being variable in buddhism but not variable in jain, use of military guns police things of that sort.

[Will]

Do they accept converts?

Not a joke - I knew a Zarthusti and they will not accept converts, one has to be born into a Zarthustri family. I think Hindus are not too wild about non-Hindus converting too.

[adinatha]

Very funny Will

Adn..no offense but if I were jain I would take that as being biased against jain.

"Thinking, "I'm right," or "this is right; this is true" is dualistic conceptual practice that is the seed of suffering for oneself and others."...we can find evidence perhaps some pretty closely that buddhists hold things like this as well as any other. I may look around here but it is not necessary as it is obvious.
Their method for realizing enlightenment is basically removing all the karma which prevents us seeing what is our natural soul. By compassion for all things of sentient nature. Seems quite similiar to buddhism but without perhaps one may say the bells and whistles of great compassion.

There is no soul. What they are perceiving to be a soul is clarity. Fixating on clarity will not result in liberation but in the formless realms. Why would you advocate that?

They always are greatly compassionate going as mentioned to great extreems to prevent harm and when enlightened in some form as tirthankar teaching what is needed to know in that time and place.

I would appreciate it if you could be more concise. Just write in down to earth short sentences so I can understand you, please.

CAn one do this as human...."]the realization of emptiness and bodhicitta are the fundamentals of Buddhism. It is just a fact that there is no happiness other then with this realization"If fully realized certainly. But many buddhist schools assert that full enlightenment or realization of emptiness cannnot be attained as human.

People say lots of things. That don't make it true. Of course, enlightenment in this body in this life is possible. That is the point of Vajrayana.

One advances as much as one can as human then must go to some other place to really be fully enlightened. The buddha being considered as simple example, not real human. HOw one as human can best advance to that place not that one may actually realize full enlightenment as human...there are differing views on this thing in buddhism it seems.

The Buddha left the methods to achieve his level in one life. That is the point of Vajrayana. One does not need to take a survery of views and then try to find the least common denominator. Buddhism is the truth of our condition, and the path to happiness.

Me personally...I abscribe to no buddhist nor jainist view. I am not looking for anything except perhaps on occasion useful tools..my path is clear to me. I have no uncertainties, no questions not here or elsewhere beyond what I find before me. I am stateing that to qualify this as not a personal discussion, which it is why it is here and not in the personal section.

So this is not about me but about this issue..western buddhist I am contending may be better served by jainism than buddhism...it fits them better.

One would only advocate this based on a misunderstanding of even the most basic principals of dharma.

Happiness..jains seem happy and their religion claims happiness when enlightened.

Their happiness is impermanent. A formless realm rebirth may last a long time, but the ultimate fruit is a re-birth in hell, because it cycles in samsara. Impermanence and samsara are the most basic principles of dharma. If one doesn't understand these basics, then one may not see a difference between Buddhism and Jainism.

Jains I would reasonably say could make this very same statement with one little replacement.."It is your mind. It's nature is primordial peace. Don't forget that. ..coming up with the same thing basically in practice and effect.

No they won't. Jains don't have this view. Their view is liberation is achieved via aceticism, behaviors comporting to tenets, and shamata meditation. They have the notion of vipashyana.

YOu will find if I for instance started a thread on this.. many buddhist advocating for a completely pacifist approach to this and saying things such as...if I am a higher buddhist that wants only to attain enlightenment and not just a ordinary buddhist I do this...."If there is a killer like bin Laden who is set on killing whole nations, a pacifist will let it happen." be completely pacifist. We could find a thread on that I'd guess around here somewhere one may say that in approximation...

so is not Jain the better vehicle for them? It being variable in buddhism but not variable in jain, use of military guns police things of that sort.

Buddhism is more flexible than Jainism and give people latitude to be strictly vegetarian and pacifist. It does't make them a Jain.

[adinatha]

Do they accept converts?

Not a joke - I knew a Zarthusti and they will not accept converts, one has to be born into a Zarthustri family. I think Hindus are not too wild about non-Hindus converting too.

Hindu and Jain both accept converts in principle, but in practice, both these religions are steeped in tradition. Jains have maintained their identity in Hindu India for several thousand years by maintaining their separateness from the caste system, like the Parsis. What it amounts to is a close knit group. Joining them would be like going into an old neighborhood in New York and sticking out like a sore thumb. But if you were earnest, you will find some acceptance in time.

[ronnewmexico]

Really we should not be personally insulting from the get go..I went to a religious school as a young child..the children were heinous , hating eachother and treating eachother badly. In public school this was not the situation, children seemed to have heart for one another..
So this...."One would only advocate this based on a misunderstanding of even the most basic principals of dharma. "..please refrain from being insulting. I know you may want to extend point but there is nothing that says we cannot discuss this as person to person and not insult eachother.
The buddhists on this board practicing great compassion, seem like those children practicing anything but. If we cannot talk to eachother as reasonably equal but talking down one to another we will never communicate it is impossible.

This is a quote from another site on pure land.....
"There is a sutra mentioned by Buddha Sakyamuni that in the dharma ending era where sentient beings' lack of wisdom to aware Suchness. There is none amongst a Billion and billion of people could possibly achieve complete fruition of Bodhi besides Pure Land. 《大集經》云： 末法億億人修行，罕一得道；唯依念佛，得度生死。 The advice is to learn insight contained in all school but destination towards Pure Land, the higher wisdom you achieve, the higher abode of Pure Land you will be here & there. The highest is Buddha equal enlightenment of Pure Land :
Basically these times are such none can achieve full buddhahood as human, but can go to pure lands and then from there attain buddhahood.

And I have heard a equlivency in tibetan buddhism. I could probably provide quote but it would be a extensive endeavor. The point is relatively common we must go somewhere else a pure land or some similiar place to become fully enlightened, a buddha.
The body it is thought a product of karma and cannot entertain fully enlightenment. It speaks of a limitation or effectual by karma the reason to be in a human body.
Buddhas have not a body of our sort. Our sort is produced by karma. So thusly one cannot be a buddha in a human body. In this school of thinking a buddha is a emenation not a real human..the two things are impossible.
Not all certainly agree with that, there are variants of opinion but those are not unknown nor unusual. I am not stateing all buddhists should be jains but that those mainly in the west jainism is more suited to them.

To be clear on jainism (though I am no expert) they consider a different thing. This realm and all things cycle in and out in a definitive form. In each cycle there are so many tirthankars that appear to teach when exactly needed so those that are trapped in this realm can find a way out.
It is not perhaps random as in buddhism but considered in these cycles specific things that happen and a set amount of tirthankaras that appear at stages in the cycle. So is considered the soul having the nature of all things is very compassionate. When one attains enlightenment they do not necessarily become a tirthankar as there is no need for one. When needed they may become one if necessary such being the soul nature of things compassionate.
So that explains it a bit. They also at times consider that humans may not be in a suitable time for full enlightenment.

Jains do not consider that there realm of enlighenment is a formless realm. One does not have form.... true.... but that does not formless realm make.
Attachement concept of self remain in buddhism in formless realm. In Tibetan buddhism there are four basic formless realms with differing causes and differing results thusly in each. In jainism in that place soul remains but all is of soul and like one, when karma is removed. Karma it is that is considered to lead to our obstructions and pain and suffering. Once the negative karma is removed such soul remains pure.
AScetisim is a means to remove this karma but also is removing caused by producing no suffering. ONe cannot simply be a ascetic and then expect to have a pure soul. ONe must also produce no harm and act compassionately as all souls are as human souls are, even the lowest microbe.

Many buddhist say not this in the west ..."Buddhism is more flexible than Jainism and give people latitude to be strictly vegetarian and pacifist. It does't make them a Jain."...they firmly state buddhist must be vegetarians must not ever kill must not have any weapons and many other things with no degree of flexibility. As perhaps davadeeta did they do. Buddhism then gives them right to be inflexible or flexible only that they may say we may only do those things and be buddhist....this seems not flexible.
Should not those people then more rightly be in a inflexible vehicle?

Again..."If one doesn't understand these basics"..we can talk to each other as holders of different opinion but must talk to each other with respect and consideration...I disagree with what you say or this or basically this consideration is wrong, or other things can be said, approximating the same thing respectfully.

I am not advocating that one with a view of emptiness advocate this thing...but how many have view or only express learned view...it seems many.
As to emptiness stopping even the most basic of defilements I have heard great lamas say they employ methods of a courser nature such as just avoiding a situation or some means to prevent defilement rather than just relying on knowing emptiness. Few say...I know emptiness I have realized this and thusly have not that defilement. Perhaps it is with intention of not appearing great to be humble...but if such is always said.... well then to those that hear this always....what the point of emptiness if it cannot remove our defilements?...it seems quite useless if we must still employ means to stop defilements.

I know one must employ means to attain realization of emptiness but why then after one has and is a great teacher....why do they not say yes they are gone...generally they do not. If they so fear their followers may hear such a thing and not be able to do such a thing...then their followers should be jain..at least they could do that thing and remove defilements through that means. Buddhist means and jain means having difference but both having result of removing gross defilements.
Why teach the profound if none apparently get it...at least not enough to remove defilements presentation.....it seems pointless. Far easier method for these people would seem suitable.

[Luke]

Jains certainly have many excellent qualities. I agree that the world would most likely be a better place if there were more Jains. Jainism certainly has a more positive history than the Abrahamic religions do.

I think that Jainism is an excellent choice for those people who don't yet have the mental capacity for Buddhism. If someone is a good Jain in this life, then it's always possible that he or she could be a Buddhist in the next one.

But if one does have the mental capacity to be a Buddhist in this life, then it would be a waste not to practice Buddhism because only Buddhism allows one to achieve total liberation from samsara.

But I understand what Ron is saying. Some Buddhists who have read a lot about emptiness can just get pompous and think that they're better than everyone, so that the study of emptiness becomes more of an affliction than an aid. Of course, when progress towards a real understanding of emptiness is achieved, mental afflictions should lessen. But I know that I'm no expert on emptiness, so I still have a lot to learn.

Then again, pride can be an obstacle for people of any religion.

[ronnewmexico]

Well I agree with all that lastly said, well said and communicated.

That is true...my point is that.
I will add this part which is not stated....
Western buddhists are constricting buddhism to fit jainist ideal is my observation. One may imply things such as...well buddists in my schools can not have gun can not do this do that....well no...not really... they generallly do not say such things. Buddhism is the middle way called for many reasons, it is quite complex. Complex is the response to most all things..they must be fully considered, not filled by reason of ideology or quote of scripture generally.
In some things that suffices but in many not.

But I see the simple wrongly stated thing stated like as not. So why not jainism and be happy with the simpiicity?
It seems that is the rule often as not.

Ultimate freedom is possible, yes only through buddhist means. But if as stated in various schools ultimate liberation not available in this time or as human one cannot become a buddha(not to say all say this)....then why not jain.
They pray are compassionate are strictly vegetarian may not own weapons may not harm others in any manner live as simply as possible by edict and have ceremony.....at many levels.... what difference them and buddhists who say we must do those things as well in that manner?

Emptiness sure. But who is claiming any total removeing of defilements personally saying they are doing that at this time and place...I find few certainly I have not heard great teachers in this present age say they are doing that.
So if possible with this realization of emptiness right here and now for these peoples...why does none say they are doing it?
If it is humbleness why the humbleness? If it is fear of nihilist trap if we follow this thing of emptiness to closely....then why mention it at all if we about all, even the greatest ,can apparently by their own words, not realize it, and we hazard great fault which will send us certainly to suffering..nihilism.

If this is the situation perhaps in the west to these peoples there or elsewhere where those things are found...buddhism should be left behind and jain adapted.

[KeithBC]

There is a lot to admire and respect about the Jain religion.

You have mentioned a couple of points on which they disagree with Buddhists: the eternal soul, emptiness. If you think they are right on these points, then there is indeed no reason why not. A person who thinks they are right should (or at least could) become a Jain.

I realize that is is socially unfashionable in some circles to have opinions on such things. And, that's fine, if that's where you are at. If you don't have an opinions, then why not, indeed? Go for it.

But what if you do have an opinion, and your opinion is that Jains are wrong about the soul and impermanence? Then that is your why not.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[ronnewmexico]

Well the question not being for a person who uses emptiness as a means for the spiritual, but a person who knows of the concept of emptiness, but basically uses it for nothing. I am not making any personal statements but we can assume a large ground of buddhist do know of the concept but for various and sundry reasons do not employ that thing in actuality. Thinking possibly..enlightenment not possible as human or we must go here first in this time and age or any thing.

So for such, if one is so inclined to look for strict things such as nonviolence in all circumstances and no weapons or other things such as vegetarianism..why not jainism....is not the emptiness for many but a afterthought, and could not such be used only as mentioned a expansion of ego(I am thusly better than them)...what purpose then in that circumstance at all?

Not all certainly but those who hold these strict views..it seems strict vehicle is most appropriate not buddhism.
It is not really a question of what is true.The buddha taught only things that could end human suffering not all things. IN this time and place of barbarians...is emptiness suitable? The buddha did not teach what he taught to barbarians, generally he may have taught lesser teacheings by somes opinion..would not jainism be that lesser teaching that like as not leads the same place, as lesser vehicle of buddhism?

Would it make a difference if we pray we say one name or another? Is not the praying the same if one does so in similiar context?

[adinatha]

It is very important as Buddhists to focus somewhat more on impermanence, karmic cause and effect, the disadvantages of samsara and the preciousness of human life. Usually, when Buddhists can't do anything with emptiness it's because these basics have been forgotten.

[ronnewmexico]

Well..I agree....."It is very important as Buddhists to focus somewhat more on impermanence, karmic cause and effect, the disadvantages of samsara and the preciousness of human life. Usually, when Buddhists can't do anything with emptiness it's because these basics have been forgotten."

removing the somwhat more of the first line. The first line.
Doing anything with emptiness is not the issue as I see it, but more that none claim to be doing anything with it in the here and now.
The teachers state they use other vehicle to remove defilements, some stateing they just avoid circumstances of them....good advice I'd say but if emptiness is known to produce this thing of happiness not only in ultimate form but in real terms right now form....who don't they say so?

Oh...they then threaten to propogate nihilism...well if teaching is so faulted that one may fall to nihiism or that one may not do this thing except potentially use it long term in another lifetime as we may not realize it..what point? Peoples here then are not suited to it seemingly.

Become jain then if that is the situation.

[Adamantine]

Oh...they then threaten to propogate nihilism...well if teaching is so faulted that one may fall to nihiism or that one may not do this thing except potentially use it long term in another lifetime as we may not realize it..what point? Peoples here then are not suited to it seemingly.

I am not sure what you are referring to because I know of no situations after years in the Dharma of any teachers not teaching emptiness due to some concern that students will misinterpret it and fall into nihilism. This was something historically that some Buddhist teachers were concerned with and cautious about, so you will find texts that discuss this-- but it is not really a current issue. As Bob Thurman pointed out, there really is no danger of people who are already nihilists to fall into nihilism: -- contemporary society already functions within a nihilistic view, influenced as it is by scientific materialism and modern existentialism. . . so there is not this concern of teaching emptiness too early, if anything the explanations of not falling to extremes and dependent origination could cure people of their nihilistic leanings.

[ronnewmexico]

Well we differ on that point then I guess. If i run accross quote I will then post it. I will not especially go running to look for that thing as you admit that texts do mention it.

On Thurman I have heard his statement on that and happen to agree with it. Though a friend of HHDL and with a doctorate in theology I would describe him in other fashion as not one of considered authority on things by my take. Others certainly do consider him such, I don't.
Belief in a soul he does assert his friend does not agree on that. Thurman has his way of qualifying a soul to make it fit some descriptions within buddhism but that is not as others find it. To whit his idealistic view of historic tibet is little founded in reality. It was not a unique mandella of spiritual perfection that he attests to. His view on sanscrit as superior language is as well..suspect by my take. English speaks of variance and richness variety and such things as it speaks to a way of doing things that is more common than royal. Thurman asserts sanskrit by virtue of being more orderly and structured is thereby a superior vehicle..that may speak only to its inceptive factors not any superiority.
Failed monk,with a pretty daughter. Though I hold his friend in very high regard, the highest.

So I agree with Thurmans view on this despite my disagreements with him on things. But that is not the view as I find it expressed in generally Tibetan buddhism.
Emptiness is expressed very carefully and only in certain contexts. NOt that it matters but I also have years of exposure to this thing, with very many lamas, and that has been my antedotal experience as well. It is closely guarded.
YOu say it is not...well I say we then disagree.

Tibetan lamas do not hold Thurmans view on americans that he does...that I am certain, they are Tibetan not american.