why did you 'guess' buddhism?

[KeithBC]

So why did you 'guess' Buddhism?

I didn't guess. Buddhism was the first religion I encountered whose teachings didn't make me think, "That's bullsh!t". When I read them, my thought was, "That makes perfect sense."

Worshipping rocks and trees? BS. Gods fighting among themselves like third-graders and hurling thunderbolts when they get POed? BS. A guy is considered righteous because, when ordered to kill his son for no particular reason, he said, "Yes, boss"? BS. I can be forgiven for my sins just because a holy man was executed? BS. The reason I suffer is because I want things to be other than they are? Whoa, that actually makes sense!

Is there stuff in Buddhist teachings that makes me think "BS"? Sure. Buddhist cosmology, for example - four continents surrounding a central mountain - has nothing to do with physical reality. It's either meant to be allegorical or it's BS. But it is such a minor part of the whole package that disregarding it really doesn't change any of the important stuff.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Kyosan]

So why did you 'guess' Buddhism?

I didn't guess. Buddhism was the first religion I encountered whose teachings didn't make me think, "That's bullsh!t". When I read them, my thought was, "That makes perfect sense."

Worshipping rocks and trees? BS. Gods fighting among themselves like third-graders and hurling thunderbolts when they get POed? BS. A guy is considered righteous because, when ordered to kill his son for no particular reason, he said, "Yes, boss"? BS. I can be forgiven for my sins just because a holy man was executed? BS. The reason I suffer is because I want things to be other than they are? Whoa, that actually makes sense!

That sums up my feelings also. I abandoned the religion I was brought up with and embraced Buddhism for that reason.

Is there stuff in Buddhist teachings that makes me think "BS"? Sure. Buddhist cosmology, for example - four continents surrounding a central mountain - has nothing to do with physical reality. It's either meant to be allegorical or it's BS. But it is such a minor part of the whole package that disregarding it really doesn't change any of the important stuff.

I agree with that also. There are some unbelievable things in Buddhism. They may be allegorical or BS. It's not important to me because I see great value in the Buddhist dharma that I do understand.

[catmoon]

When someone understands what the Buddha meant by "realization" then they will understand that this term does not apply to those outside the Buddhist fold.

N

Stop a moment and think of all the people who might be counter examples. The silent, self-taught Buddhas. The saints. The peacemakers. Maybe the fellow down the street who runs the deli. Do you really wish to invalidate all their realizations just because they are outside the tribe?

[Malcolm]

When someone understands what the Buddha meant by "realization" then they will understand that this term does not apply to those outside the Buddhist fold.

N

Stop a moment and think of all the people who might be counter examples. The silent, self-taught Buddhas. The saints. The peacemakers. Maybe the fellow down the street who runs the deli. Do you really wish to invalidate all their realizations just because they are outside the tribe?

They are not counter examples. And the Buddha was very specific on this point:

In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.[54] Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers.

[alwayson]

When someone understands what the Buddha meant by "realization" then they will understand that this term does not apply to those outside the Buddhist fold.

N

Stop a moment and think of all the people who might be counter examples. The silent, self-taught Buddhas. The saints. The peacemakers. Maybe the fellow down the street who runs the deli. Do you really wish to invalidate all their realizations just because they are outside the tribe?

Only if they have the view of dependent origination, which you need to learn first from Buddhists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%AB ... tp%C4%81da


Buddhism is not a belief system. It is actually a description of how reality actually is.

[Kyosan]

When someone understands what the Buddha meant by "realization" then they will understand that this term does not apply to those outside the Buddhist fold.

N

Stop a moment and think of all the people who might be counter examples. The silent, self-taught Buddhas. The saints. The peacemakers. Maybe the fellow down the street who runs the deli. Do you really wish to invalidate all their realizations just because they are outside the tribe?

I agree. All sentient beings have the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha seed). And especially humans have the ability to become awakened. There are many examples of non-Buddhists who appear to be awakened and even the average person off the street is awakened to some extent. If Buddhists can discover the true nature of all things, others can also. They may not use the exact same methods to get there, but they can get there. In my opinion, to say that realization only belongs to Buddhists is being conceited.

[catmoon]

They are not counter examples. And the Buddha was very specific on this point:

[list]In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.[54] Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers.

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

[Malcolm]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.

The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

[catmoon]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.

The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

Nonsense.

[Malcolm]

If Buddhists can discover the true nature of all things, others can also.

Pratyekabuddhas discver the principle of dependent origination through their own power. But they do not teach. Thus, they do not lead others to liberation. Also their liberation is not complete -- in order to become fully awakened, they must also traverse the bodhisattva path.

N

[Malcolm]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.

The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

Nonsense.

You can believe what you wish. I have not found any evidence of the middle way, dependent origination, being taught anywhere other than in Buddhism. It is not that case that I have not bothered to look.

N

[Kyosan]

If Buddhists can discover the true nature of all things, others can also.

Pratyekabuddhas discver the principle of dependent origination through their own power. But they do not teach. Thus, they do not lead others to liberation. Also their liberation is not complete -- in order to become fully awakened, they must also traverse the bodhisattva path.

N

The bodhisattva path is much broader than you think it is. A non-Buddhist can be a bodhisattva and a Buddhist bodhisattva can appear to be non-Buddhist.

[alwayson]

You can believe what you wish. I have not found any evidence of the middle way, dependent origination, being taught anywhere other than in Buddhism. It is not that case that I have not bothered to look.

N

um what about Bon?

[KeithBC]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.
The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

The Eightfold Path is a requirement for enlightenment. No argument there. No argument either that only Buddhism teaches it.

However, there is nothing to prevent someone (with exceptionally good karma, no doubt) from discovering the Eightfold Path on his or her own and practicing it, without having encountered Buddhism. It is not the "-ism" or "-ist" that matters, but the understanding and practice. Anyone, Buddhist or not, who practices the Eightfold Path well enough can become enlightened. (I will accept a quibble that the person could be considered a Buddhist even if he or she doesn't know it.)

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Malcolm]

If Buddhists can discover the true nature of all things, others can also.

Pratyekabuddhas discver the principle of dependent origination through their own power. But they do not teach. Thus, they do not lead others to liberation. Also their liberation is not complete -- in order to become fully awakened, they must also traverse the bodhisattva path.

N

The bodhisattva path is much broader than you think it is. A non-Buddhist can be a bodhisattva.

I am not really that interested in people's vague, ill-formed and speculative ideas about these issues.

I know what the great Mahāyāna Buddhist masters of India have said about these issues, have tested them with reasoning and found them to be sound. Therefore, I follow their advice on these issues. If other people wish to follow their own speculations, they are free to do so.

N

[Malcolm]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.
The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

The Eightfold Path is a requirement for enlightenment. No argument there. No argument either that only Buddhism teaches it.

However, there is nothing to prevent someone (with exceptionally good karma, no doubt) from discovering the Eightfold Path on his or her own and practicing it, without having encountered Buddhism. It is not the "-ism" or "-ist" that matters, but the understanding and practice. Anyone, Buddhist or not, who practices the Eightfold Path well enough can become enlightened. (I will accept a quibble that the person could be considered a Buddhist even if he or she doesn't know it.)

Om mani padme hum
Keith

Such a person would, by definition, be a pratyekabuddha.

[Malcolm]

You can believe what you wish. I have not found any evidence of the middle way, dependent origination, being taught anywhere other than in Buddhism. It is not that case that I have not bothered to look.

N

um what about Bon?

Bon is basically a knock off of Buddhism.

[Malcolm]

A non-Buddhist can be a bodhisattva and a Buddhist bodhisattva can appear to be non-Buddhist.

No, a non-buddhist cannot be a bodhisattva. In order to be a bodhisattva, someone must have roused bodhicitta, the wish to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentiet beings. A person who has done so, is by definition a Buddhist.


A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

[Kyosan]

The bodhisattva path is much broader than you think it is. A non-Buddhist can be a bodhisattva.

I am not really that interested in people's vague, ill-formed and speculative ideas about these issues.

I know what the great Mahāyāna Buddhist masters of India have said about these issues, have tested them with reasoning and found them to be sound. Therefore, I follow their advice on these issues. If other people wish to follow their own speculations, they are free to do so.

N

You are a follower of Tibetan Buddhism aren't you? The Dalai Lama sides with me on this.

[catmoon]

A non-Buddhist can be a bodhisattva and a Buddhist bodhisattva can appear to be non-Buddhist.

No, a non-buddhist cannot be a bodhisattva. In order to be a bodhisattva, someone must have roused bodhicitta, the wish to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentiet beings. A person who has done so, is by definition a Buddhist.


A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

Isn't it possible to rouse bodhicitta without knowing what a Buddha is? Anyone who had realized the need to pursue his studies, practices and meditations as far as possible in order to benefit others would seem to qualify as a bodhisattva, and by virtue of being a lone Buddha would then be quite unconnected with the Buddha Dharma and Sangha we are familiar with. Such a one would be an enlightened non-Buddhist, not a follower of Shakyamuni, not a reader of Dharma and a member of no Sangha.