Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Right, and i'm
asking who you think 'isn't doing what the Buddha taught'.
That is absolutely incorrect about The Buddha not caring about Buddhism,
he established a Sangha, a doctrine and discipline..what makes you
think he didn't "care about Buddhism" and where do you get that idea? it
certain isn't in the Pali Canon, which is the closest we can come to
his words historically, should I dig up some Dhammapada quotes for you
on the importance of the three refuges?
You seem to be getting more and more hostile towards Buddhism as it's
practiced as the thread goes on, on the one hand you say you care about
the eightfold path, but then you imply that (most, all some?) Buddhist
traditions aren't actually Buddhism. What exactly is Buddhism to you
then? The same Pali Canon that lays out the eightfold path also talks in
various places about the uniqueness of the doctrine, and it's
preservation and practice. If these things aren't Buddhism to you, then
what exactly is "your" Buddhism?
I'm not trying to make the thread hostile, but you've put this stuff out
there and i'm curious as to the answers. no hostility intended.
I think I've made myself clear, and I don't think this is a hostile
thread at all. I am also not sending hostility out to buddhists, my
friends call me a buddhist, I attend a buddhist temple, I simply do not
call myself a buddhist or think it is important to label this practice
as buddhist. Eckhart is a buddhist , Eckhart isn't a buddhist I don't
care, I find his work helpful, buddhist or not.
Why do you find it so important to label things buddhist?
I don't, that's your assumptioni entirely. I don't go around advertising
to be a Buddhist or member of this or that sect or anything either.
I think the philosophy of Buddhism is important though, and in
particular I think that the things that distance it from some Vedantic
philosophy (which is bascially what Eckhart is teaching as far as I can
tell) are important, especially since the Buddha himself thought the
distinction was important enough to teach the heck out of it. The
doctrine of Anatta was in opposition to many of thinkers of his day, and
it seems to be in opposition to what Tolle is teaching.
In addition, I believe that while (like anything run by human beings)
there is a ton of "mess" involved in tradition, I also believe there are
many traditions with realized masters and teachings, so i'm a bit
confused as to why someone is on a Buddhist forum, talking about how in
line with Buddhism Tolle is, and also making a number of comments about
how out of line mainstream Buddhism is with the Buddha's
Tolle does not teach the doctrine of Anatta.