Dharma Wheel

mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:30 pm

Grigoris wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:24 pm

mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:11 pmThe answer is obvious, isn't it?

I would think so, but when people start to argue about whether Pratyekabuddhas are awakened or not, well...

It seems the obvious is not so obvious!

Clearly all Paths are not the same. They certainly differ at the very highest levels of View...

It seems that some people think you start here and work backwards towards accumulating merit/virtue.

Seems they forget that one achieves liberation via the accumulation of wisdom AND virtue/merit.

I think that people fall into the trap of intellectualisation of the Dharma, rather than recognising it is a praxis.

Of course, I agree...

I like Bhikkhu Bodhi's little essay Tolerance and Diversity, which touches on many of the issues raised in this thread and concludes:

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss — the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ay_24.html

Mike

Excellent.

Queequeg wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:18 pmAs for pratyekabuddhas, a lot of Mahayana doesn't consider pratyekabuddhas awakened. Lotus Sutra for instance, doesn't consider Hinayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, or even Bodhisattvayana to lead to bodhi. Only Buddhayana leads to bodhi.

Which supports my statement that Buddhists cannot even agree as to what constitutes Buddhism, let alone what is Dharma.

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:24 am

Queequeg wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:18 pmAs for pratyekabuddhas, a lot of Mahayana doesn't consider pratyekabuddhas awakened. Lotus Sutra for instance, doesn't consider Hinayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, or even Bodhisattvayana to lead to bodhi. Only Buddhayana leads to bodhi.

Which supports my statement that Buddhists cannot even agree as to what constitutes Buddhism, let alone what is Dharma.

No one can agree to what constitutes an anything though, I mean the same is true of politics etc.

Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:35 amNo one can agree to what constitutes an anything though, I mean the same is true of politics etc.

Yup. So where are the "advantages" that Buddhism confers to it's followers if they act no differently than everybody else?

Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

Nemo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:13 am For the most part it is harmless to believe Pollyanna nonsense and make false equivalencies. Sharing a few traits does not make things the same. We may simply be forced to do this because of the current trend demonizing Muslims. Particularly by Christian Taliban in America. It sucks but fascists ruin everything. Even disliking intolerant religions. If you disagree that Islam is intolerant I suggest you build a stupa in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, etc.

I think everyone acknowledges that there are intolerant Muslims (along with Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Where I live, as you'll recall, a white-supremacist terrorist recently killed 51 people, infinitely more than Muslim attack have achieved here, so perhaps that colours my perceptions a bit. I did actually feel somewhat nervous the first time I sat in our Thai Wat after the attacks... I haven't come across intolerant Muslims in my daily life here. Maybe they are deliberately trying to mislead me... However I do come across the occasional White Supremacist who'd like to send immigrants home (and who don't see the irony that the same argument could be applied to them...).

Of course, I agree that there are parts of Islamic doctrine that don't sit well in the modern world. But that's true of Christian doctrine too. However, noone seems to be fretting about some possible new Christian Crusades. That's because Christianity has mostly (with a few exceptions) adapted itself to a secularised world (which unfortunately hasn't halted wars fought by those countries...). Are the issues in the Middle East purely religious, or are they more about ethnicity and politics? And, while we're at it, perhaps we could ask how they differ from the (hopefully now historical) Irish or Sri Lankan conflicts? Were those religious wars?

I have not idea how to solve all of the world's problems, but my view is that for my country is that constructive engagement would be the best way to reduce the threat of extremists (be they Muslim, White Supremacist, or something else). I don't see vilifying them working very well...

Perhaps I can close on a positive note, with this picture of the Kazan Kremlin, which I visited last year. It contains both Christian and Muslim places of worship. I didn't see any Buddhist Stupas though...




Mike

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

I am not interested in a Pan-Buddhism, just as much as I am not interested in ecumenism or perrenialism.

I am interested in mutual respect.

I am interested in overcoming sectarianism.

I like the fact that there is such an enormous variety of approaches to ethics, morality and liberation.

For me it is quite obvious that humans need this variety, otherwise it would not exist.

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:35 amNo one can agree to what constitutes an anything though, I mean the same is true of politics etc.

Yup. So where are the "advantages" that Buddhism confers to it's followers if they act no differently than everybody else?

Not all do, and as it's impossible for most of us to see the outcomes of said discussions, it could be that our seeing of things is just off. It could be that the "best Buddhists" are the one's not arguing in the first place..there are all kinds of possiblities.

Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 am

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:35 amNo one can agree to what constitutes an anything though, I mean the same is true of politics etc.

Yup. So where are the "advantages" that Buddhism confers to it's followers if they act no differently than everybody else?

Not all do, and as it's impossible for most of us to see the outcomes of said discussions, it could be that our seeing of things is just off. It could be that the "best Buddhists" are the one's not arguing in the first place..there are all kinds of possiblities.

I ain't going to argue with that. Does that make me a "best Buddhist"?

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:06 am

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

I am not interested in a Pan-Buddhism, just as much as I am not interested in ecumenism or perrenialism.

I am interested in mutual respect.

I am interested in overcoming sectarianism.

I like the fact that there is such an enormous variety of approaches to ethics, morality and liberation.

For me it is quite obvious that humans need this variety, otherwise it would not exist.

There are as many approaches to ethics and morality as there are books in the philosophy section of a library, but interestingly, their prescriptions on how we should live a moral life are all >80% similar. If humans struggle to live together - which evidently they do - it must be for some other reasons than that they can't agree on what is morally right and wrong.

Coexisting with people who hold different views would seem to be a fundamental and basic requirement for society to exist, even if most people seem to find it difficult. Achieving it requires, as you say, that we recognize and respect differences in our views, rather than pretending that they don't exist or don't matter. I agree that the idea of a pan-Buddhist synthesis is of very little use to anyone as a Buddhist practitioner, because nobody practices a pan-Buddhist synthesis: they practice their individual tradition. It's only helpful to demarcate the boundaries of what the Buddhadharma is vs. what is not the Buddhadharma.

Compassion for all living beings is a part of Mahayana practice. I can't comprehend how it is a poison or why we would not reinforce merits for the sake of karma.

Since this forum is Mahayana-Vajrayana, the Compassion is including ALL. That what makes it so powerful to discus about the others paths, which lead not to the same as ours, I try to see its value and how it shows Compassion ALL inclusive.

It is normal human doing, to check, taste, compare the mine and the theirs, the me and the you. But to publish again and again on an open forum how deluded others are, I must reflect about its value.

You speak about H H Dalai Lama, he said to not lose own faith and respect all other religions, this to give our compassion a chance, and our perception I guess too. Then we respect very much our path.

Then Thich Nath Hahn was mentioned, I had loved to have a teaching from him but had not the good karma. I missed him once, as I had to leave Bodhgaya while he just arrived. He and H H Dalai Lama are examples of Amazing Compassion, how it cures all our restrictions and biases. This is not the same as universalist ( I don't know what this is, I am not so learned), it is nectar to be freed from extremisms, since it is not without "emptiness" ( the nature of all). But the word emptiness and compassion are adding no any thing to nature like it is, are technical.

I heard he was talking about Muslims coming to listen in France to his teachings. He said they thanked him, his teaching helped them to be better understand their own religion. Then another thing he said: I have met people who believed in God, but "God" was not a creator as such, God was not separate from their own mind!

While when "we" Buddhist see separations we say: we are right in this, a me and another, right self is teaching right teachings to right me for right enlightenment.

All are same nature, there is no other! No other than in confusions. We ALL have the potential to see that. In that there are no other, other religions, other gender, other culture and whatever to compare.

the true nature does not change under any circumstances, whether sentient beings recognize it or not.

“buddha-nature” is the inheritance of each and every sentient being. All of us possess it, regardless of our intelligence, character, or species.

Compassion is just Amazing curing power, liberating us from separations, causing all the afflictions.

ps

ecumenism or perrenialism

these are more fabrications in which there is nothing to fabricate. We can make as many as we want, it will not change anything.

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am

ford_truckin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:30 pm

PeterC wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:26 pm

No - the language makes it very clear that we’re talking about totally different things.

You think Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Gnosticism doesn't lead to enlightenment? I severely doubt that.

No, I don’t. They do not teach, either in philosophy or experientially, the same view of emptiness. That’s abundantly clear for Sufism and Gnosticism. For Vedanta, as countless discussions on this site have shown, that tradition’s habit of borrowing Buddhist terminology makes the discussion a little more complicated. But since we were talking here about Judaism/Christianity/islam, I don’t think we need to go down that rabbit hole again.

If you’re saying that you think that, say, Gnosticism by itself leads to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, then you’re saying something in contradiction with every school of the the Dharma. Not that I have anything against Gnosticism or deny that it can make people better. But it is not the same thing as the Buddhadharma.

Just pulling your leg. I consider all these other spiritual traditions to be vastly inferior compared to the Buddhadharma

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:42 am

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:06 am

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

I am not interested in a Pan-Buddhism, just as much as I am not interested in ecumenism or perrenialism.
M
I am interested in mutual respect.

I am interested in overcoming sectarianism.

I like the fact that there is such an enormous variety of approaches to ethics, morality and liberation.

For me it is quite obvious that humans need this variety, otherwise it would not exist.

There are as many approaches to ethics and morality as there are books in the philosophy section of a library, but interestingly, their prescriptions on how we should live a moral life are all >80% similar. If humans struggle to live together - which evidently they do - it must be for some other reasons than that they can't agree on what is morally right and wrong.

Coexisting with people who hold different views would seem to be a fundamental and basic requirement for society to exist, even if most people seem to find it difficult. Achieving it requires, as you say, that we recognize and respect differences in our views, rather than pretending that they don't exist or don't matter. I agree that the idea of a pan-Buddhist synthesis is of very little use to anyone as a Buddhist practitioner, because nobody practices a pan-Buddhist synthesis: they practice their individual tradition. It's only helpful to demarcate the boundaries of what the Buddhadharma is vs. what is not the Buddhadharma.

Precisely. In a world of Buddhist forums that demarcation is more vital than ever.
It shouldn’t need emphasising that some things are recognisably Buddhadharma, and some things are not.
But clearly It DOES need emphasising in the light of the constant drip drip of neo vedantic levelling which wants to remove all that is distinctive and replace it with a beige fudge fuelled by good intentions.

It is good to believe in own path, not lose faith, I think we all can agree with that importance.

And probably most of us have received questions like: are all religions same?

I then remain silent, I have no choice since this sounds to me: are apples pears?

Then perhaps another question: are others dust, out of true nature?

Many thanks for yours kindness, patience and care.

ford_truckin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:39 am

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am

ford_truckin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:30 pm
You think Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Gnosticism doesn't lead to enlightenment? I severely doubt that.

No, I don’t. They do not teach, either in philosophy or experientially, the same view of emptiness. That’s abundantly clear for Sufism and Gnosticism. For Vedanta, as countless discussions on this site have shown, that tradition’s habit of borrowing Buddhist terminology makes the discussion a little more complicated. But since we were talking here about Judaism/Christianity/islam, I don’t think we need to go down that rabbit hole again.

If you’re saying that you think that, say, Gnosticism by itself leads to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, then you’re saying something in contradiction with every school of the the Dharma. Not that I have anything against Gnosticism or deny that it can make people better. But it is not the same thing as the Buddhadharma.

Just pulling your leg. I consider all these other spiritual traditions to be vastly inferior compared to the Buddhadharma

Let’s not go to the other extreme the fact is those Christians, Sufis etc who are accomplished in their own tradition are probably nearer enlightenment than most of we Buddhists labouring up the foothills. Which does not mean that the ultimate goals are the same. They are clearly not.

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:42 amIt's only helpful to demarcate the boundaries of what the Buddhadharma is vs. what is not the Buddhadharma.

Like Rangtong vs Shentong, for example...

Rangtong and Shentong are dialects of the same Buddhadharma language.

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:27 pm Rangtong and Shentong are dialects of the same Buddhadharma language.

A misunderstanding of dialect that lead to forced conversions, destruction of monasteries, deaths, etc...

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:58 am

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:42 am

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:06 am I am not interested in a Pan-Buddhism, just as much as I am not interested in ecumenism or perrenialism.
M
I am interested in mutual respect.

I am interested in overcoming sectarianism.

I like the fact that there is such an enormous variety of approaches to ethics, morality and liberation.

For me it is quite obvious that humans need this variety, otherwise it would not exist.

There are as many approaches to ethics and morality as there are books in the philosophy section of a library, but interestingly, their prescriptions on how we should live a moral life are all >80% similar. If humans struggle to live together - which evidently they do - it must be for some other reasons than that they can't agree on what is morally right and wrong.

Coexisting with people who hold different views would seem to be a fundamental and basic requirement for society to exist, even if most people seem to find it difficult. Achieving it requires, as you say, that we recognize and respect differences in our views, rather than pretending that they don't exist or don't matter. I agree that the idea of a pan-Buddhist synthesis is of very little use to anyone as a Buddhist practitioner, because nobody practices a pan-Buddhist synthesis: they practice their individual tradition. It's only helpful to demarcate the boundaries of what the Buddhadharma is vs. what is not the Buddhadharma.

Precisely. In a world of Buddhist forums that demarcation is more vital than ever.
It shouldn’t need emphasising that some things are recognisably Buddhadharma, and some things are not.
But clearly It DOES need emphasising in the light of the constant drip drip of neo vedantic levelling which wants to remove all that is distinctive and replace it with a beige fudge fuelled by good intentions.

Since I am the antagonist that has pushed that boundary I have to ask, is it from your emptiness of self that you distill my intention as leveling distinctions since i clearly made another point that went unanswered

Is is slander (or lack of belief) against the dharma to recognize aspects of dharma as anything else?

As I see it, it is. I admit I can be wrong but I haven't heard any commentary based on this particular comment .

The simple reasoning is that if Buddhism is the absolute vehicle of emancipation how can any aspect of it expressed by humanity be anything but. I find it incredulous that Mahayana proposes we all have a latent Buddhist nature but that it is only identified as Buddhist if properly indoctrinated as if that latent nature is only provisionally latent.

from my limited understanding even the Buddhist deities of the realm of the mind protect those that embrace buddhism, which clearly illustrates that even external entities in the realm of the mind respect and uphold those that embrace the buddhadharma.

So at what point are the beliefs and mindsets of those who practice the various forms of buddhism denying the latent buddha state of all those in the world because it doesn't conform their particular notion of buddhadharma?

Seems like the real division is from the mind of believers who put their own interpretations of belief before the humanity it serves?

I also find it ironic that people who are foreign to these paths feel they don't open the mind in such a way that Buddhism is a natural progression.

In my real life application, for example, My mother came out as gay and as a practitioner of wicca to me and me because our catholic roots where such that she felt she would be shunned. She was rightly confident that my theist practice was a means in which I used to serve humanity not self so I held her in the same regard none the less. This prepared me to embrace a greater vehicle with less limitations in regards to liberating people from suffering.

Now I don't have to describe any of my "parallel" interpretations but if I had a nickel for everyone who mentioned had that you can't serve two masters at the same time both theist and Buddhist I would have a pretty heavy piggy bank. Thankfully I didn't let other people fill my emptiness of self for me.

It became readily apparent to me that the ownership of belief was my own and that of any master and that putting ownership of my mind in any other entities control was counter intuitive to reality. If this is counter intuitive to notions of Buddhism I apologize for I am but an ordinary human but if it isn't it would be interesting to know as well.

None of this suggests anything but tolerance for different beliefs and I do feel true emptiness of self doesn't project meaning into the actions of others outside observing if they adhere to Buddhist principle or not. Attachment to anything else is simply attachment, is it not? (in my mind of course.)

Thank you to every one who reads it and I hope this find everyone well and if there is any offense in any of my words regardless of interpretations or intent I deeply apologize and stand to be corrected.

I wasn’t responding to your post.