Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:05 pm
Okay. So if we end traces of afflictions and left with pure consciousness, will there be arising thoughts such as they will be snatched by karma? It’s still unclear what these causes or traces are. Are they not an illusion to be ended? If nothing arises, how can there be something to end?

Eradicated traces of grasping to personal and phenomena...how? sure there is a link between personal grasping to Nirvana otherwise who is experiencing Nirvana?
You keep confusing the two truths.
User avatar
Hazel
Former staff member
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:15 pm
Location: she/her

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Hazel »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:06 pm
Hazel wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:21 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:16 pm

Because it is necessary to understand what kinds of experiences one will have on the path, even if one has not reached this or that stage.

For this reason, the paths and stages are described in detail, especially in Vajrayāna, where the goal is to attain buddhahood in a single lifetime to benefit sentient beings.
The latter part about Vajrayana is fair, but since we're in a Mahayana subforum, I'd like to press you on the first part if you're willing to entertain my fancy. Why is it necessary to understand what kinds of experiences one will have on the path, even fi one has not reached a particular stage? I'm unlikely to argue about it, I'm just curious as my lack of understanding has meant I zone-out to those teachings, which can't be good.
Vajrayāna is a subdivision of Mahāyāna, not something separate.

It is necessary, because it is a vital part of the our path. If we do not understand these paths and stages, we will not know how to practice them. Zoning out in teachings is not necessarily a bad thing, more often than not it is a sign that we are eliminating traces of ignorance.

We do not want to be like horses with blinders on, only seeing what is directly in front of us on the road. This is not a good way to hear and reflect on teh Dharma. Moreover, by hearing of the experiences of the paths and stages, it can cause us to be inspired about the possibility of our attaining them and cause rejoicing in those who have attained them.
Thank you!
Happy Pride month to my queer dharma siblings!

What do you see when you turn out the lights?
GrapeLover
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by GrapeLover »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:51 pm
LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:12 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 2:02 pm

Hence my comment about your lack of understanding of Mahayana.
You can be generous and share how’s it done.
Knowledge is not a hindrance. Ignorance is.

First, one generates bodhicitta, the desire to liberate all sentient beings from samsara. This has two aspects, ultimate and relative. The relative aspect refers to the aspiration, and then practicing the six perfections. Ultimate bodhicitta means practicing śamatha and vipaśyanā.

One practices these two bodhicitta together, until one realizes emptiness. This is the first bodhisattva bhumi. One continues to practice, until the practice of vipaśyanā has eradicated all traces of affliction (desire, hatred, and ignorance). This happens conventionally, at the seventh bhumi. Ultimately, has eradicated all traces of grasping to personal and phenomena identity, and one attains the omniscience of buddhahood, this happens when one transitions from being a tenth stage bodhisattva to buddhahood. A buddha is a totally realized person. There is no other kind of totally or fully realized person.
I recall reading a past conversation where you mentioned that shravaka arhats retain latent afflictive seeds, though they’re no longer active——is it correct to think that this contrasts with a 7th bhumi bodhisattva thoroughly eliminating them?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

GrapeLover wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:29 pm
I recall reading a past conversation where you mentioned that shravaka arhats retain latent afflictive seeds, though they’re no longer active——is it correct to think that this contrasts with a 7th bhumi bodhisattva thoroughly eliminating them?
Nonafflictive traces of ignorances are retained.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by LastLegend »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:10 pm
LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:05 pm
Okay. So if we end traces of afflictions and left with pure consciousness, will there be arising thoughts such as they will be snatched by karma? It’s still unclear what these causes or traces are. Are they not an illusion to be ended? If nothing arises, how can there be something to end?

Eradicated traces of grasping to personal and phenomena...how? sure there is a link between personal grasping to Nirvana otherwise who is experiencing Nirvana?
You keep confusing the two truths.
Rumor has it they ended afflictions and have no delusional thoughts. If they do arise thoughts, they are snatched by karma. Maybe we can have people attest that.
It’s eye blinking.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:35 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:10 pm
LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:05 pm
Okay. So if we end traces of afflictions and left with pure consciousness, will there be arising thoughts such as they will be snatched by karma? It’s still unclear what these causes or traces are. Are they not an illusion to be ended? If nothing arises, how can there be something to end?

Eradicated traces of grasping to personal and phenomena...how? sure there is a link between personal grasping to Nirvana otherwise who is experiencing Nirvana?
You keep confusing the two truths.
Rumor has it they ended afflictions and have no delusional thoughts. If they do arise thoughts, they are snatched by karma. Maybe we can have people attest that.
SO you think buddhahood is the same as being insentient?
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by LastLegend »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:41 pm
LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:35 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:10 pm

You keep confusing the two truths.
Rumor has it they ended afflictions and have no delusional thoughts. If they do arise thoughts, they are snatched by karma. Maybe we can have people attest that.
SO you think buddhahood is the same as being insentient?
Transformation of repository consciousness. Then Buddhahood.
It’s eye blinking.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:46 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:41 pm
LastLegend wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:35 pm

Rumor has it they ended afflictions and have no delusional thoughts. If they do arise thoughts, they are snatched by karma. Maybe we can have people attest that.
SO you think buddhahood is the same as being insentient?
Transformation of repository consciousness. Then Buddhahood.
That is the yogacara theory. When there are no bijas in the ālayavijñana, it transforms. What are those bijas? The afflictive and knowledge obscuration. When they are exhausted, this ālayavijñāna turns into dharmadhātu gnosis.
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:04 pm Another common misperception is that Buddhism is "nontheistic" as opposed to atheistic.
I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.
Padmist
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Padmist »

I find that's a touchy subject for some. Nontheistic, atheistic, etc. I have no problem with any label you use. I can see them all being used as long as one is not denying the actual teachings behind the label.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Nicholas2727 wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:25 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:04 pm Another common misperception is that Buddhism is "nontheistic" as opposed to atheistic.
I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.
An atheist is someone who rejects a creator god. We may accept that there are many kinds of sentient beings.
: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
In Buddhism, devas are just other sentient beings in samsara, no big deal.

We are atheists, as we reject utterly the idea outlined in red. To call ourselves non-theists is just a cute way to avoid plainly stating the fact that we reject the central tenet of all Abrahamic religions, and a number of Indian ones as well.
Padmist
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Padmist »

Well I just love that. I say that too. My experience though in doing that is there are people who smile at this. Secular "Buddhists". They hear something like that and they feel that they've been legitimized for their secular point of view.
Arnoud
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Benelux, then USA, now Southern Europe.

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Arnoud »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:51 pm
Nicholas2727 wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:25 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:04 pm Another common misperception is that Buddhism is "nontheistic" as opposed to atheistic.
I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.
An atheist is someone who rejects a creator god. We may accept that there are many kinds of sentient beings.
: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
In Buddhism, devas are just other sentient beings in samsara, no big deal.

We are atheists, as we reject utterly the idea outlined in red. To call ourselves non-theists is just a cute way to avoid plainly stating the fact that we reject the central tenet of all Abrahamic religions, and a number of Indian ones as well.
Isn’t that a very narrow definition of atheism? Most common definitions include not believing in any supernatural being. Not just a creator god.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Arnoud wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:41 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:51 pm
Nicholas2727 wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:25 pm

I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.
An atheist is someone who rejects a creator god. We may accept that there are many kinds of sentient beings.
: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
In Buddhism, devas are just other sentient beings in samsara, no big deal.

We are atheists, as we reject utterly the idea outlined in red. To call ourselves non-theists is just a cute way to avoid plainly stating the fact that we reject the central tenet of all Abrahamic religions, and a number of Indian ones as well.
Isn’t that a very narrow definition of atheism? Most common definitions include not believing in any supernatural being. Not just a creator god.
Do we actually believe in any gods, that is, take refuge in any samsaric being. I contend that is what “belief” entails in the notion that theists believe in god or gods. Strictly speaking, if Buddhist believe in “gods”, narrowly speaking, that’s makes us theists.

Funnily. Definition of a nontheist is:

: a person who does not believe that there is a god or gods : a person who is not a believer in theism
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Sādhaka »

In contemporary common parlance, an atheist is an materialist who rejects out of hand any possible continuity of consciousness after physical death.

As practitioners of Buddhadharma/Bön, we may not see the Deva/Yidam as an inherently existing being; yet at the same time, we don’t assume that consciousness simply goes into mere oblivion upon physical death.

Therefore it is appropriate to say what we are non-theists, as opposed to mere atheists; that is, in regard to making a subtle distinction between our view and the common parlance of the latter.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:33 am, edited 4 times in total.
nightbloom
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by nightbloom »

Padmist wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:10 pm Well I just love that. I say that too. My experience though in doing that is there are people who smile at this. Secular "Buddhists". They hear something like that and they feel that they've been legitimized for their secular point of view.
You are correct, and there are very good reasons to distance oneself from "atheism." Atheism is not just a cosmological stance, but also a social stance, a cultural orientation, an identity, and so on. And it's not a healthy one.
nightbloom
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by nightbloom »

Sādhaka wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:20 am In contemporary common parlance, an atheist is an materialist who rejects out of hand any possible continuity of consciousness after physical death.

As practitioners of Buddhadharma/Bön, we may not see the Deva/Yidam as an inherently existing being; yet at the same time, we don’t assume that consciousness simply goes into mere oblivion upon physical death.

Therefore it is appropriate to say what we are non-theists, as opposed to mere atheists; that is, in regard to making a subtle distinction between our view and the common parlance of the latter.
Totally agreed! And I'll also point out that many Christians, practictioners of Judaism (especially Kabbalistic) and other "theists" actually have a rather complex view of what God is. It is not a mere demiurge, not a finite personality, not a "thing" as such. We are in many respects much more closely aligned with these people than we are with "atheists."
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:20 am In contemporary common parlance, an atheist is an materialist who rejects out of hand any possible continuity of consciousness after physical death.
Well, I am a lifelong atheist who accepts rebirth and things that go bump in the night. YMMV.

You do realize the theists in India classified us as nastikas, along with carvakas, right?
Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

nightbloom wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:41 amWe are in many respects much more closely aligned with these people than we are with "atheists."
You may be. I am not. Not into all that derivative Platonic and Neoplatonic bullshit. It’s actually the opposite of Buddhist teachings, which are nominalist, not realist,

Your assertion above is indefensible. You should study tenet systems more carefully before spouting such nonsense.
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:59 am
Sādhaka wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:20 am In contemporary common parlance, an atheist is an materialist who rejects out of hand any possible continuity of consciousness after physical death.

Well, I am a lifelong atheist who accepts rebirth and things that go bump in the night. YMMV.

You do realize the theists in India classified us as nastikas, along with carvakas, right?

Sure.

But it’s an straw-man.

That’s why I prefer non-theist over atheist.

That is, astika vs nastika is an false paradigm that falls within the extremes; kind of similar to the straw-man of rebloodlicans vs democrips within mainstream politics.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”