Tolerance for 'relativism'?
-
I'm not posting this up for against Buddhism.. In fact, it's here because I feel this forum has a wider space for such tolerance of open discussion...
From what I've read within the other thread in here...
'Relativism' is part of the practice of Buddhism...? Then how far can one wander off in pondering... From the roots / thoughts / beliefs of Buddhism... Where would be the line beyond to cross...? Which... One would be reminded to be too far off....? And at those moments, would those who have wandered be told that they have 'strayed' in their thoughts...? And if yet so, why allow for 'relativism' in the 1st place...
-
Are those really your eyes?Originally posted by Devil1976:I'm not posting this up for against Buddhism.. In fact, it's here because I feel this forum has a wider space for such tolerance of open discussion...
From what I've read within the other thread in here...
'Relativism' is part of the practice of Buddhism...? Then how far can one wander off in pondering... From the roots / thoughts / beliefs of Buddhism... Where would be the line beyond to cross...? Which... One would be reminded to be too far off....? And at those moments, would those who have wandered be told that they have 'strayed' in their thoughts...? And if yet so, why allow for 'relativism' in the 1st place... -
Anyone can have deep respect for the Buddha and his teachings, but to become a Buddhist you will have to take refuge in the Triple Gems. There are no other ways to become a disciple of the Buddha and a Buddhist.
To be a Buddhist one has to be committed to his refuge and refuge vows, which includes not relying on external sources of refuge/taking refuge in deities and gods, since they have not transcended samsara and will not lead one towards freedom from samsara. More info: http://www.khandro.net/Buddhist_becoming.htm
As for 'relativism'? Can you explain in details? Does it mean if you think it is true, then it is true? If thats the case, of course not.. you mean what those psychotically delusional believes is true?
In fact nothing we can grasp conceptually is absolute. It can only be known through awakening. Therefore Buddhism is ultimately beyond theories. -
OK What happened to your eyes?Originally posted by casino_king:Are those really your eyes? -
where's the lovely eyes huh?Originally posted by casino_king:OK What happened to your eyes?
why gone liao? -
What eyes?Originally posted by neutral_onliner:where's the lovely eyes huh?
why gone liao? -
'Relativism' isn't part of the practice...Originally posted by Devil1976:'Relativism' is part of the practice of Buddhism...? Then how far can one wander off in pondering... From the roots / thoughts / beliefs of Buddhism... Where would be the line beyond to cross...? Which... One would be reminded to be too far off....? And at those moments, would those who have wandered be told that they have 'strayed' in their thoughts...? And if yet so, why allow for 'relativism' in the 1st place... -
Yes 'Relativism' isn't part of the practice rather it is the practise of ToleranceOriginally posted by Isis:'Relativism' isn't part of the practice...
-
Hmm... Ok... In that case, what's the tolerance level Buddhism has for 'relativism'...?Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Yes 'Relativism' isn't part of the practice rather it is the practise of Tolerance
I shall explain a bit more in my next post? -
Belief that there is not only one absolute creator to be defined but just a matter of how you look at things... That relatively different perceptions can be accepted or tolerated under the arms of buddhism...?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:As for 'relativism'? Can you explain in details? Does it mean if you think it is true, then it is true? If thats the case, of course not.. you mean what those psychotically delusional believes is true? In fact nothing we can grasp conceptually is absolute. It can only be known through awakening. Therefore Buddhism is ultimately beyond theories. -
Very sorry! I have absolutely no idea how come I forgot to check on this topic again...Originally posted by Devil1976:Belief that there is not only one absolute creator to be defined but just a matter of how you look at things... That relatively different perceptions can be accepted or tolerated under the arms of buddhism...?
In Buddhism, we already do not have a belief in an absolute creator. So what do you mean by relatively different perceptions? -
It is not a matter of tolerance. Because there is nothing for us to tolerate. You are free to believe what you want to believe. We do not say 'Since you do not believe in the things I do, you are going to hell'. But generally Buddhists should avoid the false views that Buddha listed if we want to become enlightened like the Buddha quickly.Originally posted by Devil1976:Hmm... Ok... In that case, what's the tolerance level Buddhism has for 'relativism'...?
I shall explain a bit more in my next post?
But if you claim to be a Buddhist by believing in all other weird stuff that has nothing to do with Buddhism, then obviously that is wrong and will give people misunderstanding of what Buddhism is.
But generally Buddhists who has taken refuge in the Triple Gems do not rely on other samsaric beings (beings still unenlightened/in samsara) for refuge. -
If u can hold these views for Buddhism, why can't u see Christianity is also the same. A Christian who claim to be a Christian cannot believe in all other weird stuff that has nothing to do with Christianity.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:But if you claim to be a Buddhist by believing in all other weird stuff that has nothing to do with Buddhism, then obviously that is wrong and will give people misunderstanding of what Buddhism is.
But generally Buddhists who has taken refuge in the Triple Gems do not rely on other samsaric beings (beings still unenlightened/in samsara) for refuge.
A Christian is one who believe in the triune God, salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ and belief that Christ died for our sins and was raised on the 3rd day, and his work of redemption is FINISHED on the cross. Anything else would be extra-biblical. -
Hmm thats because your definition is that whatever Jesus taught is only in the bible and 4 gospels. Some others have different views.Originally posted by laoda99:If u can hold these views for Buddhism, why can't u see Christianity is also the same. A Christian who claim to be a Christian cannot believe in all other weird stuff that has nothing to do with Christianity.
A Christian is one who believe in the triune God, salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ and belief that Christ died for our sins and was raised on the 3rd day, and his work of redemption is FINISHED on the cross. Anything else would be extra-biblical.
As for Buddhism, this was never an issue. -
That's not MY definition. This is what is found in mainstream Christianity. U wouldn't call Fa Lun Gong or Nichiren Buddhists right?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Hmm thats because your definition is that whatever Jesus taught is only in the bible and 4 gospels. Some others have different views.
As for Buddhism, this was never an issue.
Same for Christians won't call gnostics Christians. Tien Dao also believe in Christ but as a spiritual leader and it is a cult.
Buddhism do not have this problem becoz it is "ambiguous" with dogma. -
I never said those gospels are recognised by mainstream Christianity. But actually some of those gospels still cannot be ruled out.Originally posted by laoda99:That's not MY definition. This is what is found in mainstream Christianity. U wouldn't call Fa Lun Gong or Nichiren Buddhists right?
Same for Christians won't call gnostics Christians. Tien Dao also believe in Christ but as a spiritual leader and it is a cult.
Similarly nowadays I try to refrain any controversial sects as being labelled as a cult unless their behaviors really have cult elements/brainwashing, etc. -
Mainstream Christianity took the 4 gospels as authentic, while categorising the others into "apocryha". U can recognise mainstream Christianity by the views I stated in my previous posts.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I never said those gospels are recognised by mainstream Christianity. But actually some of those gospels still cannot be ruled out.
Similarly nowadays I try to refrain any controversial sects as being labelled as a cult unless their behaviors really have cult elements/brainwashing, etc.
Jehovah Witness, and mormons, are clear-cut Christian cults. Read more abt them in wikipedia if u want to know why. -
I see.. anyway I do not support JW and mormons.. heheOriginally posted by laoda99:Mainstream Christianity took the 4 gospels as authentic, while categorising the others into "apocryha". U can recognise mainstream Christianity by the views I stated in my previous posts.
Jehovah Witness, and mormons, are clear-cut Christian cults. Read more abt them in wikipedia if u want to know why. -
It's ok.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Very sorry! I have absolutely no idea how come I forgot to check on this topic again...
-
Can you explain a bit more on this part about taking refuge in other samsaric beings? Are you talking about 'teachings' only..? Or are you saying that they should not seek any help from other samsaric beings?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is not a matter of tolerance. Because there is nothing for us to tolerate. You are free to believe what you want to believe. We do not say 'Since you do not believe in the things I do, you are going to hell'. But generally Buddhists should avoid the false views that Buddha listed if we want to become enlightened like the Buddha quickly.
So it's more like a personal attainment thing?
But if you claim to be a Buddhist by believing in all other weird stuff that has nothing to do with Buddhism, then obviously that is wrong and will give people misunderstanding of what Buddhism is.
But generally Buddhists who has taken refuge in the Triple Gems do not rely on other samsaric beings (beings still unenlightened/in samsara) for refuge.
What if one day, they come across a samsaric being who give them an advice which is meaning but yet contradicts to the Buddhist's belief? (pls don't tell me this won't happen, we're just making an assumption here...) For whatever or however reason that it seems to make perfect sense to follow the samsaric being's words...
Should they really be choosing to shut their eyes (from evil?) and follow strictly to the buddhist's practice..? Or would they really be encouraged to EXPLORE -
So it's more like a personal attainment thing? Shocked
Yes all Buddhists aim to be enlightened, thats why.Originally posted by Devil1976:
First, if we go for Refuge to the Buddha we do not ever take worldly deities and gods as an ultimate source of Refuge. Worldly gods are those like Brahma, Indra, Vishnu and Shiva, or Tsens and Gyalpo and other spirits. Since they themselves are in Samsara, how can they help you to become liberated from it? So, as it is said in the Thirty-seven Practices of a Bodhisattva (by Thogme Rinpoche), one should not go for Refuge to unenlightened and worldly beings.
Can you explain a bit more on this part about taking refuge in other samsaric beings? Are you talking about 'teachings' only..? Or are you saying that they should not seek any help from other samsaric beings?
http://groups.msn.com/AryaTaraTibetanBuddhismUK/takingrefuge1.msnwWhat if one day, they come across a samsaric being who give them an advice which is meaning but yet contradicts to the Buddhist's belief? (pls don't tell me this won't happen, we're just making an assumption here...) For whatever or however reason that it seems to make perfect sense to follow the samsaric being's words...
Really up to them then.. but if contradict Buddhist belief then really have to question what is it that contradicts Buddhist belief, is it against the 8 Fold Path and is that condusive to enlightenment? If that is not condusive to enlightenment better not follow it.Should they really be choosing to shut their eyes (from evil?) and follow strictly to the buddhist's practice..? Or would they really be encouraged to EXPLORE
Up to you whether you want to explore or not.. but as a Buddhist one should ask "Is this against the 3 Dharma Seals/4 Seals?" Is it condusive to enlightenment or a hindrance to enlightenment? -
MCK stressed like what our Spore President S R Nathan also mentioned.
"Buddhism emphasis on actuality/what's significant then outside appearance/ritual. "
chinese sound better(hint concerned man
)
Truth had nothing to do with one being labelled Buddhist/ christians/jain etc.
like if u do good, u go heaven. u practice according to the 8 fold path, u become enlightened. a Buddhist who do good will still go heaven. a Jain who practice 8 fold will still attain nirvana.
gui yi or take refuge is refuge in Jue2/Awakening, Zhen4/Right/proper and Jing4/Purity. --Master Hui Neng
judge from the significant side of it.
/\ -
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm
Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry
Translated from the Pali by Ven. Soma Thera
* Preface
* A Look at the Kalama Sutta - by Bhikkhu Bodhi
The Instruction to the Kalamas
The Kalamas of Kesaputta go to see the Buddha
1. I heard thus. Once the Blessed One, while wandering in the Kosala country with a large community of bhikkhus, entered a town of the Kalama people called Kesaputta. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta: "Reverend Gotama, the monk, the son of the Sakiyans, has, while wandering in the Kosala country, entered Kesaputta. The good repute of the Reverend Gotama has been spread in this way: Indeed, the Blessed One is thus consummate, fully enlightened, endowed with knowledge and practice, sublime, knower of the worlds, peerless, guide of tamable men, teacher of divine and human beings, which he by himself has through direct knowledge understood clearly. He set forth the Dhamma, good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, possessed of meaning and the letter, and complete in everything; and he proclaims the holy life that is perfectly pure. Seeing such consummate ones is good indeed."
2. Then the Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta went to where the Blessed One was. On arriving there some paid homage to him and sat down on one side; some exchanged greetings with him and after the ending of cordial memorable talk, sat down on one side; some saluted him raising their joined palms and sat down on one side; some announced their name and family and sat down on one side; some without speaking, sat down on one side.
The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha
3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmins, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmins too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmins spoke the truth and which falsehood?"
The criterion for rejection
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
Greed, hate, and delusion
5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his harm, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" - "Bad, venerable sir" - "Blamable or not blamable?" - "Blamable, venerable sir." - "Censured or praised by the wise?" - "Censured, venerable sir." - "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" - "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."
9. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them. -
Absence of greed, hate, and delusion
11, "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his benefit, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being not given to greed, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by greed, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commitadultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
12. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his benefit, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being not given to hate, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by hate, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
13. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" - "For his benefit, venerable sir." - "Kalamas, being not given to delusion, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by delusion, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" - "Yes, venerable sir."
14. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" - "Good, venerable sir." - "Blamable or not blamable?" - "Not blamable, venerable sir." - "Censured or praised by the wise?" - "Praised, venerable sir." - "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to benefit and happiness, or not? Or how does it strike you?" - "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness. Thus it strikes us here."
15. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
The Four Exalted Dwellings
16. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who in this way is devoid of coveting, devoid of ill will, undeluded, clearly comprehending and mindful, dwells, having pervaded, with the thought of amity, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of amity that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of compassion, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of compassion that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of gladness, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of gladness that is free of hate or malice.
"He lives, having pervaded, with the thought of equanimity, one quarter; likewise the second; likewise the third; likewise the fourth; so above, below, and across; he dwells, having pervaded because of the existence in it of all living beings, everywhere, the entire world, with the great, exalted, boundless thought of equanimity that is free of hate or malice.
The Four Solaces
17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, four solaces are found.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
"Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today."
Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata
Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65 -
Hi im not an enlightened being..
However, i just want to say that dharma teachings are Profound.
It is not like memorising or understanding physic concepts or maths.
It is rather different.
Venerable spend time or even devote their life to learn, understand and realise Dharma. When they are qualified to teach us, human being like us will of course feel more comfortable and safer to learn from a qualified person. This is why Buddhist are encouraged to seek refuge in Triple Treasures
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha ( Monks and nuns). Sangha are there to guide us.
However, even if we learn from a venerable, we are encouraged to learn to explore the teaching ourselves so as to clear our doubts. This enhance learnings. Sometime we don't know whether the venerable or dharma lay teacher is truly enlightened, there are people who advocate false dharma... it could not be wise to accept these teachings blindly right if we don't understand ourselves?
Buddhist is free to believe in what they want. What type of strict practise you are refering to? It's very much free-will from my understanding.