wat Buddhism is All about
-
Ajivaka Sutta
To the Fatalists' Student
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi at Ghosita's monastery. Then a certain householder, a disciple of the Fatalists (Ajivakas), went to him and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Ananda, "Among us, sir, whose Dhamma is well-taught? Who has practiced well in this world? Who in the world is well-gone?"
"In that case, householder, I will question you in return. Answer as you see fit. Now, what do you think: those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — is their Dhamma well-taught or not? Or how does this strike you?"
"Sir, those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. That's how it strikes me."
"And what do you think, householder: those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — have they practiced well in this world or not? Or how does this strike you?"
"Sir, those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — they have practiced well in this world. That's how it strikes me."
"And what do you think, householder: those whose passion is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising; those whose aversion is abandoned... whose delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising: are they, in this world, well-gone or not? Or how does this strike you?"
"Sir, those whose passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising: they, in this world, are well-gone. That's how it strikes me."
"In this way, householder, you have answered yourself: 'Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. Those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — they have practiced well in this world. Those whose passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising: they, in this world, are well-gone.'"
"How amazing, sir. How astounding, that there is neither extolling of one's own Dhamma nor deprecation of another's, but just the teaching of the Dhamma in its proper sphere, speaking to the point without mentioning oneself.
"You, venerable sir, teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of passion... aversion... delusion. Your Dhamma is well-taught. You have practiced for the abandoning of passion... aversion... delusion. You have practiced well in this world. Your passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. You, in this world, are well-gone.
"Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Buddha for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.072.than.html
/\ -
Sadhu Sadhu
-
therefore it don't have to be labeled "Buddhism". more importantly is the content and practice.
as long as it teach the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their teaching (or school, or "religion") are well-taught.
/\ -
Yes, the Buddha did not establish "Buddhism" as a religion, he merely taught the Dharma leading to Liberation and established a Sangha (monastic community) for the propagation of this truth.Originally posted by sinweiy:therefore it don't have to be labeled "Buddhism". more importantly is the content and practice.
as long as it teach the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their teaching (or school, or "religion") are well-taught.
/\ -
Then why bother to teach it? It is to establish a religion.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes, the Buddha did not establish "Buddhism" as a religion, he merely taught the Dharma leading to Liberation and established a Sangha (monastic community) for the propagation of this truth. -
Religion can mean different thing. If you mean worshipping a supreme deity, then nope.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then why bother to teach it? It is to establish a religion.
Buddhism is just like a large organisation of contemplatives trying to discover spiritual truths themselves by conducting the experiments that Buddha instructed. -
But then again, no experiments are conducted.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Religion can mean different thing. If you mean worshipping a supreme deity, then nope.
Buddhism is just like a large organisation of contemplatives trying to discover spiritual truths themselves by conducting the experiments that Buddha instructed.
-
Since Buddhism is about spirituality, experiments must be conducted through spiritual techniques, otherwise there will be no real benefits.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But then again, no experiments are conducted.
Don't mix physics with art. -
physics is part of reality mah...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Since Buddhism is about spirituality, experiments must be conducted through spiritual techniques, otherwise there will be no real benefits.
Don't mix physics with art. -
There was no reason at all for the Buddha to introduce another religion because at that time 2551 years ago there were already about 62 religious cults in India alone. Since the existing religions during his time could not provide the answers to his questions he decided not to use the ingredients or concepts of these religions to introduce what he himself had realised.
The teaching of the Buddha does not fall into the category of an established religion is that there is no room for “heresy” in its system. A heresy is something that challenges the “word of god.” The Buddha freely invited both his followers and his opponents to challenge his teachings from every possible angle so that there would be no room for any kind of doubt. True to his injunctions his followers have argued about his doctrines and even founded different schools of Buddhism according to their understanding, without violence or bloodshed. -
Physics is dealing with relative truths, not spiritual or ultimate reality.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:physics is part of reality mah...
Longchen's article: The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
As Beings, the conventional mind only sees interpretations of Ultimate Reality.
Why is this so? This is because, firstly, sensory data are interpretations (manifested form) of reality. Why are they interpretations and are not the direct experiencing of it (reality)? To illustrate this point let's consider the perception of 2 persons: a color-blind person and one with normal vision. The color-blind person may see images differently from one who is not. So... who is seeing the truth? None. Both are seeing interpretations (manifested form) of the truth. Likewise animals may see and sense things differently from humans.
Sensory data that are being perceived are in turn cognated by the conventional mind. Again, the conventional mind sees interpretations collected by sensory perception. From the sensory data, the conventional mind conceives the information into things, environments and people, etc.
Here's a simplified example to illustrate this point:
By differentiating the changes in colours on the vision sight, the conventional mind cognate edges. Perceiving that the edges are connected, an enclosed area becomes recognised. Next, the enclosed area become perceived as objects, things, entities...
The conventional mind can only theorizes from its interpretations. Science is based on the theory and concepts derived from the conventional mind.
Science is just that... conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of Ultimate Reality... But it can only theorizes using concepts.
To truly experience Ultimate Reality...one must go beyond thinking (which is theorising) about Reality. We must experience it directly.
From the way that I have written, some people might have the misconceptions that the Source(Reality) is separated from us. This is clearly not so. It is only the conventional discriminating mind that think in terms of separation and duality. However, the conventional discriminating mind itself is not an entity, but is just the dualistic function of cognition.
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading.
For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading. -
Well saidOriginally posted by neutral_onliner:There was no reason at all for the Buddha to introduce another religion because at that time 2551 years ago there were already about 62 religious cults in India alone. Since the existing religions during his time could not provide the answers to his questions he decided not to use the ingredients or concepts of these religions to introduce what he himself had realised.
The teaching of the Buddha does not fall into the category of an established religion is that there is no room for “heresy” in its system. A heresy is something that challenges the “word of god.” The Buddha freely invited both his followers and his opponents to challenge his teachings from every possible angle so that there would be no room for any kind of doubt. True to his injunctions his followers have argued about his doctrines and even founded different schools of Buddhism according to their understanding, without violence or bloodshed.
Just to add, the different schools are not really different doctrines. They just have different emphasis on techniques and teachings, and perhaps uses different ways of teaching and explaining the same truth. All Buddhists teachings never leaves the 3 dharma seals/4 seals. -
and the topic title reminds me of what am i doing here in this world all about.
it's dreamlike, interdependant, impermanent, inherently non-existence (inspite of daily livelihood which is the relative reality for the temporary physical body & needs). is that what buddhism all about? the buddha's teaching is profound and to practice to perfection takes a long time. sorry frankly, i didn't read through the thread. and sorry i'm not very well versed in concepts. i have a simple mind and i live in contentment, and i wish to reach out to beings with compassion and loving kindness. do i sound that fake or vague? well, that is buddhism to me. hhmm... popping up the question of what is buddhism is like asking "who am i". if a newbie or and veterant stops me on a street and ask me what is buddhism then how am i going to answer him? is there any short and simple reply? buddhism is everything and also nothing. buddhism is science of mind. buddism is the 3 dharma seals. buddhism is also sitting by the pond and watching the fish swimming here and there.
hehee... just some thoughts. -
Here's another short an simple answer:Originally posted by paperflower:and the topic title reminds me of what am i doing here in this world all about.
it's dreamlike, interdependant, impermanent, inherently non-existence (inspite of daily livelihood which is the relative reality for the temporary physical body & needs). is that what buddhism all about? the buddha's teaching is profound and to practice to perfection takes a long time. sorry frankly, i didn't read through the thread. and sorry i'm not very well versed in concepts. i have a simple mind and i live in contentment, and i wish to reach out to beings with compassion and loving kindness. do i sound that fake or vague? well, that is buddhism to me. hhmm... popping up the question of what is buddhism is like asking "who am i". if a newbie or and veterant stops me on a street and ask me what is buddhism then how am i going to answer him? is there any short and simple reply? buddhism is everything and also nothing. buddhism is science of mind. buddism is the 3 dharma seals. buddhism is also sitting by the pond and watching the fish swimming here and there.
hehee... just some thoughts.
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind -- this is the teaching of the Buddhas." - Dhammapada 183 -
ManÂ’s untrained mind is responsible for all the troubles, calamities, disturbances, unfavourable circumstances and even the changes of elements and matter. Conversely manÂ’s mind can change unfortunate situations in the world and also can make it a peaceful, prosperous and happy place for all to live.Originally posted by january:when do buddhist expect that thw world will be peaceful.
what sort of world will it be like when we reach that peacefulness?
how will the government be run. how will countries work? how will environmental problems be shared?
The violent world and environmental problems are ills of our world created by human beings, it is within our power to solve them. Both the problem and the solution lie with us. A fundamental part of Buddhist teachings is the protection of nature, and that humans have the capacity for creation as well as destruction of the fragile balance of the earthÂ’s environment. Thus Buddhist teachings show that the solutions to environmental problems depend on the actions and awareness human beings.
Buddhist teachings tell us that hatred and aversion, like their opposites desire and greed, all spring from a fundamental ignorance. That ignorance is our mistaken notion of our own permanent, independent existence. In ignorance, we see ourselves as separate beings, unconnected with others. Blinded to our true state of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is this basic ignorance that keeps us divided. Only practice that leads to overcoming such ignorance will help to free us from the prisons we make for ourselves and for others
The BuddhaÂ’s advice is that we should be free from these distractions if we want to experience bliss. This release must however be obtained by our own effort and come from within ourselves.The quality of life depends not upon external development or material progress, but upon the inner development of peace and happiness.If we integrate Buddha's teachings into our daily life, we will be able to solve all our inner problems and attain a truly peaceful mind. Without inner peace, outer peace is impossible. We all wish for world peace, but world peace will never be achieved unless we first establish peace within our own minds -
Another shorter one:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Here's another short an simple answer:
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind -- this is the teaching of the Buddhas." - Dhammapada 183
"Buddha teaches what suffering is , and the way out of suffering." -
Originally posted by cycle:Another shorter one:
"Buddha teaches what suffering is , and the way out of suffering."
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It is so just like to describe reality as not part of reality. I rest my case of you not recognising logic.
Physics is dealing with relative truths, not spiritual or ultimate reality.
Longchen's article: The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
[b]The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
As Beings, the conventional mind only sees interpretations of Ultimate Reality.
Why is this so? This is because, firstly, sensory data are interpretations (manifested form) of reality. Why are they interpretations and are not the direct experiencing of it (reality)? To illustrate this point let's consider the perception of 2 persons: a color-blind person and one with normal vision. The color-blind person may see images differently from one who is not. So... who is seeing the truth? None. Both are seeing interpretations (manifested form) of the truth. Likewise animals may see and sense things differently from humans.
Sensory data that are being perceived are in turn cognated by the conventional mind. Again, the conventional mind sees interpretations collected by sensory perception. From the sensory data, the conventional mind conceives the information into things, environments and people, etc.
Here's a simplified example to illustrate this point:
By differentiating the changes in colours on the vision sight, the conventional mind cognate edges. Perceiving that the edges are connected, an enclosed area becomes recognised. Next, the enclosed area become perceived as objects, things, entities...
The conventional mind can only theorizes from its interpretations. Science is based on the theory and concepts derived from the conventional mind.
Science is just that... conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of Ultimate Reality... But it can only theorizes using concepts.
To truly experience Ultimate Reality...one must go beyond thinking (which is theorising) about Reality. We must experience it directly.
From the way that I have written, some people might have the misconceptions that the Source(Reality) is separated from us. This is clearly not so. It is only the conventional discriminating mind that think in terms of separation and duality. However, the conventional discriminating mind itself is not an entity, but is just the dualistic function of cognition.
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading.
For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.[/b] -
Here's mine:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
"Mu." -
I told you many many times. Description is always about RELATIVE truths. But if you cling to them, then you become like the blind men called to touch the elephants -- each one of them say different things about the elephants based on their perceptions and descriptions. Get it?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It is so just like to describe reality as not part of reality. I rest my case of you not recognising logic.
Buddha tells the story of a raja who had six blind men gathered together to examine the elephant.
"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'[2]
They assert the elephant is like a pot (head), winnowing basket (ear), ploughshare (tusk), plough (trunk), grainery (body), pillar (foot), mortar (back), pestle (tail), or brush (tip of the tail).
The men come to blows, which delights the raja. The raja says:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[2] -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
What if a blind man has felt all over the whole elephant? He would have described all of the above qualities.
I told you many many times. Description is always about RELATIVE truths. But if you cling to them, then you become like the blind men called to touch the elephants -- each one of them say different things about the elephants based on their perceptions and descriptions. Get it?
[b]Buddha tells the story of a raja who had six blind men gathered together to examine the elephant.
"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'[2]
They assert the elephant is like a pot (head), winnowing basket (ear), ploughshare (tusk), plough (trunk), grainery (body), pillar (foot), mortar (back), pestle (tail), or brush (tip of the tail).
The men come to blows, which delights the raja. The raja says:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[2][/b] -
The point is you cannot describe elephant in the ultimate sense in terms of any particular description (i.e pot, etc)Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What if a blind man has felt all over the whole elephant? He would have described all of the above qualities.
There are uncountable interpretations of the same thing from many perspective but that is relative truth, relative perspective.
All these relative truths too are empty: they are of the nature of the 3 dharma seals, they are denpendent co arisen and conditioned arising. -
i agree. i think the flaw of buddhism teachings is that it does not have lab equpiment.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But then again, no experiments are conducted.
i think buddhism while its teaching on inner peace is good, other schools teach inner peace though also, is insufficient for a good life.
Inner peace, dun care buddhism or who teach it, or emotional maturity, good self esteem, from psychology , or laymen term of mature. -
As I told Herzog previously:Originally posted by january:i agree. i think the flaw of buddhism teachings is that it does not have lab equpiment.
-----
This is an example of getting stuck in the rational level of consciousnessOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And don't get stuck in the Buddhist idea of unlimited conciousness as there isn't any. There has never been any new Atheist movement, just science based on facts and physical experiments. If it cannot be physically proven, then it is still pseudo science.
Trying to prove something not limited to physical laws by physical laws - this is the pseudo science based on the assumption that only what one perceives through one's senses can be true.
Quantum physics will eventually have a higher understanding of our consciousness. As a matter of fact it is already very supportive.
And when you're dealing with things like Consciousness, you can't just use physical laws to study it, because consciousness is not confined to it.
Chalmers advocates the necessity for a new theory, distinct from physical laws, to close the explanatory gap2 and to solve the hard problems of consciousness. Chalmers argues that a complete final theory of the universe will need to establish consciousness as a fundamental, irreducible component. So 'physically proven' is irrelevant here!
Of course, you can prove someone is conscious by checking his brian waves, that's about it. And yes, there are brainwaves correlates with deep meditative states even that of Causal and Nondual (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4&mode=related&search= where Ken Wilber demonstrates himself entering into Causal, Nondual and other meditative states and its correlates to brainwave activities) However, Consciousness is Consciousness, Brain waves is Brain waves and they are a different 'element'.
But before that, do your practise and meditation, find out for yourself.
See Thusness's reply to Casino_King:
There are countless experiential accounts by contemplatives, mystics and Buddhists that describe the same kind of transcendental insight ever since several thousands of years ago. Similarly because of these accounts it is therefore possible that we may reach these insights ourselves by doing spiritual practise.Originally posted by Thusness:Hi Casino_King,
It is inadequate to use rational thought to understand spiritual matters. Logic is only that branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning. It does not deal with all types of thinking such as remembering (Recalling past life included), dreaming (Dream Yoga), day dreaming, neurosis, learning..etc. These other types of thinking are the job of psychology and parapsychology.
Although evidence is needed to serve as a base for inductive and deductive reasoning, full proof evidence to arrive at a certain conclusion is not necessary in logical analysis. In daily life, not all reasoning attempts to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of a given conclusion and more often than not, conclusive evidence cannot be produced. For pragmatic ground, we merely want the evidence we arrived at be 'well founded'.
As human, sleeping and dreaming took up pretty much percentage of our life. We are not just a rational being, to understand human, we have to deal with all these matters with spiritual issues included.
Like I said to you previously, "Since Buddhism is about spirituality, experiments must be conducted through spiritual techniques, otherwise there will be no real benefits." That is what is truly useful.
Also see the limits of current classical science (my 32522th time mentioning) in dealing with (ultimate) Reality: http://www.dreamdatum.com/science-limitation.html
Also see: Ken Wilber - Spirituality and the 3 Strands of Deep Science -- watch the whole thing ESPECIALLY after 6:00 -- Spirituality IS a form of science but don't mix up biology with physics, even though they are interrelated. -
we can use our own physical being as lab equipment, isnt this the whole point of practising?Originally posted by january:i agree. i think the flaw of buddhism teachings is that it does not have lab equpiment.
i think buddhism while its teaching on inner peace is good, other schools teach inner peace though also, is insufficient for a good life.
Inner peace, dun care buddhism or who teach it, or emotional maturity, good self esteem, from psychology , or laymen term of mature.