Is this true about Buddhism and its followers?
-
Yup, another issue I like to address is the predominant use of Chinese in Buddhist teachings. This would indirectly isolate or keep out many out there from making the first step to want to understand Buddhism.Originally posted by RiverFoX:Seriously i dun feel the need to "recruit" followers...
it's either u believe it or u dun...
if u dun have the heart to believe it, no matter hw hard ppl try to talk u into it, u still won't believe it.
hw often do u see budhist teachings in english language?
look at hw many families r communicatin in english and compare it to the books of budhist teachings and the christian bible, which is easier to read? chinese characters or english words?
it may be true dat in church when u're lost ppl come n tok to u, does dat mean their religion taught them dat? or does it mean dat their social skill is better?
u can't compare them like them.
i'm a budhist and i'm proud of it.
This is not to say all Buddhist teachings should now be completely translated into English, but let's try new ways, and improve on existing ones, to make Buddhist teachings more accessible to English speaking people. We need translators, interpreters, for example, who may or may not be Buddhists. The emphasis is on bringing out the true essence of the teachings.
Your concern about English speaking families and their future religious inclinations is the same as mine.
Buddhists can do the same as Christians, not because we want to convert any non-believers, but guiding people when they're lost, is one of most natural things a fellow human being and any Buddhist should do. It's not about comparisons, it's about learning good things that we can observe in others, regardless of religion or race. -
Venerable Master Chin Kung once mentioned in a vcd which is about answering Buddhist questions from the general public and Buddhists, that it is true the Buddhist faith around the world is getting weaker, despite the numbers increasing in the West or any parts of the world. This is also said in relation to the strong Christian and Muslim faith throughout the world. Their members are close-knitted. They maintain consistent local and overseas links with one another of the same faith.
Buddhists movements or organisations around the world generally respond only when asked or approached. Proactiveness is seen by most, if not all Buddhists around the world, as being over-zealous or attached to the ego, and would therefore be tantamount to defying the Buddha's teachings of non-attachment and sui1 yuan2 (going with the flow).
Although our emphasis should not be on numbers, but these numbers do tell us something important in return, if we are willing to consider them more in depth, more objectively.
Master Chin Kung also admitted that it is true that Buddhists staff or Sangha members are rather cold and indifferent towards those who visit their temples or Buddhist organisations. He confirmed the letter writer's impression of Buddhist temples and Buddhist followers.
I forgot which vcd it was, so don't pm me about it. But if I do get to see it again, will let you guys know. -
There's another vcd by Chin Kung, when he was questiond by buddhists should they study other sutras, Chin Kung was quick to tell them not to divert their attentions but focus only on Amitabha.Originally posted by Spnw07:Venerable Master Chin Kung once mentioned in a vcd which is about answering Buddhist questions from the general public and Buddhists, that it is true the Buddhist faith around the world is getting weaker, despite the numbers increasing in the West or any parts of the world. This is also said in relation to the strong Christian and Muslim faith throughout the world. Their members are close-knitted. They maintain consistent local and overseas links with one another of the same faith.
Buddhists movements or organisations around the world generally respond only when asked or approached. Proactiveness is seen by most, if not all Buddhists around the world, as being over-zealous or attached to the ego, and would therefore be tantamount to defying the Buddha's teachings of non-attachment and sui1 yuan2 (going with the flow).
Although our emphasis should not be on numbers, but these numbers do tell us something important in return, if we are willing to consider them more in depth, more objectively.
Master Chin Kung also admitted that it is true that Buddhists staff or Sangha members are rather cold and indifferent towards those who visit their temples or Buddhist organisations. He confirmed the letter writer's impression of Buddhist temples and Buddhist followers.
I forgot which vcd it was, so don't pm me about it. But if I do get to see it again, will let you guys know.
Another audience asked about where is the heaven as described by Bible and Quran, our dear Chin Kung actually said they are in 'part of the pureland where Amitabha resides'.
It seems that he suggests that buddhists shouldn't be studying deeper and broader of the Dhamma while fast to embrace other followers of religions.
It seems to me that he would have undermine buddhists affect in understanding the Dhamma while discarding the differences or even some fundamentals opposites of monotheistic beliefs and confusing people altogether. -
I believe that the certain christianity's doctrine does have an impact on how the christians behave when meeting new people. Being a good friend and neighbour (just for an example), from such, it can be derived into a social skill sets for the christians to apply when meeting new people.Originally posted by RiverFoX:Seriously i dun feel the need to "recruit" followers...
it's either u believe it or u dun...
if u dun have the heart to believe it, no matter hw hard ppl try to talk u into it, u still won't believe it.
hw often do u see budhist teachings in english language?
look at hw many families r communicatin in english and compare it to the books of budhist teachings and the christian bible, which is easier to read? chinese characters or english words?
it may be true dat in church when u're lost ppl come n tok to u, does dat mean their religion taught them dat? or does it mean dat their social skill is better?
u can't compare them like them.
i'm a budhist and i'm proud of it.
Personally, I find that chinese words are easier to understand than english. I am from a chinese mahayana base before exploring the other traditions. To have compare which is easier to read, it may not necessary be so that bible is an easier option. The bible would have metaphors or analogies to be ponder upon and shouldn't be take off likely.
In fact there are already many english buddhists books available in the market. But as usual, the lack of marketing and image! While buddhism likes to talk about death lah, suffering lah.
Christianity teaches you how to live a life of purpose and fulfillment! Yes and I know Buddhism has such things as well but they are seldom highlighted. -
Soka recites Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (known as the Daimoku). It's the jap language for "Homage to the Lotus Sutra'. It is deviated from Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shoshu itself is deviated from Nichiren Shu.Originally posted by Spnw07:Soka, actually has its roots based in Japan and chants nam myo hyo renge kyo (the title of the Flower sutra) as the main prayer practice for all its practioners.
In fact, I first heard about Soka when I was in primary school, cos my schoolmate's mom was and still is an active Soka member.
I'm actually concerned about mainstream Buddhism, as in Thervada and Mahayana schools for example.
Doctrinal issues aside, Soka is a successful model that is worth discussing about. Soka has activities and creates its own culture, rather than following the usual tradition that has been passed down. This gives the followers in soka a sense of identity. This identity is important as it will give an extra dose of self confidence.
Though not all people from soka knows exactly what their teachings is about, at least for them, reciting the Daimoku (the sacred title) allows them to draws strength from within, giving them confidence and blessed by the Triplegems and various devas. And this simply Daimoku unites people from soka from all over the world. They have a common thing to focus on.
Whereas the norm buddhists are too diverted in their focus. Though they will claim to have the same teachings, but they have very diversed attention. Some will Amitabha, some medicine buddha, some don't this pusa or that pusa. There isn't a unified icon of faith to build on.
Theravada and Mahayana each has their own individual cultural problems to tackle with. It will be good that if you are genuine interested in such topics, to have read more on the history of how buddhism is spread. -
It is not just a matter of recruiting of course, that is just one part of it.Originally posted by RiverFoX:Seriously i dun feel the need to "recruit" followers...
it's either u believe it or u dun...
if u dun have the heart to believe it, no matter hw hard ppl try to talk u into it, u still won't believe it.
hw often do u see budhist teachings in english language?
look at hw many families r communicatin in english and compare it to the books of budhist teachings and the christian bible, which is easier to read? chinese characters or english words?
it may be true dat in church when u're lost ppl come n tok to u, does dat mean their religion taught them dat? or does it mean dat their social skill is better?
u can't compare them like them.
i'm a budhist and i'm proud of it.
The most important part is to impart them dharma knowledge and know how to apply these dharma knowledge in their lives, how to practise the dharma.
There are a lot of people out there who are not religious, not Christians, and not Buddhists. Or perhaps they are 'IC-Buddhist' but aren't Buddhist (didn't take refuge in triple gems), and did not know the dharma...
So it is also not just a matter of believing or not believing, I think there are many out there who 'believe in Buddha' but don't know much about the teachings, much less how to practise the teachings.
It is because of the lack of dharma knowledge among the younger generation (like Isis said earlier if you tok about Buddhism ppl will usually have the impression of being 'cheena' as well as the confusion of buddhism with some folk practises) that Buddhism is not growing that fast. -
I agree with you on the second last paragraphs about norm buddhists. It is my opinion that there isn't a unified icon of faith to build on for a free-thinker or any members of the public who has heard more of Christianity and other religions than the real Buddhism without many different types of meditation and praying techniques, burning of paper offerings.etc.Originally posted by yamizi:Soka recites Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (known as the Daimoku). It's the jap language for "Homage to the Lotus Sutra'. It is deviated from Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shoshu itself is deviated from Nichiren Shu.
Doctrinal issues aside, Soka is a successful model that is worth discussing about. Soka has activities and creates its own culture, rather than following the usual tradition that has been passed down. This gives the followers in soka a sense of identity. This identity is important as it will give an extra dose of self confidence.
Though not all people from soka knows exactly what their teachings is about, at least for them, reciting the Daimoku (the sacred title) allows them to draws strength from within, giving them confidence and blessed by the Triplegems and various devas. And this simply Daimoku unites people from soka from all over the world. They have a common thing to focus on.
Whereas the norm buddhists are too diverted in their focus. Though they will claim to have the same teachings, but they have very diversed attention. Some will Amitabha, some medicine buddha, some don't this pusa or that pusa. There isn't a unified icon of faith to build on.
Theravada and Mahayana each has their own individual cultural problems to tackle with. It will be good that if you are genuine interested in such topics, to have read more on the history of how buddhism is spread.
I do intend to read more about how Buddhism is spread. Have been doing for some time before I came into sgforums. -
from an english speaking family(3bros who speaks eng with me, only i speak chinese to my mum) and weak in chinese language since primary sch, i find it hard to read chinese characters, it may even take me one whole day of just writin 1page of compo just bcos i need to use the chinese dictionary all the time to find the words. but of cos i learn abt budhism through listening from ppl's teachings, be it chinese or english.Originally posted by yamizi:I believe that the certain christianity's doctrine does have an impact on how the christians behave when meeting new people. Being a good friend and neighbour (just for an example), from such, it can be derived into a social skill sets for the christians to apply when meeting new people.
Personally, I find that chinese words are easier to understand than english. I am from a chinese mahayana base before exploring the other traditions. To have compare which is easier to read, it may not necessary be so that bible is an easier option. The bible would have metaphors or analogies to be ponder upon and shouldn't be take off likely.
In fact there are already many english buddhists books available in the market. But as usual, the lack of marketing and image! While buddhism likes to talk about death lah, suffering lah.
Christianity teaches you how to live a life of purpose and fulfillment! Yes and I know Buddhism has such things as well but they are seldom highlighted.
my knowledge of budhism is very limited, but i practise wat i learn from it in everyday life. -
I have made this statement before: it is easy to be a Christian than a Buddhist. And Christiainity has been so commercialised (esp. in USA). It is a mass consumption thingy - like cigarette!
Th appealling part of Christianity is its simplicity and saleability. Don't you think it is easier to sell this concept: if you've done wrong, just believe in Christ that he died for your sin, and you are saved from hell? And you have everlasting life in the kingdom of god!
For Buddhism you begin with the 4 Noble Truth, and the first is: There is Suffering - straightaway, many will associate it with negativism! Moreover, you don't have everlasting life, you get reborn as hungry ghosts, animals and whatever! -
Lol for those who have common sense, they should know that (no matter what religion they're from) doing bad stuffs is well.. a bad thing. If they really believe that there's someone/ some god who can so call 'take away your sin' or something & save you from hell after they did all the evil sh!t, they are absolutely outta their mind.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Th appealling part of Christianity is its simplicity and saleability. Don't you think it is easier to sell this concept: if you've done wrong, just believe in Christ that he died for your sin, and you are saved from hell? And you have everlasting life in the kingdom of god!
& if people joins that particular religion out of the fear of going to hell, they are definitely joining for the wrong reasons & there is nothing to be proud of even if you have 100 million members
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
Checked online dictionary. Self-Cultivation in short means, The process of educating your own mind. I don't see what is so selfish about that & from what i read, he seriously needs some Self-Cultivation
[b]I recently had a talk with my cousin, who's a Christian. I asked him for his impression of Buddhism or the Buddhist community (lay man).
He mentioned the following:
1) Buddhism talks about self-cultivation and seems to be rather selfish.
[/i] -
A common reason that I came across, about coming from an English speaking background.Originally posted by RiverFoX:from an english speaking family(3bros who speaks eng with me, only i speak chinese to my mum) and weak in chinese language since primary sch, i find it hard to read chinese characters, it may even take me one whole day of just writin 1page of compo just bcos i need to use the chinese dictionary all the time to find the words. but of cos i learn abt budhism through listening from ppl's teachings, be it chinese or english.
my knowledge of budhism is very limited, but i practise wat i learn from it in everyday life.
Probably I should stop writing since my parents only speak mandarin and teochew to me.
If you're so so genuine interested, you'll do whatever you can to get that access. This is what I would have meant. -
don't understandOriginally posted by yamizi:A common reason that I came across, about coming from an English speaking background.
Probably I should stop writing since my parents only speak mandarin and teochew to me.
If you're so so genuine interested, you'll do whatever you can to get that access. This is what I would have meant.
-
It depends on the condition and the wisdom to comprehend it.. regarding of its form!
Singaporean does receive a Bilingual education, why are we making excuses not to learn Dharma because it is in a in a language we do not like? -
Not like we do not want to learn dharma because the law that it teaches does not fit into reality of Singapore.Originally posted by Isis:It depends on the condition and the wisdom to comprehend it.. regarding of its form!
Singaporean does receive a Bilingual education, why are we making excuses not to learn Dharma because it is in a in a language we do not like? -
Your perception is your reality.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Not like we do not want to learn dharma because the law that it teaches does not fit into reality of Singapore.
My perception is my reality.
So what is reality ? -
It is a language that is fit for all sentient beings with intelligence in the whole universe for the end of their sufferings.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Not like we do not want to learn dharma because the law that it teaches does not fit into reality of Singapore. -
Interesting quote there, Isis. Indeed what is reality, if everybody's perception becomes part or maybe all that is real to them?Originally posted by Isis:Your perception is your reality.
My perception is my reality.
So what is reality ?
Something that I ponder over or contemplate about quite often. -
The reality is: Your reality versus My reality, really!Originally posted by Isis:Your perception is your reality.
My perception is my reality.
So what is reality ? -
http://www.yogadarshana.com/pages/8.htmOriginally posted by Isis:Your perception is your reality.
My perception is my reality.
So what is reality ?
all knowledge is a projection, a limited approximation, however pragmatically useful it may be. this recognition is priceless. for knowledge is at the root of all prejudice. accordingly it is at the root of fanatacism, and all ideological warfare and terrorism.
the inherent vulnerability of unarmoured bipeds with little strength or speed is compensated for with the sophisticated nature of the cortex. the great survival asset of being human is intelligence. the ability to extract pertinent information from masses of environmental data.
in order for vibrations to be recognised as signalling an earthquake, snarls to be identified with a tiger, human beings depend totally on their judegment, operating through conceptualisation, or knowledge. this is a prciceless capability. yet it has its price: a subtle, imperceptible arrogance. our collective survival has depended deeply on our ability to conceive and perceive accurately. we totally trust our perceptions, and we have had to.(with many thanks to Mike Abrahams)
yet, though they may be pragmatically trustworthy, they are not reliable as determinants of truth. the mind is not capable of genuine 'objectivity'. it always creates nothing more than an impression, which is always subjective, partial and therefore incomplete. our so called knowledge is nothing more than a point of view, an opinion, a projection. of course, human survival proves, that this is often pragamtically valid. nevertheless it does not lend knowledge any absolute authority. though knowledge so easily assumes it.
all human knowledge, thought, perception is a projection, a perspective. a perspective that is totally conditioned by the nature of the perceptual mechanism and its specific history. when this is deeply recognised it is no longer possible to cling tightly to our opinions, beliefs, knowledge, perceptions. not is it possible to be offended, or opressed by those of others. it is therefor no longer possible to wage ideological warfare, however subtle or local. (even with oneself).
http://www.yogadarshana.com/pages/206.htm
objects are the ingredients of perception, the population of the mind. an object is always an act of perception. the act of perception creates the object in the form of its perceived characteristics, which depend on the nature and conditioning of the perceptual mechanism. therefore any object is neither always nor exactly the same for different perceivers. an object then is always an invention, a symbol of that to which the perceptual mechanism is actually exposed. that which the perceptual mechanism perceives is a perceptual construct. an object, as it is perceived is then always an act of perception: it has no inherent, absolute nature that is encapsulated or defined by its perceived, or perceptible, characteristics.
things, phenomena, objects have no inherent selfexistence. they are perceptual projections. they are extracted from their source as acts of perception. their extraction takes place in the perceptual mechanism, their existence is only in the mind(s). objectness is the projected perceptual grid of individuated phenomena extracted perceptually from the inherently unravellable matrix of prakriti which is their source. prakriti is that to which the perceptual mechanism is exposed. objects are that which the perceptual mechansim delivers to the mind.
projections take place in the perceptual split, within which the perceptual field of undifferentiate awareness has been broken into a grid based on the subject and its objects, within which objects appear to independently interact on one another. when this split resolves, and objects and their subjects are no longer being extracted from the singular field of awareness no objects are being created. pure awareness is always and only objectless. objects appear as awareness-of the breaking of the perceptual field. a perception, an object, is a conditioning of pure awareness into awareness-of, or a perception.
during meditation the transition from dhyana to sabijasamadhi clarifies the nature of objects. the elucidation of the nonseparateness of an object from the totality of manifestation undermines the very process of perceiving separate individual objects. objectness is a function of perception, it is not the nature of that which is. it requires the proliferation and differentiation of perceptible qualities and characteristics. in sabijaamadhi these constituent characteristics and their underlying qualities are elucidated or seen through (paridrsto). This seeing is neither visual nor cognitive. It is a function of awareness or "citisakti" (consciousnessenergy) and functions as prajna.
objects and their constituent factors when seen through lose their conditioned significance. phenomena, which are nothing other than perceptual acts, are no longer taken out of their underlying context as separate objects in an objectgrid. there is no longer a dissecting of the web of manifestation into defined objects, actions, events and situations. awareness-of becomes simply Pure Awareness within which awareness-of (objects) comes and goes. this coming and going is seen to be a play of the mind, a projection based on the perceptual mechanism.
as the conditioned activity of the mind (vrtti) slows down its underlying context and source: citisakti is naturally uncovered. the slowing down of conditioned perception renders the mind transparent (empty of objects). through that transparency the ground within which perception spontaneously arises comes to the fore. the background has merged with the foreground, the foreground with the background. the perception of objects can and will still occur should action require it. but the tendency to regard any objects, actions, or events as independent and autonomous from the flow of totality, which is thereby overlooked, is being undermined. instead objects, such as they are, are experienced as being emanations of the totality specific only and momentarily to definable coordinates of space and time. however these co-ordinates are only functions of their definition as such. they also are functions of perception. "unconditional samadhi undermines the sense of self as the projected play of perception and time cease". as objects resolve into the mandalic web of citisakti, so also does the subject lose its significance. in the light of unobstructed citisakti neither subject nor object can sustain their significance. in this way the tyranny of dualistic perception arising from the sense of separate self is fully undermined. -
Actually, just to give a different view. There are differences among people who call themselves buddhists.
I have friends like many in this forum who are constantly following and reading the teachings. The teachings guide you in your everyday life.
There are those who outside of praying to their respective deities, do not really read or go deeped into any teachings. Actually, my mum used to be that type, and she would bring me to the temple and pray once a week. It wasn't until I was in JC and Army that I met friends who showed me a different type of buddhism so to speak.
In fact, I have one friend who is English speaking and his chinese is in fact worse than mine. (I have failed chinese exams before so that says a lot). But he is a buddhist through and through and often meets up with a mentor/shifu (actually, he used a diff word).
I learnt most through this friend actually, that true buddhism wasn't about deities and demons, but more of cultivation of self and spirit. -
Yes.Originally posted by SumOne:Actually, just to give a different view. There are differences among people who call themselves buddhists.
I have friends like many in this forum who are constantly following and reading the teachings. The teachings guide you in your everyday life.
There are those who outside of praying to their respective deities, do not really read or go deeped into any teachings. Actually, my mum used to be that type, and she would bring me to the temple and pray once a week. It wasn't until I was in JC and Army that I met friends who showed me a different type of buddhism so to speak.
In fact, I have one friend who is English speaking and his chinese is in fact worse than mine. (I have failed chinese exams before so that says a lot). But he is a buddhist through and through and often meets up with a mentor/shifu (actually, he used a diff word).
I learnt most through this friend actually, that true buddhism wasn't about deities and demons, but more of cultivation of self and spirit.
Actually those who worship deities are not really Buddhists, they are practitioner of our Chinese folk 'religion' or tradition (whatever word that is more appropriate) However, these group of people are very often mistaken or linked with Buddhism due to the ignorance of what Buddhism is about. -
Yes, and given that Buddhism has been practised in China since ancient times, there is this inevitable interaction and intermingling between religion and culture. Consequently, Buddhism has been 'co-opted' into traditional Chinese folk beliefs.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes.
Actually those who worship deities are not really Buddhists, they are practitioner of our Chinese folk 'religion' or tradition (whatever word that is more appropriate) However, these group of people are very often mistaken or linked with Buddhism due to the ignorance of what Buddhism is about. -
This is indeed regrettable in some ways, but on the other hand it made Buddhism more commonly known among people. Though it is also regrettable that Buddhist teachings have been distorted in one way or another, due to inevitable influences of folk cultural practices, it just simply means that we have an never-ending but welcomed responsibility (moral, religious or personal, etc) to improve our personal behaviour and public image through our practical application of Buddhist teachings.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:Yes, and given that Buddhism has been practised in China since ancient times, there is this inevitable interaction and intermingling between religion and culture. Consequently, Buddhism has been 'co-opted' into traditional Chinese folk beliefs.
I can only hope that more committed, caring and insightful Buddhist leaders (young or old), are willing to be more proactive in disseminating and explaining basic Buddhist core values and also more importantly, in debunking myths among the general public, of any race, religion, or language.
In order to achieve that, we have to actively befriend people, so that we have more opportunities and time to discuss and explain basic Buddhist teachings to the general layman public. Note this is not recruitment or conversion of faith in any sense, cos anyone and everyone becomes a follower of Sakayamuni Buddha's teachings through his or her own understanding and choice.
As long as one day, it can be observed that more and more members of the public, especially among the young, are slowly able to have a good understanding of basic Buddhist core values, we would have been contributing/have contributed in a small way to helping people learn about Buddhism, which ultimately benefits everyone in all aspects of their lives.