Originally posted by Zenist69:How would Di Zi Gui lead one to recite Amitabha and Buddha's Dharma, would u kindly explain?
It is just a simple book on moral education which can be accepted by a large group of people. Many will just it pick up and read. May be some will mistaken it is a Buddhist book as it is distributed mainly by Purelanders. From there, they will be keen to know more about Buddhism especially Pureland and that is how they will get to recite Amitabha.
Confucianism and Daoism morailty are not Buddhism morality. They are not the same.
morality is morality, base on the general dictionary. but u can say the percentage is different. Confucianism and Daoism morality could be a 'smaller' percent of Buddhism's morality. if that small percent also cannot handle how to handle the larger percent.
Buddhism also have "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it ", 佛说父���难报�.
compare Di Zi Gui to "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it", it's small house meet large house. �屋�大屋
Di Zi Gui already tone down it's filial piety. this also cannot handle how to handle 佛说父���难报�?
quote 佛说父���难报�:-
At that time the Tathagata used eight kinds of profound deep and pure sounds to speak to the assembly, "All of you should know this. I will explain for you the various aspects of this matter.
If there were a person who carried his father on his left shoulder and his mother on his right shoulder until his bones were ground to powder by their weight as they bore through to the marrow, and if that person were to circumambulate Mount Sumeru for a hundred thousand kalpas until the blood that flowed out from his feet covered his ankles, that person would still not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, during the period of a kalpa fraught with famine and starvation, sliced the flesh off his own body to feed his parents and did this as many times as there are dust motes as he passed through hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, took a sharp knife and cut out his eyes and made an offering of them to the Tathagatas, and continued to do that for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his father and mother, used a sharp knife to cut out his heart and liver so that the blood flowed and covered the ground and if he continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, never complaining about the pain, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, took a hundred thousand swords and stabbed his body with them all at once so that they entered one side and came out the other, and if he continued bin this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, beat his bones down to the marrow and continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, swallowed molten iron pellets and continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents."
so u wish to stabbed yourself for hundreds of thousands of kalpas etc or simply follow the Di Zi Gui 's basic standard of filial piety?
/\
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:It is just a simple book on moral education which can be accepted by a large group of people. Many will just it pick up and read. May be some will mistaken it is a Buddhist book as it is distributed mainly by Purelanders. From there, they will be keen to know more about Buddhism especially Pureland and that is how they will get to recite Amitabha.
It cut both ways.
After reading the book Di Zi Gui pass to them newbie by those so call purelanders, some of them newbie might be disappointed in Buddhism and pureland sect. 'cause Di Zi Gui didn't help them at all. Talking about brushing teeth, washing hands after using toilet, paying respect to elderly, its too elementary to them, they find it a joke to them. And thus put off by the so call Buddhist, purelanders act of passing them di zi gui and thus shun away from Buddhism forever.
Di Zi Gui give them newbie wrong impression on buddhism, they might find di zi gui boring and uninspiring and thus turn to other beliefs to look for meaning.
Originally posted by sinweiy:morality is morality, base on the general dictionary. but u can say the percentage is different. Confucianism and Daoism morality could be a 'smaller' percent of Buddhism's morality. if that small percent also cannot handle how to handle the larger percent.
Buddhism also have "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it ", 佛说父���难报�.
compare Di Zi Gui to "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it", it's small house meet large house. �屋�大屋
Di Zi Gui already tone down it's filial piety. this also cannot handle how to handle 佛说父���难报�?
quote 佛说父���难报�:-
At that time the Tathagata used eight kinds of profound deep and pure sounds to speak to the assembly, "All of you should know this. I will explain for you the various aspects of this matter.
If there were a person who carried his father on his left shoulder and his mother on his right shoulder until his bones were ground to powder by their weight as they bore through to the marrow, and if that person were to circumambulate Mount Sumeru for a hundred thousand kalpas until the blood that flowed out from his feet covered his ankles, that person would still not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, during the period of a kalpa fraught with famine and starvation, sliced the flesh off his own body to feed his parents and did this as many times as there are dust motes as he passed through hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, took a sharp knife and cut out his eyes and made an offering of them to the Tathagatas, and continued to do that for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his father and mother, used a sharp knife to cut out his heart and liver so that the blood flowed and covered the ground and if he continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, never complaining about the pain, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, took a hundred thousand swords and stabbed his body with them all at once so that they entered one side and came out the other, and if he continued bin this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, beat his bones down to the marrow and continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents.
If there were a person who, for the sake of his parents, swallowed molten iron pellets and continued in this way to do this for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents."
so u wish to stabbed yourself for hundreds of thousands of kalpas etc or simply follow the Di Zi Gui 's basic standard of filial piety?
/\
Different set of belief system emphasize different set of morality.
For example. Confucianism emphasize on filial piety, Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on compassion.
U cant lump all morality from different belief system together and say they are one. No they are not. There are different aspect, emphasis in morality for different belief system.
Originally posted by Zenist69:Different set of belief system emphasize different set of morality.
For example. Confucianism emphasize on filial piety, Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on compassion.
U cant lump all morality from different belief system together and say they are one. No they are not. There are different aspect, emphasis in morality for different belief system.
denial, "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it ", 佛说父���难报� also emphasize on filial piety.
compassion is of higher emphasis of Buddhism.
Originally posted by sinweiy:
denial, "The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness of Parents and the Difficulty of Repaying it ", 佛说父���难报� also emphasize on filial piety.compassion is of higher emphasis of Buddhism.
i didn't say buddhism didn't touch on filial piety at all! Its just Buddhism place more emphasis on Compassion.
U had said it yourself, "compassion is of higher emphasis of Buddhism." So why u dun get it yourself?
Originally posted by Zenist69:i didn't say buddhism didn't touch on filial piety at all! Its just Buddhism place more emphasis on Compassion.
U had said it yourself, "compassion is of higher emphasis of Buddhism." So why u dun get it yourself?
ok, as i saw u say "For example. Confucianism emphasize on filial piety, Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on compassion" mah...
Compassion and wisdom takes equal weight in Buddhism.
修慧ä¸�ä¿®ç¦�，罗汉托空钵。修ç¦�ä¸�修慧，象身挂璎ç�ž"出处 - æ�‚è¬å–»ç»�
sinweiy,
佛说父æ¯�æ�©é‡�难报ç»� is the perfect sutra and teaching for Buddhists instead of using the confucian å�ç»�． This is a perfect example of making full use of Buddhism instead of borrowing scriptures from other non buddhist religions to build a Buddhist's fundamentals.
thank
i never actually thoroughly study through any of DZG, 佛说父æ¯�æ�©é‡�难报ç»� or å�ç»�. i read a bit, but for me å� filial piety is Simply filial piety to my parent, when master told us that å� filial piety is important in Buddhism. although i also know that å� filial piety on a highest level is toward All sentient beings as advocated in Earth Store.
who's � is it is of secondary issue. as a human nature, filial piety does not belong to Any person. it's 法而如是.
/\
法而如是 is not used to explain human nature and its 法尔, it is a buddhist concept to explain the inherent emptiness (changing) nature of all conditioned things. This has nothing got to do with "what religion nevermind, as long is human nature"
I agree with you that fillial piety does not belong to anyone nor any religions but to conclude the common nature all huamns share and mixing up into Buddhism is another grave issue.
法说é�žæ³•ï¼Œé�žæ³•è¯´æ³•æ˜¯å��邪è§�。以何义故å��为è�©è�¨ã€‚能常觉悟众生心故。如是è�©è�¨è™½çŸ¥å¤–典。自ä¸�å�—æŒ�亦ä¸�教人。如是è�©è�¨ä¸�å��人天é�žäº”é�“摄。是å��ä¿®è¡Œæ— éšœç¢�é�“。”——《优婆塞戒ç»�》
sorry, yes 法尔. lol..see i singaporean chinese. ur chinese too powderful...lol.
to me, not just inherent emptiness, but it's the way "nature" IS.
simplicity is good. mixing up on the outside but not mixing up in the inside is higher form of Buddhism.
the MCK video posted, at the ending part state that æœ‰ç¥žæ— ç¥ž got "God" or no "God", eventually, it's all inherent Emptiness æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰ which is Buddhism. this is then the "moon" or Core idea he hold, not the finger that's pointing to the moon. He say God, to Christian, but to Buddhist, he go higher and say inherent Emptiness. try to see it in different angles, pls.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:i never actually thoroughly study through any of DZG, 佛说父æ¯�æ�©é‡�难报ç»� or å�ç»�. i read a bit, but for me å� filial piety is Simply filial piety to my parent, when master told us that å� filial piety is important in Buddhism. although i also know that å� filial piety on a highest level is toward All sentient beings as advocated in Earth Store.
who's � is it is of secondary issue. as a human nature, filial piety does not belong to Any person. it's 法而如是.
/\
I am not an expert in Confucianism or Buddhism.
But I am sure, if u list out what the confucianism stresses on, the morality aspect, compare with what the Buddhism stresses on, there's a difference between these two set of belief systems. There's a difference between Confucianism and Buddhism what they stress on.
Therefore it is wrong to give out di zi gui to newbie, passing off di zi gui as buddhism book. Di Zi Gui is based on Confucianism. It shouldn't be pass off as a book of Buddhism.
its not nature .. its the NATURE of emptiness. please refer to Buddhist glossary. do not modify Buddhism or Buddhist terms to fit your argument.
May i know since when "mixing and not mixing" defines higher or lower form of Buddhism? From my understanding, even in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha taught 3 vechicles. from the "lowest form" to the "highest form" of Ekayana, the Buddha never taught your form of "higher or lower form" of Buddhism.
May i know your "form" of Buddhism is based on which Buddha's teaching? Finger and Moon ? I thought he is from our Pureland lineage? Remember carefully, a Koan and a Dharma Talk is 2 different thing. Don't you know that?
Its quite obvious, you are now relying in the person and not the dharma.
Btw, is relying on "Bible and Quran" to gain rebirth in Amituofo's Pureland a form of Higher Pureland Buddhism ?
Originally posted by sinweiy:orry, yes 法尔. lol..see i singaporean chinese. ur chinese too powderful...lol.
to me, not just inherent emptiness, but it's the way "nature" IS.
simplicity is good. mixing up on the outside but not mixing up in the inside is higher form of Buddhism.
the MCK video posted, at the ending part state that æœ‰ç¥žæ— ç¥ž got "God" or no "God", eventually, it's all inherent Emptiness æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰ which is Buddhism. this is then the "moon" or Core idea he hold, not the finger that's pointing to the moon. He say God, to Christian, but to Buddhist, he go higher and say inherent Emptiness. try to see it in different angles, pls.
/\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKZNrG9hE8
What MCK was saying in the video is that 真神 = 法性 manifested as various leaders of religions to 教导人类 (teach mankind).
He mentions that all these various leaders of religions "take turns" to be leaders. He used the term 轮�性... but then as we know, each religious leader has come up with a different view of the cosmos... if they are "colleagues", should they not be spreading the same message? So does Truth change according to time period?
He then says: In the past when there was poor communication among communities, each religion came about as a manifestation of 真神, but with adaptation to local culture and local needs. If so, then the implication is that all are relative truths and even Buddhism itself presents only a portion of the Truth.
And indeed, he does exhort us to study all religions now that information technology is thriving, in order to get the full picture about how 真神 taught living beings on this planet. The serious implication in this is that before globalization, we had been compromised in our learning of the Truth because we didn't have the Whole Truth. What then are we to think of various Buddhist patriarchs of bygone days who managed to achieve Enlightenment even without being privy to the tenets of other religions? Or is he implying that there is an even higher Truth than what Shakyamuni Buddha taught?
When asked about how to reconcile a disbelief in the supernatural with
the belief that there is
真神, he replied that when one understands deeply enough, "existence" and
"non-existence" do not matter because opposite concepts do not exist
within Ultimate Truth (真� as he says). Yet, he claims to be "absolutely convinced"
that in our cosmos, there is a 真神 that may also be termed 法性 in
Buddhist terms.... so does his absolute conviction then signify a deep
understanding or poor understanding?
Am I plain confounded by my poor roots, or is he on to an even higher truth that none of us has grasped?
Originally posted by Zenist69:I am not an expert in Confucianism or Buddhism.
But I am sure, if u list out what the confucianism stresses on, the morality aspect, compare with what the Buddhism stresses on, there's a difference between these two set of belief systems. There's a difference between Confucianism and Buddhism what they stress on.
Therefore it is wrong to give out di zi gui to newbie, passing off di zi gui as buddhism book. Di Zi Gui is based on Confucianism. It shouldn't be pass off as a book of Buddhism.
no one is advocating Buddhist to learn them ALL, right to every word, every stanza and every meaning.
Originally posted by realization:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKZNrG9hE8
What MCK was saying in the video is that 真神 = 法性 manifested as various leaders of religions to 教导人类 (teach mankind).
He mentions that all these various leaders of religions "take turns" to be leaders. He used the term 轮�性... but then as we know, each religious leader has come up with a different view of the cosmos... if they are "colleagues", should they not be spreading the same message? So does Truth change according to time period?
He then says: In the past when there was poor communication among communities, each religion came about as a manifestation of 真神, but with adaptation to local culture and local needs. If so, then the implication is that all are relative truths and even Buddhism itself presents only a portion of the Truth.
And indeed, he does exhort us to study all religions now that information technology is thriving, in order to get the full picture about how 真神 taught living beings on this planet. The serious implication in this is that before globalization, we had been compromised in our learning of the Truth because we didn't have the Whole Truth. What then are we to think of various Buddhist patriarchs of bygone days who managed to achieve Enlightenment even without being privy to the tenets of other religions? Or is he implying that there is an even higher Truth than what Shakyamuni Buddha taught?
When asked about how to reconcile a disbelief in the supernatural with the belief that there is 真神, he replied that when one understands deeply enough, "existence" and "non-existence" do not matter because opposite concepts do not exist within Ultimate Truth (真� as he says). Yet, he claims to be "absolutely convinced" that in our cosmos, there is a 真神 that may also be termed 法性 in Buddhist terms.... so does his absolute conviction then signify a deep understanding or poor understanding?
Am I plain confounded by my poor roots, or is he on to an even higher truth that none of us has grasped?
important is the conclusion...æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰.
Originally posted by WeeShun:its not nature .. its the NATURE of emptiness. please refer to Buddhist glossary. do not modify Buddhism or Buddhist terms to fit your argument.
sw: can qoute? i still think it is also the way it is. pls be more polite and think people don't know Buddhism.
May i know since when "mixing and not mixing" defines higher or lower form of Buddhism? From my understanding, even in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha taught 3 vechicles. from the "lowest form" to the "highest form" of Ekayana, the Buddha never taught your form of "higher or lower form" of Buddhism.sw: "hinayana" and mahayana. note the "...".
May i know your "form" of Buddhism is based on which Buddha's teaching? Finger and Moon ? I thought he is from our Pureland lineage? Remember carefully, a Koan and a Dharma Talk is 2 different thing. Don't you know that?sw: don't understand. it's ur words against my words.
Its quite obvious, you are now relying in the person and not the dharma.sw: nay, it's relying on dharma.
Ok quote for you:
：(一)就一切諸法之å˜åœ¨è§€ä¹‹ï¼Œä¸€åˆ‡èŽ«é�žå› 緣和å�ˆè€Œæˆ�，無論水之就低ã€�ç�«ä¹‹æ˜‡é«˜ï¼Œçš†ç‚ºè‡ªç„¶è€Œç„¶ä¹‹äº‹ã€‚(二)就真如之法言之，真如之法，法爾隨緣，è�¬æ³•ä¿±èˆˆï¼Œæ³•çˆ¾æ¸æ€§ï¼Œçš†ç‚ºæœ¬ä¾†å¹³ç‰å¸¸ç„¶ä¹‹äº‹ã€‚å�ˆç‘œä¼½å¸«åœ°è«–å�·å…«å��八所載之四種é�“ç�†ä¹‹ç¬¬å››ç‚ºæ³•çˆ¾é�“ç�†ï¼Œæ¤å�³è¡¨æŸ�事物原相之天然é�“ç�†ï¼Œä¾‹å¦‚ç�«æ˜¯ç†±æ€§ã€�水是濕潤性。
Secondly,
The finger and moon analogy is a zen koan 公案 which main purpose is used to �. got it?
rely on Dharma ? what Dharma ?? So far, what i have got from you are just have not been quite "dharmic" such as God, Jesus, Mohd, Dizigui, Bibles .. what dharma ????
relization. u have not only good roots but also good grammer !
Originally posted by sinweiy:
no one is advocating Buddhist to learn them ALL, right to every word, every stanza and every meaning.
Then the MJK supporter should come with some disclaimer when they pass the di zi gui to newbie, "Dun go
learn them ALL, right to every word, every stanza and every
meaning. Just brows thru it can liao."
Originally posted by Zenist69:Then the MJK supporter should come with some disclaimer when they pass the di zi gui to newbie, "Dun go learn them ALL, right to every word, every stanza and every meaning. Just brows thru it can liao."
i refering to Confucianism and Daoism and other "religion".
Originally posted by WeeShun:Ok quote for you:
：(一)就一切諸法之å˜åœ¨è§€ä¹‹ï¼Œä¸€åˆ‡èŽ«é�žå› 緣和å�ˆè€Œæˆ�，無論水之就低ã€�ç�«ä¹‹æ˜‡é«˜ï¼Œçš†ç‚ºè‡ªç„¶è€Œç„¶ä¹‹äº‹ã€‚(二)就真如之法言之，真如之法，法爾隨緣，è�¬æ³•ä¿±èˆˆï¼Œæ³•çˆ¾æ¸æ€§ï¼Œçš†ç‚ºæœ¬ä¾†å¹³ç‰å¸¸ç„¶ä¹‹äº‹ã€‚å�ˆç‘œä¼½å¸«åœ°è«–å�·å…«å��八所載之四種é�“ç�†ä¹‹ç¬¬å››ç‚ºæ³•çˆ¾é�“ç�†ï¼Œæ¤å�³è¡¨æŸ�事物原相之天然é�“ç�†ï¼Œä¾‹å¦‚ç�«æ˜¯ç†±æ€§ã€�水是濕潤性。
sw: that's not Buddhist glossary. up to u wat u want to believe, no point as i see a cup half empty, u see half full. up to u, really.Secondly,
The finger and moon analogy is a zen koan 公案 which main purpose is used to �. got it?sw: i can't understand ur grammer too. sorry.
can google for The Meaning of the Finger Pointing to the Moon.
http://www.awakeblogger.com/2008/11/the-meaning-of-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon/
the idea is not to see the analogies as the real thing.
rely on Dharma ? what Dharma ?? So far, what i have got from you are just have not been quite "dharmic" such as God, Jesus, Mohd, Dizigui, Bibles .. what dharma ????sw: what u got is analogies not the real meaning. how we know we understand his real meaning, if we are not him?
Err ... you ask me to quote from Buddhist glossary and I backed up with proper Buddhist scripturial reference for Fa Er. How can you accuse me of not using Buddhist glossary ??? This is not a issue of half full or half empty, you don't even know what you are talking now.
The finger and moon analogy is a zen koan 公案 which main purpose is used to �. got it? Ven Jingkong was doing a talk not a zen koan session. got it? So yr excuse of using finger ponint moon analogy cannot work to cover up for him saying "God" is not god and but a name og God. You say God is not God, you say not God is God, Buddha is God but God is not Buddha and God and Buddha is actually inherent and empty and emtpy is actually not empty by just name as empty and there is not real name of empty, its nature and but when u say nature and its actually not nature but only a phonoenma ..and so on .... this is the kind of argument you are giving now while we are all discussining on the very basic tenets of the Buddha's teaching.
and also, you said i only got the analogy not the real meaning... may I know what is the real meaning ? How did you manage to know the real meaning? Did Ven Jingkong tell you personally his underlying meaning? or you assumed yourself and also why did the Buddha not teach this kind of "underlying" message to us?
How come a Dharma talk become a Zen Koan session?