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?
Originally posted by Weychin:
Avalokeshvara, Hearer of the Cries of the World among other Mahabodhisattvas have taken great vows, where there is suffering, there are Bodhisattvas to alleviate suffering. There is even a Mahabodhisattva in the Hells,Ksitigarbha' Bodhisattva are still here because of there compassion, act of selflessness There will be places where Dharma seed will not ripen. The next Buddha will be Maitreya, it is going to be a long, long wait. But still compassion arises, as everybody has Buddha nature, that is potential to become Buddhas. Religions dictates moral conducts and goodness, it is out of compassion that gives rise religion, cultivating good karma, by doing good. Only Buddhas can fully ripened others' potential, hence alot of enlightened beings in the Era of Shakyamuni Buddha. We are dealing predominant and deeply entrenched cultures, Indian culture and belief exists before Buddhism, therefore the Buddha using Hindu comoslogy and logic, Past Buddhist masters did the same, that why the Chinese Mahayana is how it is, is explained in in chinese context of Taoism and Confucianism, that why countries with cultures similiar with China, like Korea, Japan and Vietnam has more similiarity If you see Bhutan, Sikkim , Tibet, Mustang, there emergence of Varjayana. Owing to assimilation of cultures. Then you have the Theravadan Buddhism, where Bodhisattva Path is not present, You will see elements of Theravadan, Brahmanic and folk elements. Non of these form will exactly like how Buddha preached, as that context no longer exist. One follows the handful of leaves, the others with an aspiration to save all sentients beings. Both are true but yet different, we can learn from all or we can learn from just one. Simple analogy, with children, we teach what they can understand and no more, same with teenagers, and adults, they can be the same person at different age, but you teach them differently . If you are a local born Singaporean, I can speak Singlish, it may be broken english, but we can converse and get the message across. If I were to be a habitual Singlish speaker, then I will have learn proper English to get by. But is there a standard English even?
I've known about Pu Men Pin and Avalokitesvara's vows. He will come as various emanations in order to rescue sentient beings.
However, it still stands that MCK said,
真神å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹ï¼Œåœ¨ä½›æ•™è®Šæˆ�佛陀；在基ç�£æ•™è®Šæˆ�耶穌；在伊斯è˜æ•™è®ŠçœŸä¸»ï¼�我确确实实肯定宇宙之间å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹çœŸç¥žã€‚所有宗教的神圣都是这个真神的化身。所以耶稣是释迦牟尼的化身，释迦牟尼也是「耶稣的化身，上å¸�的使者。
Translation of what MCK said: There is only one True God. In Buddhism, it manifests as Shakyamuni; in Christianity it manifests as Jesus; in Islam as Allah. I'm absolutely convinced that in our cosmos, there is a True God. The saints/leaders of all religions are a manifestation of this True God. Therefore, Jesus is a manifestation of Shakyamuni, and Shakyamuni is a manifestation of Jesus and also a messenger of God.
Despite the Buddha refuting the notion of a Supreme God or prime mover, MCK is now saying that he is absolutely certain that a True God exists in our cosmos. And this True God manifests as Buddha, Jesus, Allah etc. in order to teach mankind and other sentient beings.
You mentioned that the historical Buddha used Hindu comoslogy and logic during his time. However, to my knowledge the existing religion of the time did not exclude the concept of gods. So, had the Lord Shakyamuni taught that a True/Supreme God existed, it would not have been off the mark at all. So, why did he still reject the notion of a Supreme God?
To say that Buddhism, as taught by the historical Buddha, sprang forth as an adaptation to local culture/needs is also implying that Buddhism offers only a portion of the Truth with regards to the Nature of Reality.
What does this then mean for us? The Buddha is actually Jesus' and Allah's contemporary. Despite Jesus teaching that God is an almighty creator, Buddha rejects the notion of a creator even though he is in fact the manifestation of the True God. Yikes, something just occurred to me... Buddha is guilty of being unfilial because he doesn't even acknowledge whom/what he emanates from. At least Jesus totally embraced his Father in Heaven.
Please, please don't read the above paragraph and think that I'm purposely being sarkie or using word play. It's not my intention. But in fact, it's MCK's treatise on this matter that's seriously garbling everything up.
I quote excerpts from Buddhanet's "A Basic Buddhism Guide":
- Dharma (the teachings in Buddhism) exists regardless whether there is a Buddha. Sakyamuni Buddha (as the historical Buddha) discovered and shared the teachings/ universal truths with all sentient beings. He is neither the creator of such teachings nor the prophet of an almighty God to transmit such teachings to others.
- Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are.
So, did the historical Buddha only have a partial handle on the Truth, or did he not?
Weychin said: By asking me this, you are insinuating that either I feel it is wrong to seek to only practice Buddhist and his teaching or that you mean that I imply that Buddhist practice is not enough, and must be supplemented by other teachings.
So is this kind of belief that "Buddhism must be supplemented by other religious teachinbgs" with Buddhist roots ?
When Buddhists seek refuge ONLY in the triple gems, do you also mean Buddhist need to supplement refuge in some other God, gods and bible etc etc?
Buddhism has always been very clear and direct,
The Buddha
The Dharma
The Sangha
This is the order the Buddha established and the Dharma as which is well taught in the beginning, in the middle and in the end is our sole refuge. Only when Ven Jingkong started these weird teachings, asking Buddhists to seek mix everything into one.
Weychin said “Recommending the scriptures of others’ religions does’nt mean embracing other faiths, neither does it mean you stop reading Buddhist scriptures or abandoning your Buddhist practices. Or abandoning our refuges or or vows? Would you? I won’t.
My reply:
I have no problems with respecting or even giving recongition to other religious teaching. Also i state clearly, the Buddha did not forbid us to read non buddhist scriptures, infact the Buddha had allowed 3/4 of our time on the Dharma and 1/4 on non-buddhist teaching. That was the Buddha's openess to non-buddhist teachings, however this is not equalivant to importing non-buddhist beliefs and mixing up with Buddhism and in the case of Ven Jingkong, he not only imported an Almightt God into Buddhism, he imported judgement day and also reliance on Bibile and Quran to gain rebirth to Pureland.
By doing such things, we not only spoil our own Buddhist teachings but also disrespect to the religion. Look at the comments from youtube url which I gave, those comments from Christians who feel that their religion have been misrepresented by Ven JingKong's assumption that Jesus is Buddha and Buddha is Jesus so and so on. This clearly show that to respect another religion is to accept their belief as it is and not by crowning them as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which in turn brings disrespect to both the original bibical and buddhist teachings.
Also such an action automaticallys leads one to lose the body of the threefold precepts as stated in the Uppasika Vinaya Sutra 优婆塞戒�
Weichin said: My accusations stands, as I see through with eyes of compassion, and able to see the context of his conduct, while you see with eyes of self righteousness. The Bodhisattva Path aims to save all sentients being until samsara is empty. Jing Kung teaches his followers to show patience and compassion to non believers, to understand them by acknowledging them, not creating divisive lines through religion.
My reply:
I have to acknowledge that your compassion stems but compassion without wisdom of the Buddha brings no effect. Buddhism is a religion of wisdom and compassion. Even though all religion preaches a common idea of Loving Compassion, this does not equates to "There is only one God, in india become Buddha, in China become kongzi and so on" this is where everything goes wrong.
The Bodhisattva Path aims to liberate all sentient beings by the Dharma not by non-buddhist teachings.
I have no problem with Ven Jingkong teaching us to show patience, respect and compassion to non believers but one may have to understand standing for what the Buddha taught is not creating divise lines. It is just a truth the Buddha taught. The Buddha drew the so called "divisive lines" from the Brahmins, from the six non buddhist teachers, from the 95 kinds of wrong views. But the Buddha had also extorted his followers to continue to respect them.
Can you call the Buddha intolerant? The Buddha gave recongition and respect to non buddhist teachers and beliefs without compromising what he stand for. This is when the divisive lines when drawn and yet not offensive.
Originally posted by WeeShun:he imported judgement day and
ah, now the propaganda emerge.
Weychin said: You are a political creature, you carry an agenda against Jing Kung and his movement of Peace and Harmony, that’s why you distort words in their original context to pursue you goal.
There are already some proselytizer already doing this, they did it thinking it is for the greater good. They are just being ingnorant.
My reply: I am not interested in politics, I have also no agenda aganist Venerable Jing Kong, up till now I still respect and call him Venerable Jing Kong. Also I would love Buddhists to contribute to world peace and harmony but not they way that Ven Jingkong is doing harm to our own buddhist and spefically pureland teachings. I have always welcomed proper buddhist discussion with proper Buddhist references instead of "personal assumption".
Through the video, he spoke for himself, I cannot distort words and if I did, please point out, I would be glad to offer my apologies. I also ask people not to only believe in what I said one-sided, they should be able to investigate, compare, reason and see if such teachings can reconcile with the Buddha's teachings. No way that I can control anyone, everyone is a free man to think, the wise ones will start doubting keeping the Kalama spirit up.
sinweiy: nay, i every post not everything btw.
my reply: so do you consider every single thing as long taught by Ven Jing Kong is right and should never be considered dubious?
sinweiy, so Buddhism got judgement day? Venerable Jing Kong clearly taught to Buddhists that we should believe in Karma, believe in God, believe in Allah, Believe in Judgement Day, Believe that God will chose to spare kind souls.
What kind of propaganda can this be ? OR you knew this teaching from him long ago and not trying to face it?
Originally posted by realization:I've known about Pu Men Pin and Avalokitesvara's vows. He will come as various emanations in order to rescue sentient beings.
However, it still stands that MCK said,
真神å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹ï¼Œåœ¨ä½›æ•™è®Šæˆ�佛陀；在基ç�£æ•™è®Šæˆ�耶穌；在伊斯è˜æ•™è®ŠçœŸä¸»ï¼�我确确实实肯定宇宙之间å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹çœŸç¥žã€‚所有宗教的神圣都是这个真神的化身。所以耶稣是释迦牟尼的化身，释迦牟尼也是「耶稣的化身，上å¸�的使者。
Translation of what MCK said: There is only one True God. In Buddhism, it manifests as Shakyamuni; in Christianity it manifests as Jesus; in Islam as Allah.To say that Buddhism, as taught by the historical Buddha, sprang forth as an adaptation to local culture/needs is also implying that Buddhism offers only a portion of the Truth with regards to the Nature of Reality.
to me that's when talking in a "multi-religious enviroment". if at that enviroment, he said our's is the BEST, other's are fasle, then the people around of other faith will feel offended. but in Buddhist closed door, we have another meaning. see in the end of the conclusion, all is Negated in Emptiness æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰.
Originally posted by WeeShun:sinweiy: .
my reply: so do you consider every single thing as long taught by Ven Jing Kong is right and should never be considered dubious?
nay, i every post not everything btw
sinwey, then that's good. This means that we both agree that Ven Jingkong can go wrong at times too.
Now all we need to do is to see and deal with it with an open mind using the kalama spirit with proper Buddhist references.
sinweiy: to me that's when talking in a "multi-religious enviroment". if at that enviroment, he said our's is the BEST, other's are fasle, then the people around of other faith will feel offended. but in Buddhist closed door, we have another meaning. see in the end of the conclusion, all is Negated in Emptiness æœ‰æ— éƒ½æ²¡æœ‰.
My reply: As a Buddhist, we shouldn't even say others are wrong or false. Our responsibility is to bring the Dharma to them telling them the goodness of the dharma. Also, by respecting and accepting what the other party believes in and not mixing up with yr so and so God is the manifestation of my Buddha, by doing so, we bring discredit both to buddhism and the other party. We respect Jesus as him being jesus not as Guan Yin.
Buddhists should also not be hypocrites but saying something good on the surface and closing doors saying others is wrong and false. We only need to share with them the Buddha's teaching not to judge them.
I have no idea if Christianity is a false religion or not but as a Buddhist, I am very sure that Buddhism is defintely the right and best choice.
Sinweiy, you should try not to be judgemental towards another religion as being false or wrong.
Originally posted by realization:I've known about Pu Men Pin and Avalokitesvara's vows. He will come as various emanations in order to rescue sentient beings.
However, it still stands that MCK said,
真神å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹ï¼Œåœ¨ä½›æ•™è®Šæˆ�佛陀；在基ç�£æ•™è®Šæˆ�耶穌；在伊斯è˜æ•™è®ŠçœŸä¸»ï¼�我确确实实肯定宇宙之间å�ªæœ‰ä¸€å€‹çœŸç¥žã€‚所有宗教的神圣都是这个真神的化身。所以耶稣是释迦牟尼的化身，释迦牟尼也是「耶稣的化身，上å¸�的使者。
Translation of what MCK said: There is only one True God. In Buddhism, it manifests as Shakyamuni; in Christianity it manifests as Jesus; in Islam as Allah. I'm absolutely convinced that in our cosmos, there is a True God. The saints/leaders of all religions are a manifestation of this True God. Therefore, Jesus is a manifestation of Shakyamuni, and Shakyamuni is a manifestation of Jesus and also a messenger of God.Despite the Buddha refuting the notion of a Supreme God or prime mover, MCK is now saying that he is absolutely certain that a True God exists in our cosmos. And this True God manifests as Buddha, Jesus, Allah etc. in order to teach mankind and other sentient beings.
You mentioned that the historical Buddha used Hindu comoslogy and logic during his time. However, to my knowledge the existing religion of the time did not exclude the concept of gods. So, had the Lord Shakyamuni taught that a True/Supreme God existed, it would not have been off the mark at all. So, why did he still reject the notion of a Supreme God?
To say that Buddhism, as taught by the historical Buddha, sprang forth as an adaptation to local culture/needs is also implying that Buddhism offers only a portion of the Truth with regards to the Nature of Reality.
What does this then mean for us? The Buddha is actually Jesus' and Allah's contemporary. Despite Jesus teaching that God is an almighty creator, Buddha rejects the notion of a creator even though he is in fact the manifestation of the True God. Yikes, something just occurred to me... Buddha is guilty of being unfilial because he doesn't even acknowledge whom/what he emanates from. At least Jesus totally embraced his Father in Heaven.
Please, please don't read the above paragraph and think that I'm purposely being sarkie or using word play. It's not my intention. But in fact, it's MCK's treatise on this matter that's seriously garbling everything up.
I quote excerpts from Buddhanet's "A Basic Buddhism Guide":
- Dharma (the teachings in Buddhism) exists regardless whether there is a Buddha. Sakyamuni Buddha (as the historical Buddha) discovered and shared the teachings/ universal truths with all sentient beings. He is neither the creator of such teachings nor the prophet of an almighty God to transmit such teachings to others.
- Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are.
So, did the historical Buddha only have a partial handle on the Truth, or did he not?
Originally posted by WeeShun:Weychin said: You are a political creature, you carry an agenda against Jing Kung and his movement of Peace and Harmony, that’s why you distort words in their original context to pursue you goal. There are already some proselytizer already doing this, they did it thinking it is for the greater good. They are just being ingnorant. My reply: I am not interested in politics, I have also no agenda aganist Venerable Jing Kong, up till now I still respect and call him Venerable Jing Kong. Also I would love Buddhists to contribute to world peace and harmony but not they way that Ven Jingkong is doing harm to our own buddhist and spefically pureland teachings. I have always welcomed proper buddhist discussion with proper Buddhist references instead of "personal assumption". You are a political animal, and you are into politics. It describes how you carry out your agenda. You devote most of your correspondences to the singular practice of discrediting Reverend Jing Kung,Weychin said: You are a political creature, you carry an agenda against Jing Kung and his movement of Peace and Harmony, that’s why you distort words in their original context to pursue you goal.
There are already some proselytizer already doing this, they did it thinking it is for the greater good. They are just being ingnorant.
My reply: I am not interested in politics, I have also no agenda aganist Venerable Jing Kong, up till now I still respect and call him Venerable Jing Kong. Also I would love Buddhists to contribute to world peace and harmony but not they way that Ven Jingkong is doing harm to our own buddhist and spefically pureland teachings. I have always welcomed proper buddhist discussion with proper Buddhist references instead of "personal assumption".
Through the video, he spoke for himself, I cannot distort words and if I did, please point out, I would be glad to offer my apologies. I also ask people not to only believe in what I said one-sided, they should be able to investigate, compare, reason and see if such teachings can reconcile with the Buddha's teachings. No way that I can control anyone, everyone is a free man to think, the wise ones will start doubting keeping the Kalama spirit up.
Weychin said: You are a political creature, you carry an agenda against Jing Kung and his movement of Peace and Harmony, that’s why you distort words in their original context to pursue you goal.
My reply: I am not interested in politics, I have also no agenda aganist Venerable Jing Kong, up till now I still respect and call him Venerable Jing Kong. Also I would love Buddhists to contribute to world peace and harmony but not they way that Ven Jingkong is doing harm to our own buddhist and spefically pureland teachings. I have always welcomed proper buddhist discussion with proper Buddhist references instead of "personal assumption".
You are a political animal, and you are not into politics. That is what I meant.It describes how you carry out your agenda.
You devote most of your correspondences to the singular practice of discrediting Reverend Jing Kung,
You are a political animal, and you are into politics. It describes how you carry out your agenda. You devote most of your correspondences to the singular practice of discrediting Reverend Jing Kung,
My reply: Contary to your belief, I carry out correspondences to topics which corrupts to Buddhist teachings. If my agenda was to discredit venerable jing kong, I think i would not even credit him for his right and good dharma teachings.
And being a pureland Buddhist myself, I am especially concerned to Pureland Buddhist teachings being corrupted. Also if my agenda was to discredit Ven Jing Kong, I would not haven even started my first post here in distributing free buddhist sutras for worldwide, i should have printed books discrediting Ven jing Kong. Look at my first thread and ask those people whom had requested the sutra from me and have they recieved it?
As a Pureland Buddhist, I distribute free not only Pureland Sutras but all Buddhist sutras as long it is taught by the Buddha. This is my only agenda, to uphold and spread ONLY Buddha's teachings.
I have no problem bowing before all the good deeds and right teachings of Venerable Jing Kong but when he teaches unbuddhistic stuffs, it should also be up for scritinity.
Originally posted by WeeShun:Weychin said: By asking me this, you are insinuating that either I feel it is wrong to seek to only practice Buddhist and his teaching or that you mean that I imply that Buddhist practice is not enough, and must be supplemented by other teachings.
So is this kind of belief that "Buddhism must be supplemented by other religious teachinbgs" with Buddhist roots ?
When Buddhists seek refuge ONLY in the triple gems, do you also mean Buddhist need to supplement refuge in some other God, gods and bible etc etc?
Buddhism has always been very clear and direct,
The Buddha
The Dharma
The Sangha
This is the order the Buddha established and the Dharma as which is well taught in the beginning, in the middle and in the end is our sole refuge. Only when Ven Jingkong started these weird teachings, asking Buddhists to seek mix everything into one.
I am very sure that Venerable Jing Kung did not tell his followers to worship God or Allah, or that his followers have now abandoned Buddhism and started to pray to God or Allah.
That is insinuation on your part.
You are, however, more than free to obtain testimonials from recognised Jing Kung's followers who have abandoned Buddhism in favor of another religion
weychin: I am very sure that Venerable Jing Kung did not tell his followers to worship God or Allah, or that his followers have now abandoned Buddhism and started to pray to God or Allah.
My reply:
I have no idea how did your "sure" come from. my answer is I don't know, can you tell me how do you know did ven jingkong's followers did not abandon Buddhism and start praying to allah and God? Do you know every single follower of Venerable Jing Kong?
I really don't know and dare not assume and i try not to assume. I only know as a Buddhist, we do not believe in God or Allah nor do we rely upon their teachings. As Buddhists only rely upon the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha solely.
Speficailly for Purelander Buddhists like myself, we depend only on the vow powerful and name of Amituofo not on bible, God or quran.
Originally posted by Rooney9:it is clear that you are a christian from your comments on god and judgement. Buddhism is unlike the god religions in this world, past, present or in the future. Buddha has rejected the concept of god creator and soul.
I share some of you sentiments, he uses entrapment and baiting techniques employed by some of the monotheistic proselytizers, very black and white no in betweens.