THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
I still think Buddhism is just a teaching and should not be made into religion in the first place .
You know . all these debates about maha brahma, sutta and all . we're missing the point here . THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE . how could any of them be if in the first place they are not even religion ?? ask Dalai Lama himself and he will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion but rather a teaching to live life and to percept it in specific way .
Human used to live in another planet and then it went nova and human are spiritually reborn in a new world where they live for aeons and when their karma caught up with them they are reborn to earth and all . those are merely thots ! thinker thinks . some thinker went on to experiement and to prove and they are called scientists . some just think and conclude and proclaim that he is the all-righteous and all-knowing being.
to be honest I dont read all those long comments you made .
I don't know what you are trying to point out.
Anyway, Buddha was not a thinker or philosopher, as to why, I have already explained.
But neither is Buddhism a religion, as to why, I have also already explained.
-
When the unrealized lead the unillumined, it is as good, or rather, as bad as, the blind leading the blind. 5 blind men quarreling over one big elephant, that's, to me, the morale of the story here, a very very old story that keeps repeating time again and again.
A truly wise man will never ever say his path or his way is the only true way and all else are wrong. Simply because that sort of statement will never bring peace.
-
Buddha never said that other religions are completely wrong, however he has disagreed with the 'thicket of views' found in other religions which leads towards either eternalism or nihilism.
Also, the Buddha has clearly stated that other religions are incomplete even though it may have certain benefits:
Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]
-
Originally posted by Urdhaytb:
When the unrealized lead the unillumined, it is as good, or rather, as bad as, the blind leading the blind. 5 blind men quarreling over one big elephant, that's, to me, the morale of the story here, a very very old story that keeps repeating time again and again.
A truly wise man will never ever say his path or his way is the only true way and all else are wrong. Simply because that sort of statement will never bring peace.
Other religions are true but incomplete. Buddhism is the ultimate truth. Most of the religions only talk about the 2 realms (heaven and hell) but some of the followers in these religions have ecnounters with ghosts. Their religion deny the existence of ghosts and only Buddhism explain them in details.
I have friends who turn to Buddhism because of their encounters with ghosts. They found out what they wanted to know in Buddhism. Other religion explanation that ghosts are demons in disguise is simply not true and does not explain their encounters.
-
Originally posted by Urdhaytb:
When the unrealized lead the unillumined, it is as good, or rather, as bad as, the blind leading the blind. 5 blind men quarreling over one big elephant, that's, to me, the morale of the story here, a very very old story that keeps repeating time again and again.
A truly wise man will never ever say his path or his way is the only true way and all else are wrong. Simply because that sort of statement will never bring peace.
Its ad naseum really. However, that does not stop people from seeking truths. It's be impossible to prove other religions false though. Truths and false are relative, absolutes are not.
-
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
I still think Buddhism is just a teaching and should not be made into religion in the first place .
You know . all these debates about maha brahma, sutta and all . we're missing the point here . THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE . how could any of them be if in the first place they are not even religion ?? ask Dalai Lama himself and he will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion but rather a teaching to live life and to percept it in specific way .
Human used to live in another planet and then it went nova and human are spiritually reborn in a new world where they live for aeons and when their karma caught up with them they are reborn to earth and all . those are merely thots ! thinker thinks . some thinker went on to experiement and to prove and they are called scientists . some just think and conclude and proclaim that he is the all-righteous and all-knowing being.
to be honest I dont read all those long comments you made .
I shall focus only on your opening statement viz. "Buddhism is just a teaching and should not be made into religion in the first place "
Siddhartha Gautama did not start a religion. For that matter ‘religion’ as we understand today is not what was prevalent before and during the time of prince Siddhartha. India during this period was the centre of philosophy and spirituality. Not only in India but also Middle East, Greece and China.
As always, I would start from the origin: Siddhartha Gautama was a normal human being (just like you and me). He lived the life of a prince within the walls of a palace sheltered from slums and ghettoes. Unlike the Forbidden City of China which walls were to prevent the poor peasants from seeing how decadent the life-style of its residents - emperors, prince-lings, court officials and eunuchs; Siddhartha was forbidden to venture out of the palace. Only when he managed to sneak out did he see how terrible the social conditions were. You can take it that this was his first shocking experience of REALITY – life sucks. Of the four sights he was drawn to an ascetic and decided (after deliberations, not experience) to renounce his ‘mundane’ life. He must have been so overcome by the physical and physiological conditions then that he was so determined to leave everything behind and seek the meaning of life. Specifically, you can say Prince Siddhartha was searching for wisdom – to know ‘what is life or existence’, and why there is birth, aging, sickness and death’. Expanding this further (Dependent Origination), it was about ‘old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’. Prince Siddhartha indeed was searching for insights as to what irks this world.
My statement that 'Buddhism began as a philosophy' would not have been objected by early Buddhists. It is the subsequent schools of Buddhism be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana that would ‘hate to admit’ because they placed so much emphasis on a term called ‘practice’ and they also have the mistaken notion that philosophy is all theory only. I have in a previous post appended the general meaning of philosophy which I am happy to do again here:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".
Hence, ‘Buddhism’ (to use this word) began as a philosophy, contemplating on what is life and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence. It seemed that there is objection to the word ‘philosophy’ but not the phrase ‘contemplating on what is life and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence’.
I like visitors here to give just one word to substitute this phrase “contemplating on what life is and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence”.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
I shall focus only on your opening statement viz. "Buddhism is just a teaching and should not be made into religion in the first place "
As always, I would start from the origin: Siddhartha Gautama was a normal human being (just like you and me). He lived the life of a prince within the walls of a palace sheltered from slums and ghettoes. Unlike the Forbidden City of China which walls were to prevent the poor peasants from seeing how decadent the life-style of its residents - emperors, prince-lings, court officials and eunuchs; Siddhartha was forbidden to venture out of the palace. Only when he managed to sneak out did he see how terrible the social conditions were. You can take it that this was his first shocking experience of REALITY – life sucks. Of the four sights he was drawn to an ascetic and decided (after deliberations, not experience) to renounce his ‘mundane’ life. He must have been so overcome by the physical and physiological conditions then that he was so determined to leave everything behind and seek the meaning of life. Specifically, you can say Prince Siddhartha was searching for wisdom – to know ‘what is life or existence’, and why there is birth, aging, sickness and death’. Expanding this further (Dependent Origination), it was about ‘old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’. Prince Siddhartha indeed was searching for insights as to what irks this world.
My statement that 'Buddhism began as a philosophy' would not have been objected by early Buddhists. It is the subsequent schools of Buddhism be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana that would ‘hate to admit’ because they placed so much emphasis on a term called ‘practice’ and they also have the mistaken notion that philosophy is all theory only. I have in a previous post appended the general meaning of philosophy which I am happy to do again here:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".
Hence, ‘Buddhism’ (to use this word) began as a philosophy, contemplating on what is life and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence. It seemed that there is objection to the word ‘philosophy’ but not the phrase ‘contemplating on what is life and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence’.
I like visitors here to give just one word to substitute this phrase “contemplating on what life is and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence”.
You forgot this:
1) "Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'"
2) "This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation [pajâ] delights in adhesion [âlaya], takes delight in adhesion, rejoices in adhesion. For such a generation this state [thânam] is hard to see, that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And this state too is hard to see, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation and Nibbana.”
And you forgot that Buddha attained experiential realization and the end of suffering by experience, not intellectual enlightenment. He did not speculate an end of suffering: he, and countless others, experienced the end of suffering, and this cannot be accomplished by any philosophical intellectualization.
And you forgot that Buddha himself practiced in order to gain enlightenment, and that the 4th noble truth and 8 fold path do not contain 'intellectualization' - the path consist of the training in sila, samadhi and prajna, the practice of meditation and vipassana.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You forgot this:
1) "Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'"
2) "This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation [pajâ] delights in adhesion [âlaya], takes delight in adhesion, rejoices in adhesion. For such a generation this state [thânam] is hard to see, that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And this state too is hard to see, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation and Nibbana.”
And you forgot that Buddha attained experiential realization and the end of suffering by experience, not intellectual enlightenment. He did not speculate an end of suffering: he, and countless others, experienced the end of suffering, and this cannot be accomplished by any philosophical intellectualization.
And you forgot that Buddha himself practiced in order to gain enlightenment, and that the 4th noble truth and 8 fold path do not contain 'intellectualization' - the path consist of the training in sila, samadhi and prajna, the practice of meditation and vipassana.
The Kalama Sutta didn't state that the Four Noble Truths were derived from experiential realization.
On a serious note, I know where you come from and your orientation but do not quote the sutta (scripture) to defend your position. I have stated that it is posssible that the 4NTs can come from experence but NOT ENTIRELY from/by experience which is your position.
My position is that "Buddhism began as a philosophy" and I would invite you to answer just the following and not go round the bodhi tree: I like visitors here to give just one word to substitute this phrase “contemplating on what life is and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence”.
-
funny to be disputing on "Buddhism began as a philosophy".
yes, it became a religion by the common not-informed society. though to the Buddhists it's not a religion.
Buddhism is Not a Religion
According to the Webster's Dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows, "An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion."
Buddhism is not a religion because: First, the Buddha is not a 'supernatural being power'. The Buddha is simply a person who has reached Complete Understanding of the reality of life and the universe. Life refers to ourselves, and universe refers to our living environment. The Buddha taught that all beings possess the same ability to reach Complete Understanding of themselves and their environment, and relieve themselves from all sufferings to attain utmost happiness. All beings can become Buddhas, and all beings and the Buddha are equal by nature. The Buddha is not a God, but a teacher, who teach us the way to restore Wisdom and Understanding by conquering the greed, hatred, and ignorance which blind us at the present moment. The word 'Buddha' is a Sanskrit word, when translated it means, "Wisdom, Awareness/Understanding". We call the founder of Buddhism Shakyamuni Buddha because He has attained Complete Understanding and Wisdom of life and the universe. Buddhism is His education to us, it is His teaching which shine the way to Buddhahood.
Buddhism is not a religion because: Second, the 'belief' in the Buddha's teachings is not blind belief, or blind faith. Shakyamuni Buddha taught us not to blindly believe what he tells us, he wants us to try the teachings and prove them for ourselves. The Buddha wants us to know, not merely believe. The Buddha's teachings flow from his own experience and understanding of the truth, and shows us a path of our own to taste the truth for ourselves. The just Buddha uses a perfectly scientific way of showing us reality in its true form.
Third, Buddhism is not a religion because all the 'rites and celebrations' are not centered on a supernatural being, but rather the people attending the assemblies. The ceremonies and celebrations in Buddhism all serve an educational purpose, a reminder of the Buddha's teachings and encouragement to all students who practice it. The point of the ceremonies is to help others awaken from delusion and return to Wisdom and Understanding.
Finally, Buddhism is not a religion because the 'devotion' used in Buddhism is not one based on emotion, but one based on reason. Students of the Buddha are devoted to their practice of maintaining Purity of Mind because this practice brings true happiness. We are devoted to helping both ourselves and others attain Complete Understanding and Wisdom. Our devotion is to become Buddha./\
-
I No Stupid said: I like visitors here to give just one word to substitute this phrase “contemplating on what life is and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence”.
Buddhism = a contemplation of what life is and what irks this existence, and a way out of such cyclic existence.
Pardon the rudimentary nature of my substitution. I can be quite the primary school kid most days. I think simply, I guess
-
Truly, depending on how religion is defined, Buddhism may or may not be understood to be a religion.
It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."
Further,
Buddhism cannot, therefore, strictly be called a religion because it is neither a system of faith and worship, nor "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or gods having power over their own destiny to whom obedience, service, and honor are due."
If [however], by religion, is meant "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with this its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity," or a system to get rid of the ills of life, then it is certainly a religion of religions.
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
Buddhism is to me, religion, philosophy, psychology and method all rolled into one. At present though, I find that a good short description of what Buddhism is was said in recent times by meditation teacher Kenneth Folk.
Here's what he said in a recent talk he gave to students about Mahamudra:
" There was a time in the early to mid-90s when my mother had to... she felt she had to explain to her friends and relatives what I was doing with my life. Because I was doing a lot of intensive retreats, as much as a year at a time; and I suppose it might have looked pretty odd to people who didn't know what I was doing. They didn't know what Buddhism was and so my mother said to me one time that she had explained to her friends that Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. And she said, "Is that right?" And I said, well, as I understand it, there certainly is religion in Buddhism. In fact, when you go to SE Asia, mostly what you're going to find is religious Buddhists. They believe the doctrine of Buddhism and they make regular offerings to deities. And so yeah, Buddhism is definitely a religion, but that's not all it is. There certainly is the philosophical component of it. You can think all kinds of really interesting things about Buddhism and talk about it. And it's also psychology. There is a very sophisticated psychology; the Abhidamma or Abhidharma depending on whether you're talking about Pali or Sanskrit. So it's all of that. It's a religion and it's a philosophy and it's a psychology, but for me, all of that is secondary to what I think Buddhism really started out as; which is a technology for awakening. And so I would say that everything else was for supporting this awakening; these practices that we do to awaken. "
I think most of us on this forum will agree that we are not here to wrangle over semantics. Rather, we are here to share our knowledge about Buddhism in a manner which supports liberation from our cyclic existence, and also to share ideas which lead to the betterment of our lives here and now; according to Buddhist teachings, mores and values. Why get caught up in overly intricate details?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?
Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.
Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.
Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.
indeed./\
-
a doctor discovers a disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers the cause of the disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers that there can be an end to the disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers the remedy to the disease, not philosophize it
philosophizing isnt going to help solve a problem
you need to discover the condition, the cause, the remedy - you really have to see and discover and experience for yourself.
otherwise it is simply useless unproven postulations
just like a doctor doesnt sit in his armchair trying to philosophize a medicine or treatment for the disease
he needs to examine, investigate, observe, experiment and discover it for himself, otherwise it is pointless
buddhism is all about discovery and liberation through one's awareness
-
Unless one has actually spoken directly to Buddha himself, to say Buddha had said this or that, is just putting words into Buddha's mouth. Have anyone of you ever personally spoken to Buddha? No. You only read books and they are all books by different authors. Have anyone of them spoken to Buddha himself? No, not a single one of them. No one can prove that they have spoken to Buddha, am I right? Has anyone here attained full enligjhtenment? No. All you could do is to write what you think is the Truth, but none of you have realized the Truth yet, correct? So that means you are not enlightened yet, right? You have not reach Nirvana yet, correct? How can anyone represent the Truth if all they did was read books and analyse from their unillumined minds and say this is this and that is that? The basic fundimental truth here is none of you is enlighthened, so please...you are not ready to preach anything yet. You only borrow words from books. You have to first be fully enlightened like what the Buddha did, before you can represent anyone's teaching and not before that.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
a doctor discovers a disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers the cause of the disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers that there can be an end to the disease, not philosophize it
a doctor discovers the remedy to the disease, not philosophize it
philosophizing isnt going to help solve a problem
you need to discover the condition, the cause, the remedy - you really have to see and discover and experience for yourself.
otherwise it is simply useless unproven postulations
just like a doctor doesnt sit in his armchair trying to philosophize a medicine or treatment for the disease
he needs to examine, investigate, observe, experiment and discover it for himself, otherwise it is pointless
buddhism is all about discovery and liberation through one's awareness
'Dukkha' is not exactly a disease, so I won't equate it with medicine. It will be idiotic to think that everyone (with exception) would consider cancer to be an issue to philosophize about! To philosophize about an issue is to think, to contemplate, to gain insight. Also, to philosophize does not mean just 'philosophizing' and nothing else. That is a very narrow take. A serious thinker will go beyond just postulating, and in his search for answer will learn, discover, experiment, examine other's views and conduct researches! Finding or proposing a solution usually follows.
Siddhartha was confronted with a burning issue and he left home to be with all sorts of gurus, Brahmin & Jain priests and ascetics learning from them, debating with them, examing what they taught, trying all sorts of 'tricks' like starving himself or sleeping on stones to experience pain. For me, I know it is painful to be hungry and to lie on stones, no need to experience!
I have to take my hat off for you - twisting the 4NTs to support of your contention that Buddhism didn't begin as a philosophy. You choose to ignore the very rationale why Siddhartha gave up everything and for 6 bumbling years tried to find an answer to why life sucks, and a way out of life sucks. If he had the ‘experience’ he could just as well come up with the Noble Truth in his palace!
-
Originally posted by Urdhaytb:
Unless one has actually spoken directly to Buddha himself, to say Buddha had said this or that, is just putting words into Buddha's mouth. Have anyone of you ever personally spoken to Buddha? No. You only read books and they are all books by different authors. Have anyone of them spoken to Buddha himself? No, not a single one of them. No one can prove that they have spoken to Buddha, am I right? Has anyone here attained full enligjhtenment? No. All you could do is to write what you think is the Truth, but none of you have realized the Truth yet, correct? So that means you are not enlightened yet, right? You have not reach Nirvana yet, correct? How can anyone represent the Truth if all they did was read books and analyse from their unillumined minds and say this is this and that is that? The basic fundimental truth here is none of you is enlighthened, so please...you are not ready to preach anything yet. You only borrow words from books. You have to first be fully enlightened like what the Buddha did, before you can represent anyone's teaching and not before that.
You have made an observation I wouldn't disagree. Perhaps, you would like to find out exactly what is (1) awakening, (2) enlightenment and (3) liberation.
The three terms have been used by all and sundry Buddhists, at times synonymously or inter-changeably.
I am of the opinion that they meant quite differently from each other.
-
I No Stupid... if we followed your point of view that Buddhism did indeed start of as a 'philosophy' and nothing more, then may I ask if you think it was a 'philosophy' that worked? In other words, was it a 'philosophy' that was actually effective and yielded results in what it purported to do; namely, offer a way out of dukkha?
-
Originally posted by Urdhaytb:
Unless one has actually spoken directly to Buddha himself, to say Buddha had said this or that, is just putting words into Buddha's mouth. Have anyone of you ever personally spoken to Buddha? No. You only read books and they are all books by different authors. Have anyone of them spoken to Buddha himself? No, not a single one of them. No one can prove that they have spoken to Buddha, am I right? Has anyone here attained full enligjhtenment? No. All you could do is to write what you think is the Truth, but none of you have realized the Truth yet, correct? So that means you are not enlightened yet, right? You have not reach Nirvana yet, correct? How can anyone represent the Truth if all they did was read books and analyse from their unillumined minds and say this is this and that is that? The basic fundimental truth here is none of you is enlighthened, so please...you are not ready to preach anything yet. You only borrow words from books. You have to first be fully enlightened like what the Buddha did, before you can represent anyone's teaching and not before that.
Appeal to ignorance... By your arguments, no one is fit to teach religion unless they claim they have direct connections... like Scientology, Mormons...
-
Originally posted by realization:
I No Stupid said: I like visitors here to give just one word to substitute this phrase “contemplating on what life is and what irks this existence and a way out of this cyclic existence”.
Buddhism = a contemplation of what life is and what irks this existence, and a way out of such cyclic existence.
Pardon the rudimentary nature of my substitution. I can be quite the primary school kid most days. I think simply, I guess
I take it that your answer to my question was 'Buddhism'. Very clever and diplomatic but would that be also the answer a non-Buddhist gives?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
I take it that your answer to my question was 'Buddhism'. Very clever and diplomatic but would that be also the answer a non-Buddhist gives?
Not sure what a non-Buddhist's answer to that question would be really. Perhaps we should wait for more interested visitors to drop by and give their two cents as well.
-
Originally posted by realization:
I No Stupid... if we followed your point of view that Buddhism did indeed start of as a 'philosophy' and nothing more, then may I ask if you think it was a 'philosophy' that worked? In other words, was it a 'philosophy' that was actually effective and yielded results in what it purported to do; namely, offer a way out of dukkha?
Buddhism began as a philosophy but it didn't stop there. When Siddhartha stood up elated (just like Archimedes who ran out of his bath naked shouting 'eureka') after he ‘discovered’ the Truth, wanted very much to let the ‘world’ knows his discovery and he went eagerly to search for the 5 companions he abandoned. For the next 45 years he went about to teach the Noble Truths, developed doctrines, precepts, virtues; teaching both sangha and lay the way to end suffering – to abide by the precepts, to cultivate values and virtues, to live the wholesome life, to purify the mind – all that you will find in the 4th NT or the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP).
Like any teaching, what the Buddha taught must be put into practice. By practice, I mean literally the eight steps of the NEP and not some rites or devotional rituals. If you look at the NEP, it is quite a tall order. For one to achieved all these is a feat beyond words and I am sure he will be a happy person, free from dukkha.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Buddhism began as a philosophy but it didn't stop there. When Siddhartha stood up elated (just like Archimedes who ran out of his bath naked shouting 'eureka') after he ‘discovered’ the Truth, wanted very much to let the ‘world’ knows his discovery and he went eagerly to search for the 5 companions he abandoned. For the next 45 years he went about to teach the Noble Truths, developed doctrines, precepts, virtues; teaching both sangha and lay the way to end suffering – to abide by the precepts, to cultivate values and virtues, to live the wholesome life, to purify the mind – all that you will find in the 4th NT or the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP).
Like any teaching, what the Buddha taught must be put into practice. By practice, I mean literally the eight steps of the NEP and not some rites or devotional rituals. If you look at the NEP, it is quite a tall order. For one to achieved all these is a feat beyond words and I am sure he will be a happy person, free from dukkha.
Do you think there are particular aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) that are especially important in the goal to be free from suffering?
-
Originally posted by realization:
Do you think there are particular aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) that are especially important in the goal to be free from suffering?
I will not add or take away any aspect of the NEP. However, to rank them in importance is quite tricky. A practitioner would have to find his own way the order (sequence) of the 8 steps which he/she could achieved. For instance, he/she might find it easiest to choose the right livelihood. To perfect one's speech will take some training or mindfulness. By choosing the right livelihood, it may help to perfect one's speech because the job doesn't involve having to tell lies!
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Truth is truth. People can regard Buddhism as philosophy or religion, it does not affect the truth.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism...
Originally posted by Weychin:[ Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Buddhism began as a philosophy but it didn't stop there.
i already see a middle way here liao./\
-
Pratyekabuddha (緣覺佛). One who is enlightened through contemplating. He is also called a solitary Buddha (�覺佛) because, living in solitude, he has realized the truth without receiving teachings from a Buddha.
According to the above, the mentioned enlightened being does not know what is true religion and also don't know Buddhism, but is very true
