THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
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
a pratyekabuddha can only exist at a time where no other buddha's teachings exist, furthermore a pratyekabuddha does not have the ability to turn the dharma wheel or teach many others
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
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!
Yeah, certainly every step on the 8fold Path is important, but if I may add, I reckon that staying close to the teachings of the Buddha while traversing the 8fold Path is of especial importance.
In the past, I'd met a teacher who told us that while meditation is important, knowing why you are meditating is just as important. Otherwise, one could spend ten years being very disciplined in cross-legged contemplation and still get no where (unfortunately for me, this teacher didn't have much substantial to offer us by way of doctrine). More recently, fellow Buddhists on the forum have also been emphasizing the importance of Right View. It's really the first and foremost step on the Path and one that should continue to sustain us throughout our entire spiritual journey to awakening and freedom from suffering.
Just my 2 yuan. Lol.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
'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!
actually im saying suffering is even more obvious than cancer, so what is there to postulate. some may be unaware they had cancer, but nobody can deny suffering.
the cause, end and remedy of suffering for a liberated person is also as obvious as daylight since he is enlightened and liberated, so what is there to postulate about
when you have true realization, experience and liberation, you are a thousand miles beyond postulations. you have seen it for yourself and you speak with authority.
-
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.
actually the pali suttas are almost completely accurate depictions of the original words of the historical appearance of buddha (cant say for other canons but the pali canon are maintained by a tradition emphasizing on the authenticity of the original words of buddha), having an unbroken oral and textual tradition backdating to the buddha's times. comparing the various versions of the pali suttas we find almost no discrepencies and changes.
that said, i have also verified what the buddha said through personal experience (im sure many can say the same) so it is not just faith and belief for me.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
actually im saying suffering is even more obvious than cancer, so what is there to postulate. some may be unaware they had cancer, but nobody can deny suffering.
the cause, end and remedy of suffering for a liberated person is also as obvious as daylight since he is enlightened and liberated, so what is there to postulate about
when you have true realization, experience and liberation, you are a thousand miles beyond postulations. you have seen it for yourself and you speak with authority.
Speak with authority but one's eyes can't see their own face is a matter of concern
一ä¹�八八年在美國首都è�¯åºœï¼Œæœ‰ä½�周廣大先生，也是在臨終å‰�三天念佛往生的。他得的病是血癌，醫生放棄治療，這時他的家人慌了，他家裡沒有一個是信仰宗教的，一家人在è�¯åºœé–‹ä¸€é–“麵包店，æ¤æ™‚家人æ‰�到處求神求佛，希望有奇蹟出ç�¾ã€‚也算他é�‹æ°£å¥½ï¼Œå› 緣殊å‹�，é�‡åˆ°è�¯åºœä½›æ•™æœƒçš„一ä½�龔振è�¯å±…å£«ã€‚é¾”å±…å£«æ˜¯å¿µä½›æœ€è™”èª çš„äººï¼Œå°ˆä¿®æ·¨åœŸï¼Œè¬›è©±å¿ƒç›´å�£å¿«ï¼Œå®¹æ˜“得罪人。周先生碰到這麼一個人。龔居士一看，他的病ä¸�å�¯èƒ½å¥½ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥ç›´æˆªäº†ç•¶å‹¸ä»–ä¸�è¦�æ±‚ç—…å¥½ã€‚ä»–èªªï¼šã€Œäººåœ¨ä¸–é–“å¤ªè‹¦ï¼Œä½ å¥½äº†ä¹‹å¾Œé‚„ä¸�是一樣更苦，有甚麼æ„�義？ä¸�如往生到西方極樂世界，到那裡去作佛ã€�作è�©è–©ï¼Œå›žä¾†å†�åº¦ä½ çš„å®¶è¦ªçœ·å±¬ï¼Œé€™å¤šå¥½ï¼�ã€�周廣大一è�½å¾ˆæœ‰é�“ç�†ï¼Œç«‹åˆ»å°±ç›¸ä¿¡ï¼Œå°±æŽ¥å�—，è¦�求他的太太兒女都幫助他念佛，求往生淨土ä¸�求病好。這一個決定下得æ£ç¢ºï¼�
佛教會的å�Œä¿®ä¹Ÿæœ‰å¹¾ä½�å‰�去幫他助念，三天三夜佛號沒有å�œæ¢ã€‚念到第二天，見到地è—�è�©è–©ä¾†äº†ï¼Œä»–說出è�©è–©çš„樣å�，大家è�½ä»–講的樣å�，是地è—�è�©è–©ã€‚龔居士很難得，立刻æ��醒他，ä¸�管甚麼樣佛è�©è–©ã€�ç”šéº¼äººï¼Œä½ è¦‹åˆ°éƒ½ä¸�能跟他去，一å�¥é˜¿å½Œé™€ä½›å¿µåˆ°åº•ï¼Œä¸�見到阿彌陀佛絕å°�ä¸�å�¯ä»¥åŽ»ã€‚這一å�¥é�žå¸¸é�žå¸¸é‡�è¦�。他回é�Žé 來專心念「阿彌陀佛ã€�，念了沒多久，地è—�è�©è–©ä¸�見了。念到第三天，他說西方三è�–：阿彌陀佛ã€�觀音ã€�勢至，從雲端下來接引他ä½�生。這是ç�¾ä»£äººï¼Œé‚„æ˜¯åœ¨ç¾Žåœ‹ï¼ŒçœŸæ˜¯ç¨€æœ‰çš„å› ç·£ã€‚å‘¨å…ˆç”Ÿä¸€ç”Ÿå¾žä¾†æ²’æœ‰æŽ¥è§¸é�Žä½›æ•™ï¼Œè‡¨çµ‚æ‰�é�‡åˆ°é¾”居士，走得清清楚楚ã€�明明白白，他真的往生，絕å°�ä¸�是å�‡çš„。
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
actually im saying suffering is even more obvious than cancer, so what is there to postulate. some may be unaware they had cancer, but nobody can deny suffering.
the cause, end and remedy of suffering for a liberated person is also as obvious as daylight since he is enlightened and liberated, so what is there to postulate about
when you have true realization, experience and liberation, you are a thousand miles beyond postulations. you have seen it for yourself and you speak with authority.
'Suffering' as a verb means something we have undergone, hence, experience.
'Dukkha' as a noun means the issue (birth, ageing, sickness, death), something which can be postulated.
When Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was contemplating an ISSUE (dukkha). He was not experiencing anything while seated motionless and in deep thoughts. He got up (awaken) only after he had completely formulated the Four Noble Truths. And it was said that his hesitation to spread the good news was something like this: “I have discovered the profound truth of existence; they will never be able to understand.”
The Noble Truth taken in total was the culmination of a postulation and its search for answer which took 6 years in the making. Granted that experience may be input to the process of formulating the Truth, it is not entirely derived based on experiential realization. I would consider Siddhartha hardly experienced in life given that he lived a sheltered life for almost 30 yrs!
However, I give him credit for his determination and doggedness in wanting to find the meaning of existence. The way he formulated the Four Noble Truths is classic problem solving methodology – (1) state the problem, (2) determine the cause, (3) set the goal, (4) generate solutions. I do not consider this methodology anything to do with experiential realization.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
i already see a middle way here liao./\
//i already see a middle way here liao.//
The 'Middle Way' (note the cap) is a term used to refer to the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP). I take it that you know why. However, 'middle way' as you mentioned perhaps refer to the middle ground (in between), neither right or wrong, nor extremes.
I think the point of this debate is to arrive at the 'RIGHT VIEW' not 'Middle View'. I see how 'skill in means' is used time and again by a branch of Buddhism to get out of a 'tight' situation!
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
//i already see a middle way here liao.//
The 'Middle Way' (note the cap) is a term used to refer to the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP). I take it that you know why. However, 'middle way' as you mentioned perhaps refer to the middle ground (in between), neither right or wrong, nor extremes.
I think the point of this debate is to arrive at the 'RIGHT VIEW' not 'Middle View'. I see how 'skill in means' is used time and again by a branch of Buddhism to get out of a 'tight' situation!
Tell us... what is the 'Right View' within the context of this debate? Perhaps, give us the gist of what it is you are trying to put across within this context?
So far as I understand it, you're contending that Buddhism started out as a philosophy and nothing more. You were also opining that the 2nd - 4th Noble Truths were arrived at via postulation, not direct experience. You've also put forth the point of view that Buddha was an ordinary human being who simply happened to be a "great thinker, fantastic teacher and a very wise person" (quoting verbatim). Then you also expressed disapproval, saying that the Buddha shouldn't be put on a pedestal and elevated to god-like status and worshipped, for that would be amounting to idolatory.
That's it, no?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
//i already see a middle way here liao.//
The 'Middle Way' (note the cap) is a term used to refer to the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP). I take it that you know why. However, 'middle way' as you mentioned perhaps refer to the middle ground (in between), neither right or wrong, nor extremes.
I think the point of this debate is to arrive at the 'RIGHT VIEW' not 'Middle View'. I see how 'skill in means' is used time and again by a branch of Buddhism to get out of a 'tight' situation!
i'm also thinking as posted in this thread:-
The Essence Of Buddhism: Non-grasping
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434898
Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.
Right View does not mean "Right" knowledge.
/\
-
I no stupid, you have to read this: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434937 Buddha has clearly stated himself that those who think his insights come from logical inferences and that he is just an ordinary person, are heading for hell (due to holding onto wrong view which is in itself bad karma). He also stated that there is literally nothing he hasn't experienced, except the pure abode realms. So how can you say he is inexperienced? Incidentally, one of his three knowledges is his knowledge of his past lives. He recalled ninety one aeons of his past lives. His "knowledge of life" or more accurately "lives" certainly exceeds everybody. He is also admittedly "omniscient". Therefore, your statements have no basis at all.
-
The sutta described the three knowledges that the buddha gained on his enlightenment, and that the 4nts are *discerned* "as it has come to be" in other words in experience and not via logical inference, reasoning or postulation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html The Three Knowledges "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.[3] He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting,] 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. "This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.' "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. "This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.' "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' "This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata. A disciple of the noble ones has not yet come to conclusion, but he comes to the conclusion,[4] 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'[5] "His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' "This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, and it is here that a disciple of the noble ones has come to conclusion: 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'"
-
I forgot to add: if you read the sutta in context, the buddha actually obtained these knowledges in the state of meditative absorptions or jhanas. In such state, no discursive thinking or reasoning could arise, how can there be philosophizing? Discursive thinking being abandoned, brightly aware, one opens the doors to deep meditative absorptions and insight knowledges.
-
You forgot to quote buddha in full: he said the dharma he realized is beyond the sphere of reasoning, and is to be Experienced by the wise.
-
Originally posted by realization:
Tell us... what is the 'Right View' within the context of this debate? Perhaps, give us the gist of what it is you are trying to put across within this context?
So far as I understand it, you're contending that Buddhism started out as a philosophy and nothing more. You were also opining that the 2nd - 4th Noble Truths were arrived at via postulation, not direct experience. You've also put forth the point of view that Buddha was an ordinary human being who simply happened to be a "great thinker, fantastic teacher and a very wise person" (quoting verbatim). Then you also expressed disapproval, saying that the Buddha shouldn't be put on a pedestal and elevated to god-like status and worshipped, for that would be amounting to idolatory.
That's it, no?
My reply will be confined to the context of the statement I made viz: "Buddhism began as a philosophy ....". You have got the gists of all my posts so far except your additional '... and nothing more.' In a reply to you I said: "Buddhism began as a philosophy but it didn't stop there."
Now, I would ask you instead: What do you understand by 'but it didn't stop there'?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I no stupid, you have to read this: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434937
Buddha has clearly stated himself that those who think his insights come from logical inferences and that he is just an ordinary person, are heading for hell (due to holding onto wrong view which is in itself bad karma).
He also stated that there is literally nothing he hasn’t experienced, except the pure abode realms.
So how can you say he is inexperienced?
Incidentally, one of his three knowledges is his knowledge of his past lives. He recalled ninety one aeons of his past lives. His “knowledge of life” or more accurately “lives” certainly exceeds everybody. He is also admittedly “omniscient”.
Therefore, your statements have no basis at all.
You are referring to a recent post by @realization. Honestly, I cannot read all the details. Supernatural powers were attributed to the Buddha. I don't believed them. Because if I believed the Buddha had supernatural power, then I have to believe many other gods/Gods which too have supernatural powers - Brahma, Tua Pek Kong, Kitchen God, Creator-God, etc. and especially the one with the power to send me to hell !!!!
Buddha is no god/God. Until you hear his voice you cannot say whatever that is written in the sutta is absolutely true. Did you hear the Buddha said "Buddha has clearly stated himself that those who think his insights come from logical inferences and that he is just an ordinary person, are heading for hell (due to holding onto wrong view which is in itself bad karma)."?
Perhaps, you can try answering this question: Is the Buddha a human being or some other kind of being?
-
I not Stupid is a perfect example of the ancient phrase " playing guzheng for the cow to hear". lols.....
-
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:
I not Stupid is a perfect example of the ancient phrase ” playing guzheng for the cow to hear”. lols…..
He's the player... the others are the cows... Its a matter of perspective XD
BTW, its qin, not guzheng
-
He is the cow while others are trying hard to play a piece of music he will understand....lols....too bad...a cow is always a cow.
-
aneslayer it is guzheng not gu zen. You read again.
-
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:
He is the cow while others are trying hard to play a piece of music he will understand….lols….too bad…a cow is always a cow.
One would never know if any cow understood if one don't try. I believe cows moos to each other in a way they understand each other... not so with the player....
I've already edited lah, was trying to pin yin... its qin, not guzheng....
-
Absolutely that's why cows is a group and guzheng player another group. Cows can understand only cows never celestial music. lols.....
-
Aneslayer , qin is different from guzheng. Guzheng is guzheng, qin is qin. Don't mix them up.
-
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:
I not Stupid is a perfect example of the ancient phrase ” playing guzheng for the cow to hear”. lols…..
hahaha, whatever your intenion is let your karma bear fruit ........
-
I came here to listen and learn... I don't have instrument skills but mooing in a way its understoodable by my fellow cows. It was believed that music makes my wife's milk taste better. Thats for my kids to find out... No wait, they are milking my wife...
Seriously, its 对牛弹� not 对牛弹�� unless I missed a particular inside joke?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
My reply will be confined to the context of the statement I made viz: "Buddhism began as a philosophy ....". You have got the gists of all my posts so far except your additional '... and nothing more.' In a reply to you I said: "Buddhism began as a philosophy but it didn't stop there."
Now, I would ask you instead: What do you understand by 'but it didn't stop there'?
I understand nothing by your claim that Buddhism started out as a philosophy 'but it didn't stop there'. To begin with, I have thought of Buddhism as a set of teachings that help people to come to certain essential insights about the nature of experience, and that these teachings contain combined elements of psychology, philosophy, religion and method.
As I'd said previously, I like how Kenneth Folk has described Buddhism :-
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.