Originally posted by sinweiy:
i'm also thinking as posted in this thread:-
The Essence Of Buddhism: Non-grasping
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434898
Right View does not mean "Right" knowledge.
/\
A view is what one sees or observes. Knowledge is what one comes to know by acquaintance, association, learning, investigation, experiment or experience.
Views are often called perspectives or opinions which are personal and subjective. Knowledge is often associated with common fact, natural truth and tends towards objectivity.
Therefore, view is not the same as knowledge though I would add that one’s view is influenced by one’s knowledge.
As for ‘right view’, we are going into the Buddhist concept and you have given that in your post which I am going to use.
Right View in the Buddhist context: “simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth.”
Since Right View is in the NEP which is part of 4NT, this definition is acceptable. From what I gather, Right View is pointing specifically at one’s view and understanding of the 4NT. And of course this is expanded to one’s view of impermanence, suffering, no self, karma, rebirth, etc.
//“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.” //
The ‘cognitive aspect’ is mental processes and ‘wisdom’ is part of NEP. Both ‘cognitive’ and ‘wisdom’ is related to philosophy.
//Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence.//
This statement is true in the same manner that profound spirituality does not necessarily lead one to liberation.
//Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind.//
Exactly, that’s how the Noble Truth came about.
//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.//
Exactly, ‘intuitive insight’ is how the Noble Truth came about.
Originally posted by realization: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.
I am not sure if you really had difficulty understanding a simple statement: “Buddhism began as a philosophy.” It seems to me you are inclined towards what Kenneth Folk has described Buddhism:- It's a religion and it's a philosophy and it's a psychology.
If so, I am very puzzled by why you cannot understand my statement. I am going to say that you can accept Buddhism has philosophy but you cannot accept Buddhism began as a philosophy. Now, this is a different ball game.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now: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.
Where did you get this? Did Buddha said these words?
The 4NT may be very profound. If it is beyond understanding (not just reasoning) then it would pointless to teach. If it can only be experienced by the wise, then there is no hope for the unwise and not so wise.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Where did you get this? Did Buddha said these words?
The 4NT may be very profound. If it is beyond understanding (not just reasoning) then it would pointless to teach. If it can only be experienced by the wise, then there is no hope for the unwise and not so wise.
Why do you ask so? Did the Buddha NOT say these words?
clinging on to religion debates are consuming too much time on practical salvation
"If it can only be experienced by the wise, then there is no hope for the unwise and not so wise."
大智若愚，大愚若智. Only an arbitrary line separates them.
hmm, how u know ppl are not defending one's self ego
Originally posted by knowing:
Why do you ask so? Did the Buddha NOT say these words?
hahaha!
(1) I asked: Did Buddha said these words?
(2) You asked: Did the Buddha NOT say these words?
My answer to (1) is NO, and I guess your answer to (1) is YES. Which means your answer to question (2) is NO.
In the end, the answer to (1) and (2) is NO. Who is right? You or me?
Originally posted by sinweiy:hmm, how u know ppl are not defending one's self ego
very good question .... my answer is 'don't know'.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"If it can only be experienced by the wise, then there is no hope for the unwise and not so wise."
大智若愚，大愚若智. Only an arbitrary line separates them.
Care to elaborate "Only an arbitrary line separates them." ?
To I no stupid: "There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tath�gata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath�gata in accordance with reality would speak
- brahmajala sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
"Then, monks, the Blessed Lord, the Arahant, the fully-enlightened Buddha Vipassī thought: "Suppose now I were to teach Dhamma?" And then he thought: [36] "I have attained to this Dhamma which is profound, hard to see, hard to grasp, peaceful, excellent, beyond reasoning,31 subtle, to be apprehended by the wise. But this generation delights in clinging,32 rejoices in it and revels in it. But for those who so delight, rejoice and revel in clinging this matter is hard to see, namely the conditioned nature of things,33 or dependent origination.34 Equally hard to see would be the calming of all the mental formations,35 the abandonment of all the substrates of rebirth,36 the waning of craving, dispassion, cessation and Nibb�na. And if I were to teach Dhamma to others and they did not understand me, that would be a weariness and a trouble to me."
- mahapadana sutta, http://www.palicanon.org/sutta-pitaka/transcribed-suttas/digha-nikaya/171-dn-14-mahpadna-sutta-the-great-discourse-on-the-lineage.html#ftnlink1_31
obviously "wisdom" does not mean "clever" since buddhism is not a truth comprehensible by the intellect but only through intuitive, experiential realization. there was once a low iq monk who attained arhantship, not because he was clever but because he was wise. on the other hand a lot of clever people dont attain enlightenment.
By the way I noticed you said you are only concerned about what buddha said. But when I show you what buddha said, you say you cannot read them. What does this prove? You aren't even concerned about what buddha said! You are only concerned about protecting your false, ignorant views of buddhism which I have proven again and again to be baseless.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Care to elaborate "Only an arbitrary line separates them." ?
As per your request...
Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.[1][2]
Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions. For example, during the 1973 oil crisis, Americans were allowed to purchase gasoline only on odd-numbered days if their license plate was odd, and on even-numbered days if their license plate was even. The system was well-defined and not random in its restrictions; however, since license plate numbers are completely unrelated to a person's fitness to purchase gasoline, it was still an arbitrary division of people. Similarly, schoolchildren are often organized by their surname in alphabetical order, a non-random yet still arbitrary method, at least in cases where surnames are irrelevant.
- From Wiki.
Originally posted by I No Stupid: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?
Originally posted by sinweiy:hmm, how u know ppl are not defending one's self ego
人清自清，人云亦云.
Humility is a constant cultivation.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Where did you get this? Did Buddha said these words?
The 4NT may be very profound. If it is beyond understanding (not just reasoning) then it would pointless to teach. If it can only be experienced by the wise, then there is no hope for the unwise and not so wise.
//Where did you get this? Did Buddha said these words?//
Stream Entry, Part 1: The way to stream entry
"And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy."
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//Where did you get this? Did Buddha said these words?//
Stream Entry, Part 1: The way to stream entry
"And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy."
Ok, I see where you get it. But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Ok, I see where you get it. But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"
To be pedantic I'd say no. A better question would be do you believe its confluent with Buddha's teaching?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Buddha has time and time again revealed, explained, and demonstrated his powers. But supernatural powers cannot overcome karmic force, and there is no creator God. As for all those deities you mentioned probably exist but Buddhists aren't superstitious about them. But they certainly exist - just go to a taoist temple and see their medium being possessed, etc. Buddha was once a human being, that after enlightenment, transcended the human condition of suffering and delusion and is called "the awakened one". The sutta is absolutely true as pali suttas authenticity reliable and consistent, and by the way many suttas have talked about hell, karma, rebirth, supernatural powers which in your materialistic viewpoint does not exist, and therefore you have rejected some of the core teachings of buddha himself.
I have no doubt that the Buddha was an ordinary human being. But he was 'extra' ordinary compared to many human beings. He had a beautiful mind, insightful and wise. There are human beings past and present that fall into this category. The big difference is that Buddha had and has a large following, and his establishment of the sangha saw to the propagation and development of what he taught. It is the same as other religions - large adherents and established organisations, and deep pockets!
I have deep respect for his wisdom and his teachings but I have my doubts as to claims of his supernatural power, past lives and so forth.
// ... by the way many suttas have talked about hell, karma, rebirth, supernatural powers which in your materialistic viewpoint does not exist, and therefore you have rejected some of the core teachings of buddha himself.//
Other religious scriptures also talk about similar concepts like karma, rebirth, and supernatural powers. The law of causality (cause & effect) is not unique to Buddhism. However, 'karma and rebirth' is. Just because I reject the validity of some doctrines does not mean I am materialistic. That is a narrow take. The core teaching of the Buddha is the Four Noble Truths; the other doctrines were developed to support the 4NTs. I don't need experiential realization to understand the 2nd NT - cause of suffering, and that when the cause is overcome, one is free from suffering (3rd NT).
Wisdom as was mentioned in another post is not about intelligence or knowledge. A PhD holder is not necessarily wise. And a wise person is not necessarily knowledgeable or intelligent. However, to be wise, does required intellectual. The opposite of wise is folly -easier to understand.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
To be pedantic I'd say no. A better question would be do you believe its confluent with Buddha's teaching?
hmmm ... I say your question " ... you believe its confluent with Buddha's teaching?" is pathetic. Many other teachings are in congruent with Buddha's but are those teachings uttered by Buddha?
I No Stupid said: Ok, I see where you get it. But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"
-------------------------------
@I No Stupid, the words of the Buddha were orally transmitted for many years before they were written down; that much I'm sure you know. And I'm guessing you may be wondering about the credibility of such oral transmission since an obvious question would be whether the words of the Buddha could have been transmitted accurately; afterall, would it be possible for human beings to have such good memories?
Well, if you haven't heard of a person called Mingun Sayadaw, I suggest you Google to find out a little about this person.
Also, from what I understand from the text that I quote below, it is that the Pali Canon represents the most complete and consistent set of Buddhist suttas surviving till the current day. Any worries about the problems with transmission a la the child's game Telephone or Chinese Whispers is actually squashed by the observation that any disagreements between versions is largely insubstantial; instead serving to accentuate the consistency of Buddhist textual transmission since the Buddha's day.
" The Pali canon is the only extant complete Indian collection of Buddhist texts. While there were certainly whole collections, most of this literature would have been destroyed by invading Islamic armies that, by the end of the twelfth century, had devastated the great Indian Buddhist monastic libraries. Since the Pali collection had been transmitted as far away as Sri Lanka in the third century B.C.E., it was spared this fate. In Sri Lanka, the canon has been preserved with great care down to the present day by the lone surviving sect of ancient Indian Buddhism, namely the Theravada ... [Between then and now, while there have been some scribal emendations], the insubstantiality of the disagreements between these versions serves more to accentuate the CONSISTENCY of Buddhist textual transmission since the Buddha’s own day than to reveal serious divergence. So, if your aim is to get as close to “the Buddha’s idiom” as possible, the Pali suttas are the logical starting point. "
- from p. xxvii of "Basic Teachings of the Buddha", a translation and compilation by Glen Wallis
Originally posted by realization:I No Stupid said: Ok, I see where you get it. But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"
-------------------------------
@I No Stupid, the words of the Buddha were orally transmitted for many years before they were written down; that much I'm sure you know. And I'm guessing you may be wondering about the credibility of such oral transmission since an obvious question would be whether the words of the Buddha could have been transmitted accurately; afterall, would it be possible for human beings to have such good memories?
Well, if you haven't heard of a person called Mingun Sayadaw, I suggest you Google to find out a little about this person.
Also, from what I understand from the text that I quote below, it is that the Pali Canon represents the most complete and consistent set of Buddhist suttas surviving till the current day. Any worries about the problems with transmission a la the child's game Telephone or Chinese Whispers is actually squashed by the observation that any disagreements between versions is largely insubstantial; instead serving to accentuate the consistency of Buddhist textual transmission since the Buddha's day.
" The Pali canon is the only extant complete Indian collection of Buddhist texts. While there were certainly whole collections, most of this literature would have been destroyed by invading Islamic armies that, by the end of the twelfth century, had devastated the great Indian Buddhist monastic libraries. Since the Pali collection had been transmitted as far away as Sri Lanka in the third century B.C.E., it was spared this fate. In Sri Lanka, the canon has been preserved with great care down to the present day by the lone surviving sect of ancient Indian Buddhism, namely the Theravada ... [Between then and now, while there have been some scribal emendations], the insubstantiality of the disagreements between these versions serves more to accentuate the CONSISTENCY of Buddhist textual transmission since the Buddha’s own day than to reveal serious divergence. So, if your aim is to get as close to “the Buddha’s idiom” as possible, the Pali suttas are the logical starting point. "
- from p. xxvii of "Basic Teachings of the Buddha", a translation and compilation by Glen Wallis
I have to give a quick reply as I am on my way out: what you said I am aware but I try to imagine the situation during Buddha's time. When the Buddha spoke to monks, lay, kings, etc. there is no ad verbatim recording there and then, right away. Ananda was his 'secretary' taking notes mentally not permanent writing. For one person to remember word for word exactly what the Buddha said is so astonishing, beyond 'belief'. Even Buddha would not be able to repeat word for word what he himself had said!
Ananda as his constant companion have heard what the Buddha said and was able to recall the bulk of it. And these are recited day in and day out by groups of monks who 'specialised' in certain suttas, not the entire tipitaka. However, it is possible for rare individuals to be able to recite the whole tipitaka just like the Myanmar monk.
When it comes to written form that is where transcribing problems arise. The written works (Pali canon) were written by Theravada monks in Sri Lanka some 500 yrs (need to check this, cannot recall from memory!) after the Buddha's death as well as the death of all his first and second and maybe even third generation disciples. By then Buddhism had already developed into many schools!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Ok, I see where you get it. But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"
//”But my second question was "Did Buddha said these words?"//
Going by your question, everything that is presently stated in the Pali Canon will have to be substantiated somehow and from somewhere again as the words of the Buddha? Tell me honestly from your own personal opinion, is it possible or is it warranted to do so? Faith is one of the most important value that is needed if you want to believe in any religion not just Buddhism. Even in normal live, faith is also just as important, otherwise one would be living life full of suspicion of others.
I thought this second paragraph from the ‘Stream Entry’ seems to fit the description of some lay people that are involved in this discussion here.
//"When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on aversion... based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on delusion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on delusion... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not deluded. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's deluded.//