Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:When Buddha preached to thousands during his lifetime, numerous lotus flowers dropped from the heaven. The ground shaked and the Buddha emitted brillant lights to shine on the audience in front. Miracles happened. Buddha’s teachings is miracles. Not philosophy but the earliest ancient religion.
can watch it on this
Hmmm ...... I see now ... Buddhism is not a philosophy ..... it is fairy tale!
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Medicine is more than just philosophy means it must start as philosophy? Lol!
Hahaha, the koyoh man also had a philosophy. He started by observing that people have all sorts of pains and he wondered what causes those pains. Then he thought of ways to overcome the pains. His objective was to sell the koyoh but he threw in kungfu and lotus flowers to make the koyoh works like miracle.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:Celestial music in the air, celestial fragrant flowers dropped onto the thousands of disciples and laypeople at the feet of Buddha when he talked on the Flower Sutra.
Can see the actions here with English subtitles.
How do you explain the celestial music and flowers? Miracles in modern term.
//How do you explain the celestial music and flowers? Miracles in modern term.//
I can't. Maybe An Eternal Now can try because he is nearer to celestial.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:How strange, I not Stupid, you do not know what is Canon of Sutra but you want to debate on Buddhism ?
Indeed, it is strange - I have not come across Canon of Sutra. Maybe you can elaborate?
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:How strange, I not Stupid, you do not know what is Canon of Sutra but you want to debate on Buddhism ?
Pali canon sutras?
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:Pali Canon Sutra is one.
Here is another one
Mah�y�na sutras are a broad genre of Buddhist scriptures that are accepted as canonical by the various traditions of Mah�y�na Buddhism. These are largely preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the Tibetan Buddhist canon, and in extant Sanskrit manuscripts. Some six hundred Mah�y�na sutras have survived in Sanskrit or in Chinese and Tibetan translations.[1]
I see. You are talking about the different Buddhist canons. Hmm ... like the true religion debate, this is a can of worms - different canons and which one is true?
@Leo
Perhaps u can read this...
When Are Miracles Appropriate?
Once, a layman named Kevaddha told the Buddha that the city of Nalanda was nearby, full of people, many of whom admired him, and that if any of his disciples could perform a miracle, they would have greater admiration for him. He then asked if the Buddha could request a disciple to do so. Despite being asked thrice, the Buddha rejected his appeal. After all, the Buddha doesn’t encourage the performing of ‘street magic’ just to boast or please the populace. What more essential was to develop one’s mind and to guide others to do the same. On another occasion by a river, an emaciated ascetic with long thick hair glanced at the Buddha sarcastically, before crossing it on its surface. Seeing this, a disciple of the Buddha asked if he could see him do the same. The Buddha replied that he would show him the worth of the feat instead. When a ferryman came towards the Buddha, he asked him how much one paid him to cross the river. The answer was ‘half a masaka’, a coin of very low value. The Buddha remarked that the ascetic’s miracle was worth only that doable with half a masaka, while he had mortified his body over a long time just to master that. It would had been worthier to use the time for the well-being of others.
However, this does not mean that the Buddha and his disciples were incapable of, or never performed any miracles at all, though he did forbid insensible miracles which served no useful purpose. As recorded in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha once came to the swelling River Ganges. Some were looking for a raft, and others binding reeds to form one. The Buddha, as swiftly as a strong man stretches or flexes his arm, vanished from where he was with his retinue of monks and remanifested on the other shore. Commenting on those who have yet to cross, he said, ‘When they want to cross the sea, the lake or the pond, people make a bridge or raft, the wise have crossed already.’ In short, the Buddha had mass-teleported himself and the monks across the river in the blink of an eye! This is surely more efficient than walking on water! This was done for practical reasons of not being able to find transport, and it was an opportunity to teach. The late fashioning of a bridge or raft represented the belated creation or search of a means to cross the water, which represented the sea of suffering, to reach the other shore, which represented liberation. The Buddha was emphasising that wisdom is the true and speedy vehicle needed to cross over suffering.
In a related story, a ferryman refused to take the Buddha across a river because he did not have the fare to pay. To his amazement, the Buddha simply disappeared from the bank and reappeared on the opposite. When King Bimbisara heard of this incident, he issued an edict to allow all ascetics in his country to be ferried for free. Once again, the Buddha displayed his supernormal powers only as a last resort. Miracles by themselves might amaze, while not necessarily leading the amazed to realise the Dharma. They might distract their witnesses from the Dharma instead, who might be attracted only to learn how to perform such miracles. One of the most famous of miracles that only the Buddha could do, was the Twin Miracle. He would levitate into the air and sprout the opposing elements of fire and water from his upper and lower body simultaneously (followed by from his left and right), and in reversed directions. This he did on two occasions – once, to humble his proud clansmen, so as to open their minds to listen to the Dharma with reverence, and once, when some other teachers sought to promote their ‘superiority’ by showing off their miracles. As many other incidents would attest, the Twin Miracle is really just the tip of the iceberg of the extraordinary feats the Buddha was capable of!
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2011/06/when-are-miracles-appropriate/
Originally posted by 2009novice:@Leo
Perhaps u can read this...
When Are Miracles Appropriate?
Once, a layman named Kevaddha told the Buddha that the city of Nalanda was nearby, full of people, many of whom admired him, and that if any of his disciples could perform a miracle, they would have greater admiration for him. He then asked if the Buddha could request a disciple to do so. Despite being asked thrice, the Buddha rejected his appeal. After all, the Buddha doesn’t encourage the performing of ‘street magic’ just to boast or please the populace. What more essential was to develop one’s mind and to guide others to do the same. On another occasion by a river, an emaciated ascetic with long thick hair glanced at the Buddha sarcastically, before crossing it on its surface. Seeing this, a disciple of the Buddha asked if he could see him do the same. The Buddha replied that he would show him the worth of the feat instead. When a ferryman came towards the Buddha, he asked him how much one paid him to cross the river. The answer was ‘half a masaka’, a coin of very low value. The Buddha remarked that the ascetic’s miracle was worth only that doable with half a masaka, while he had mortified his body over a long time just to master that. It would had been worthier to use the time for the well-being of others.
However, this does not mean that the Buddha and his disciples were incapable of, or never performed any miracles at all, though he did forbid insensible miracles which served no useful purpose. As recorded in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha once came to the swelling River Ganges. Some were looking for a raft, and others binding reeds to form one. The Buddha, as swiftly as a strong man stretches or flexes his arm, vanished from where he was with his retinue of monks and remanifested on the other shore. Commenting on those who have yet to cross, he said, ‘When they want to cross the sea, the lake or the pond, people make a bridge or raft, the wise have crossed already.’ In short, the Buddha had mass-teleported himself and the monks across the river in the blink of an eye! This is surely more efficient than walking on water! This was done for practical reasons of not being able to find transport, and it was an opportunity to teach. The late fashioning of a bridge or raft represented the belated creation or search of a means to cross the water, which represented the sea of suffering, to reach the other shore, which represented liberation. The Buddha was emphasising that wisdom is the true and speedy vehicle needed to cross over suffering.
In a related story, a ferryman refused to take the Buddha across a river because he did not have the fare to pay. To his amazement, the Buddha simply disappeared from the bank and reappeared on the opposite. When King Bimbisara heard of this incident, he issued an edict to allow all ascetics in his country to be ferried for free. Once again, the Buddha displayed his supernormal powers only as a last resort. Miracles by themselves might amaze, while not necessarily leading the amazed to realise the Dharma. They might distract their witnesses from the Dharma instead, who might be attracted only to learn how to perform such miracles. One of the most famous of miracles that only the Buddha could do, was the Twin Miracle. He would levitate into the air and sprout the opposing elements of fire and water from his upper and lower body simultaneously (followed by from his left and right), and in reversed directions. This he did on two occasions – once, to humble his proud clansmen, so as to open their minds to listen to the Dharma with reverence, and once, when some other teachers sought to promote their ‘superiority’ by showing off their miracles. As many other incidents would attest, the Twin Miracle is really just the tip of the iceberg of the extraordinary feats the Buddha was capable of!
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2011/06/when-are-miracles-appropriate/
Thanks for sharing. Indeed wisdom is more important than miracles. There is a Buddhist saying 神通敌�过业力, miracles cannot override karma.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//"When you put your heart to practise the principles of your religion, you will then be able to appreciate the fallacies of your faith. And when you are able to objectively
and open-mindedly identify the fallacies you have appreciated yourselves, you
then can be free of bondage to religion."//Interesting remark, care to give some examples of these principles as regard to Buddhism?
//"Buddhism is evolved out of Hinduism."//
Care to share where this information come from?
//"Buddhism is evolved out of Hinduism."//
Care to share where this information come from?
This question is not for me. However, here is my comment:
Looking at early Buddhism, the Indus Valley civilisation, the Buddha’s interactions with Brahmins, his teachers or gurus in the 6 years of wandering, his knowledge of Vedas and some doctrines, I can safely say that even without deep knowledge of Hinduism, Buddhism is influenced by it.
Mahayana itself is influenced very much by Hinduism and its offshoot Vajrayana. See the other thread "Mahayana and Arahat".
The best way to ascertain for sure is to learn or understand Hinduism and make the comparison. We must always look at the origin, not what Buddhism is today. For this reason, I also make the statement which all Buddhists hate to acknowledge: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion.”
Originally posted by I No Stupid://"Buddhism is evolved out of Hinduism."//
Care to share where this information come from?
This question is not for me. However, here is my comment:
Looking at early Buddhism, the Indus Valley civilisation, the Buddha’s interactions with Brahmins, his teachers or gurus in the 6 years of wandering, his knowledge of Vedas and some doctrines, I can safely say that even without deep knowledge of Hinduism, Buddhism is influenced by it.
Mahayana itself is influenced very much by Hinduism and its offshoot Vajrayana. See the other thread "Mahayana and Arahat".
The best way to ascertain for sure is to learn or understand Hinduism and make the comparison. We must always look at the origin, not what Buddhism is today. For this reason, I also make the statement which all Buddhists hate to acknowledge: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion.”
//I also make the statement which all Buddhists hate to acknowledge: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion.”//
It got nothing to do with ‘hating to acknowledge’, you draw your conclusion from the knowledge you possesses others too can draw a difference set of conclusion from their knowledge and experiences as well.
TrueReppuzan is talking about ‘evolving’, no issue about influencing.
Originally posted by I No Stupid://"Buddhism is evolved out of Hinduism."//
Care to share where this information come from?
This question is not for me. However, here is my comment:
Looking at early Buddhism, the Indus Valley civilisation, the Buddha’s interactions with Brahmins, his teachers or gurus in the 6 years of wandering, his knowledge of Vedas and some doctrines, I can safely say that even without deep knowledge of Hinduism, Buddhism is influenced by it.
Mahayana itself is influenced very much by Hinduism and its offshoot Vajrayana. See the other thread "Mahayana and Arahat".
The best way to ascertain for sure is to learn or understand Hinduism and make the comparison. We must always look at the origin, not what Buddhism is today. For this reason, I also make the statement which all Buddhists hate to acknowledge: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion.”
I studied Hinduism. I can say for certain that the core doctrines of Buddhism are antithetical to those of Hinduism.
For example, they assert a Self and a God, even if it is an ultimate reality or Brahman. Buddhism does not and teach that liberation is only achieved by the realization of emptiness (emptiness of self and emptiness of objects) which frees us from the fabrication of existence and non-existence.
Whatever similarities are at the surface level. The teaching of mundane loving kindness, compassion, bliss, equanimity, samadhi, etc etc are common not only between buddhism and hinduism but likewise with all or nost other religions.
By the way hinduism does not exist as a religion in Buddha's days. Hinduism is coined by the islamic invaders of india more than a thousand years after buddha's parinirvana. There were actually more than sixty different philosophies and religions (and not one religion called "hinduism") in Buddha's days all of which he rejected.
There were brahmanistic practices and vedic practices in those days, of which Buddha rejected, along with the authority of the vedas. He belonged to the sramana tradition and not the brahmin tradition, sramana being the tradition of renunciants. His teachers also were sramanas, but ultimately he left them as he was dissatisfied with the deep formless absorptions (jhanas) as they do not result in the liberation from suffering.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:I not Stupid
I do not hate to acknowledge that Buddhism starts as a philosophy but ends as an religion , hate is too strong a word. I simply DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGED this ignorant sentence started by a non-buddhist or an academic bookworm professor.
If you read the lifestory of Guru Padmasambhava, you have to admit that Buddhism starts as an miracle. Including the 7 steps taken by Shayamuni Buddha as a litte new born baby, it is nothing short of a miracle. Philosophy definitely can’t be a miracle, can it ?
Buddhism does not believe in the acts of miracle. We called things that happen which we are unable to understand or explain as miracles. In Buddhism, everything that occurs is a consequence of causes and effects which is one of the central teachings of the Buddhism itself. The 7 steps that you mentions taken by the baby Shayamuni Buddha in which at the end he declared: “Foremost Am I in this world; Senior most am I in this world; Best am I in this world; This is my last birth; No more am I to be born;” should be understood as a metaphor and not to be taken too literally or as some kind of a miracle. Below are some extracts from the article titled ‘The Seventh Step in This World of Duhkha: To Be in the World but Not of the World’ written by a Hoyu ISHIDA.
//The seventh step that the baby Buddha is said to have taken right after birth symbolizes the goal or aim of one’s being born into this life, the goal that signifies nirvana outside of the six realms or samsara. Hence, the meaning of the seventh step is to get out of the six realms, the repetition or rebirth of life cycles in duhkha…. The seventh step is out of the six realms or samsara, which is nirvana, where there is no duhkha as there is no karmic retribution there—no birth-and-death, no rebirth, no transmigration, or no reincarnation.//
Originally posted by Yui Hirasawa:What’s five aggregates ?
It is constituents that make up the physical human being which is form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness. You should be able to find the explanations available on this subject from the internet. Try the below sites.
www.buddhistdoor.com/oldweb/bdoor/archive/.../teach11.htm. www.buddhanet.net/funbud14.htm.
"The best way to ascertain for sure is to learn or understand Hinduism and make the comparison. We must always look at the origin, not what Buddhism is today. For this reason, I also make the statement which all Buddhists hate to acknowledge: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion.”" - I No Stupid
Full circle. Back to square 1.... Can you start defining philosophy and religion in the context above. As countered by AEN's claim that the term "Hinduism" came after buddha's parnirvana. Before you start asking him to prove, the burden of proof is on you. Since none was given, its still on you.
Appeal to ignorance is appealing to the ignorant.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I studied Hinduism. I can say for certain that the core doctrines of Buddhism are antithetical to those of Hinduism.For example, they assert a Self and a God, even if it is an ultimate reality or Brahman. Buddhism does not and teach that liberation is only achieved by the realization of emptiness (emptiness of self and emptiness of objects) which frees us from the fabrication of existence and non-existence.
Whatever similarities are at the surface level. The teaching of mundane loving kindness, compassion, bliss, equanimity, samadhi, etc etc are common not only between buddhism and hinduism but likewise with all or nost other religions.
By the way hinduism does not exist as a religion in Buddha's days. Hinduism is coined by the islamic invaders of india more than a thousand years after buddha's parinirvana. There were actually more than sixty different philosophies and religions (and not one religion called "hinduism") in Buddha's days all of which he rejected.
There were brahmanistic practices and vedic practices in those days, of which Buddha rejected, along with the authority of the vedas. He belonged to the sramana tradition and not the brahmin tradition, sramana being the tradition of renunciants. His teachers also were sramanas, but ultimately he left them as he was dissatisfied with the deep formless absorptions (jhanas) as they do not result in the liberation from suffering.
wah.. u studied hinduism before...