20 Aug 08
Originally posted by duecerI'm very unimpressed by internet claims esp. when accompanied by statements showing a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts of a philosophy one claims to have practiced.
Let me repeat, I was a practicing buddust for over 10 years, I think I know a bit about the subject.
All cultures have superstitions...all....all of them...without exception....get it?
"Cultural superstitions"(or any superstitions for that matter) have no place in any Buddhism I've ever heard of.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderthats because your an anal retentive moron that can never admit when he's wrong....ever
I'm very unimpressed by internet claims esp. when accompanied by statements showing a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts of a philosophy one claims to have practiced.
"Cultural superstitions"(or any superstitions for that matter) have no place in any Buddhism I've ever heard of.
21 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudernot that a douche bag such as yourself deserves a response but here :http://www.geshu.org/study/uk/sanshoshimaCC.shtml?printable
Flaming people to cover up your lack of knowledge is pretty un-Buddhist like. It is, however, SOP for the TSM.
just for starters, it is an example of cultural superstition that found its way into buddism. It is explained as not being "supernatural' but the inference to the recipient of the letter is not as explicit. I've read most of the risho onkukron, and numerous other teachings of various buddas, and only in modern buddism is it implicitly expressed that there is no God or supernatural force. You sir are an ignoramous and a dope.
21 Aug 08
also from wikipedia (not the best source, but a convenient one): According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned the average person's notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and the Buddha is solely a guide and teacher for the sentient beings who must tread the path of Nirvāṇa (Pāli: Nibbāna) themselves to attain the spiritual awakening called bodhi and see truth and reality as it is. The Buddhist system of insight and meditation practice is not believed to have been revealed divinely, but by the understanding of the true nature of the mind, which must be discovered by personally treading a spiritual path guided by the Buddha's teachings.
as I said before, its not that buddist don't believe in divinity, its just that they think God's are unneccessary for obtaining enlightenment
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by duecerYou need to go back to Buddhism 101; there's nothing "supernatural" or "superstitious" in your link:
not that a douche bag such as yourself deserves a response but here :http://www.geshu.org/study/uk/sanshoshimaCC.shtml?printable
just for starters, it is an example of cultural superstition that found its way into buddism. It is explained as not being "supernatural' but the inference to the recipient of the letter is not as explicit. I've read most of th ...[text shortened]... y expressed that there is no God or supernatural force. You sir are an ignoramous and a dope.
The three obstacles are:
1. Earthly desires (bonno-sho), or obstacles arising from the three poisons of greed, anger and stupidity.
2. Karma (go-sho), or obstacles due to karma created by committing any of the five cardinal sins or ten evil acts (this category is also interpreted as opposition from one's partner or children).
3. Retribution (ho-sho), or obstacles due to painful retribution for actions in the three evil paths (Hell, Hunger and Animality). This category also indicates obstacles caused by one's sovereign, parents or other persons who carry some sort of secular authority.
The four devils are the hindrance of:
1. The five components (on-ma), that is, those hindrances caused by one's physical and mental functions.
2. Earthly desires (bonno-ma), or illusions arising from the three poisons.
3. Death (shima), because the fear and suffering that death entails, whether our own or someone else's can shake our faith and obstruct our practice of Buddhism, especially if death seems untimely.
4. The Devil of the Sixth Heaven (tenji-ma). This is regarded as the most serious hindrance; in Indian cosmology this king of devils represents the fundamental darkness inherent in life itself. This can assume any number of forms to obstruct believers and is often said to take the form of persecution by those in power. It is the most powerful of all the negative forces, and takes the form most likely to trouble us or cause us to suffer from doubt or illusion.
Perhaps you'd care to point out where the "superstition" comes in (try to do it without your usual, childish flaming).
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by duecerDefine "divinity"; define "gods". Some Buddhists believe as follows:
also from wikipedia (not the best source, but a convenient one): According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned the average person's notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and th ...[text shortened]... eve in divinity, its just that they think God's are unneccessary for obtaining enlightenment
There are gods aplenty in Buddhist cosmology, but they are always explained as beings like us, impermanent forms in a shifting samsaric existence. They are not "gods" in the sense of ultimate beings at all.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/buddhism-and-god-reposted.html
An impermanent thing (which is the only type of thing there can be in Buddhism) is certainly not "divine" nor can it be a "god". And Buddhists emphatically reject the idea of a Creator God; they don't merely say it would be unnecessary to find enlightenment.
22 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderdo you always selectively read? I would suggest you reread my posts, and the links, and you will find a bit of "enlightenment".
Define "divinity"; define "gods". Some Buddhists believe as follows:
There are gods aplenty in Buddhist cosmology, but they are always explained [b]as beings like us, impermanent forms in a shifting samsaric existence. They are not "gods" in the sense of ultimate beings at all.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/buddhism ...[text shortened]... f a Creator God; they don't merely say it would be unnecessary to find enlightenment.[/b]
22 Aug 08
Originally posted by duecerI read them; you claim that most Buddhists believe in something "divine". The links say the contrary. Perhaps you'd explain the contradiction.
do you always selectively read? I would suggest you reread my posts, and the links, and you will find a bit of "enlightenment".
24 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerFirst, I take the statement that you practiced (some form of) Buddhism for 10 years as a simple reference to the fact that you have some background authority from which to speak on the matter. And I acknowledge that.
Let me repeat, I was a practicing buddust for over 10 years, I think I know a bit about the subject.
All cultures have superstitions...all....all of them...without exception....get it?
I have practiced (lived) some form of Zen for about 30 years now—Zen Buddhism as well as Zen expressed in other religious paradigms (you might, for example, take a look at Christian Zen by William Johnston, or Dom Aelred Graham’s Zen Catholicism, among others). Zen Buddhism is a version of Mahayana Buddhism. I am not thoroughly familiar with other Buddhisms (though there was a guy on here a couple of years ago who practiced Jodo Shin).
Zen Buddhism is thoroughly nondualistic—notwithstanding that some writers, such as DT Suzuki, attempted to use some Western “theistic” terminology in attempting to communicate Zen to the West. Buddhism arose from the religious matrix of Hinduism, but that no more means that it holds vestiges of theistic Hinduism, than does Advaita Vedanta—or Kashmiri Shaivism (which uses much more theistic language strictly symbolically). The fact that Takuan Ohso wrote of “demons” does not mean that he was thinking in anything other than a symbolic/psychological sense. (Just as, when Fritz Perls spoke of dybbuks, he was using that term from Jewish demonology strictly as a metaphor for certain psychological conditions.)
My comment was about what “most Buddhists” believe, not about the cultural matrix from which Buddhism arose, whether or not that cultural matrix includes superstitions (whatever precisely you mean by that word). I do not know if the Buddhism that you practiced had any superstitious elements (e.g., transmigration of souls?).*
I now practice (attempt to live) what has been called “the Zen beyond all words”. I prefer “the Zen prior to all words”. Frankly, that means that I am not committed to the words of any religious formalism—even the word “Zen”; at the same time I am free to borrow from all of them, whether or not my use is conventional. It is certainly sometimes much simpler to use the code-words of a particular form, and when I attempt to escape from that I find myself being much more wordy (my post on Epi’s “RHP Faith Clinic” thread is an attempt to talk about “Zennish” nondualism, and illusion, without any of the formal code-words).
Again, Zen Buddhism is thoroughly nondualistic—in China and Japan and Korea as well as in the West.
* Are most Asian Buddhists Mahayana? Or Hinayana?
__________________________________
Before all words,
is-as-is,
of which I am—
___________________________________
EDIT: Just a couple of quick notes:
Since Zen developed in China when Bodhidharma (Daruma) “came from the West [India]”, I am naturally not as familiar with Indian forms of Buddhism. However, I might draw an example from Hinduism—
A few years ago I visited a Hindu temple and spoke to a priest, who pointed out the main sanctuaries in the temple: Shiva here, Parvati over there, Sri Ganesha there… Then he smiled, made an expansive wave of his hand and said: “All the same. All the same.”
tat tvam asi.
___________________________________
There are “quietistic” forms of meditation (e.g., zazen) and more active forms. Perhaps it is best if whatever I write on here is just considered a kind of active meditation, and extension of my general spiritual practice, using words. Even “enlightened” masters do not stop practicing, since practice is just how we live.
This particular meditation has been helpful in the midst of present undercurrents in my life. Words, too, can remind one to keep rooted in clear mind.