LOL! Skeptic's Dictionary is one of those examples of thought-style biases taken to the extreme. Carroll is a fanatic dis-believer who gleefully (along with the PSICOP witch-hunters) debunks everything. He's been after me for years to contribute something to his website but I've declined, preferring not to further add to internet fanaticism.
BB
Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Buddhists are humans...and humans are full of defilements. Does that make sense?danieLion wrote:Buddhists can't seem to agree on anything, including agreeing on what they agree and disagree about. Even within traditions, views are highly individualized (despite the efforts of traditionalists to keep and/or make orthodoxy and orthopraxy uniform).
On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.
So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
- Sambojjhanga
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
- Location: San Diego, California, USA
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
More than you can even imagine, friend.Kusala wrote:Buddhists are humans...and humans are full of defilements. Does that make sense?danieLion wrote:Buddhists can't seem to agree on anything, including agreeing on what they agree and disagree about. Even within traditions, views are highly individualized (despite the efforts of traditionalists to keep and/or make orthodoxy and orthopraxy uniform).
On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.
So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?
Metta!
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Thanks everyone, especially Dave, Mike & Geoff. Circumstances prevented me from logging on for a few days, and things are still a bit unpredictable. I'm going to try to reflect some and try to post later.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...Cittasanto wrote:Hi Danial,
serious now
Can you expand what you mean here please. particularly the underlined words.but If we agree on every detail it does not lead to expanding our tools. how we explain things may not refect in one persons understanding exactly what is meant yet something else said by another which is totally missing 90% of the meaning may fill in the blanks in understanding.danieLion wrote:On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.
unfortunately the pill Thanissaro Bhikkhu talks about in the Boddhisatva talk where he says "under" and the audience says "stand" does not exist.
I think running off making new factions left right and centre reflects poorly. there isn't many people here I would not consider part of the Buddhas Dispensation.So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?
Expansion on "validated by the nature of their absoluteness" e.g., as this Access to Insight glossary entry puts it:
I don't get the "under-stand" reference.ariya-sacca: Noble Truth. The word "ariya" (noble) can also mean ideal or standard, and in this context means "objective" or "universal" truth. There are four: stress, the origin of stress, the disbanding of stress, and the path of practice leading to the disbanding of stress. [MORE]
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
But didn't the Buddha say something like, "the truth is One"?Raksha wrote:As for the Dhamma, there are said to be 84000 versions, and there are probably as many interpretations as there are people.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
That's an understatement. E.g., the creation of the Mahavihara (according to Rev. Analayo anyway) was basically reactionary and the history of Buddhism (not to mention the history of Dhammawheel) is replete with conflicts. Soap opera's got nothing on that drama.LonesomeYogurt wrote:...I agree it can get dramatic.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Quote from the above sutta link: "They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma." Can we unpack this without disagreement?santa100 wrote:Until the day of enlightenment, guess we're still like the blind men of Savatthi (or at least partially blind) ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Heh. I'm reminded of a favorite quote of Charles Fort:
"If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane?"
BB
"If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane?"
BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
In my mind, it's also about building dungeons in the earth; but either way--castles or dungeons--I'm not particularly "irked" so much as curious as to how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.daverupa wrote:Certain disagreements are over altogether useless matters, so at first blush I wonder which sorts of disagreements in particular are being found irksome. At the current level of generality, there is a danger of building castles in the sky.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?SamKR wrote:Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
You have a large enough Theravada community to have arguements about the sort of issues I mentioned?danieLion wrote:Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?
mikenz66 wrote: I don't often seem to come across people in "real life" arguing that so-and-so is rubbish because he/she has the wrong understanding of mindfulness/anatta/jhana/reality/whatever or is too traditional/not traditional enough/too much of a fence-sitter...
Mike
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Hi Daniel,
Mike
It allows people to seek out groups that they are comfortable with. And if they fall out with one group they can join a different one...danieLion wrote:Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?SamKR wrote:Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.
Mike
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
I strive to do so thusly:danieLion wrote:how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.
MN 95 wrote:"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]