came across this a little while ago on a link in another thread.
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Buddhayana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am unsure of this type of development but what about everyone else?
Buddhayana
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Buddhayana
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
Greetings Manapa,
As far as I can tell, Buddhayana simply means you're a follower of the Buddha and aren't inclined to lock yourself into the doctrinal positions of the various schools... a non (or multi?) denominational Buddhist. The problem with Buddhayana tends to be the supersessionism inherent within Mahayana and Vajrayana, rendering the Theravada teachings as of lesser importance.
Buddhayana should not be confused with Buddhavacana (word of the Buddha), which is an attempt to use whatever means are at one's disposal, to find out what the Buddha actually taught and what he didn't... and follow only that which he taught! I consider this to be a legitimate approach to the Dhamma, but you need to be honest with yourself and have to agenda to push. Some people often use a Buddhayana style analysis to push their own pet theories.
As traditions/approaches/schools, both of the above are reasonably new and informal in their structure.
Metta,
Retro.
As far as I can tell, Buddhayana simply means you're a follower of the Buddha and aren't inclined to lock yourself into the doctrinal positions of the various schools... a non (or multi?) denominational Buddhist. The problem with Buddhayana tends to be the supersessionism inherent within Mahayana and Vajrayana, rendering the Theravada teachings as of lesser importance.
Buddhayana should not be confused with Buddhavacana (word of the Buddha), which is an attempt to use whatever means are at one's disposal, to find out what the Buddha actually taught and what he didn't... and follow only that which he taught! I consider this to be a legitimate approach to the Dhamma, but you need to be honest with yourself and have to agenda to push. Some people often use a Buddhayana style analysis to push their own pet theories.
As traditions/approaches/schools, both of the above are reasonably new and informal in their structure.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
Hi retroretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Manapa,
As far as I can tell, Buddhayana simply means you're a follower of the Buddha and aren't inclined to lock yourself into the doctrinal positions of the various schools... a non (or multi?) denominational Buddhist. The problem with Buddhayana tends to be the supersessionism inherent within Mahayana and Vajrayana, rendering the Theravada teachings as of lesser importance.
from what I can tell it just seams like another FWBO.
when I done a search for this when I came across this all the links were for Ajahn Chah? which I thought strange.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
its from that brokenbuddha book. its the worst part of the whole book that i kept talking about in the other thread
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
which thread?jcsuperstar wrote:its from that brokenbuddha book. its the worst part of the whole book that i kept talking about in the other thread
I came across this in a thread about something else completely and I don't think this was talked about? I think it was The Dhamma who started the thread I came across this in?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
that unfair critisism thread
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
I don't think that is the same thread but I will have a look for it in a min, I will know it when I see the op anyway.jcsuperstar wrote:that unfair critisism thread
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
I don't see any mention of Buddhayana in the unfair criticism thread but the thread where I came across it was http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=729" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the first link in the OP
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17230
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
Hi jc,jcsuperstar wrote:its from that brokenbuddha book. its the worst part of the whole book that i kept talking about in the other thread
What do you not like about that part of the book or about Buddhayana in general?
I tend to concur, as I have not seen any successful attempt at a Buddhayana in spite of numerous talks about it from various teachers. Usually the different parts splinter-off again to their own traditions.
The FWBO made a vigorous attempt, but at least in the U.S., have not had any success.
- SeerObserver
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:52 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Buddhayana
I've heard of Bodhipaksa, although I'm not all that familiar with the whole ordeal. Is the FWBO a controversial organization, or was it just one individual rogue? Is that part of why they were not successful in their attempt?TheDhamma wrote:jcsuperstar wrote:I tend to concur, as I have not seen any successful attempt at a Buddhayana in spite of numerous talks about it from various teachers. Usually the different parts splinter-off again to their own traditions.
The FWBO made a vigorous attempt, but at least in the U.S., have not had any success.
Is it inevitable that Buddhists would splinter off to their own traditions, at least to some extent? It the US, it doesn't seem like this could be done as easily as it's done for non-denominational Christian congregations. First of all, what language would the chanting be done in? And then there's the issue of the folk beliefs and practices which may have gotten mixed in depending on whatever country the Buddhists come from. It's not as if Buddhists go to a congregation, listen to a sermon, and then congregate in a main area for awhile and go home.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17230
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWBO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;SeerObserver wrote: I've heard of Bodhipaksa, although I'm not all that familiar with the whole ordeal. Is the FWBO a controversial organization, or was it just one individual rogue? Is that part of why they were not successful in their attempt?
Scroll down to the area about controversies with the FWBO. Apparently there may have been some sexual misconduct, but I think most of the problems were with getting their Buddhayana doctrines off the ground.
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
my problem with this idea is instead of weeding out whats wrong in theravada (which is mostly cultural anyways) it just wants to ditch it and start something new, this would cause a split in the sangha which isnt needed at all, and maybe (probably?) worse than the things we can find fault in within the tradition as it stands
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Re: Buddhayana
They do at the temple I frequent. Once a month for the full moon day.SeerObserver wrote:It's not as if Buddhists go to a congregation, listen to a sermon, and then congregate in a main area for awhile and go home.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
- SeerObserver
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:52 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Buddhayana
Right, same here actually. Perhaps my example wasn't perfect, but the point is that there are other practices, teachings, and whatever else go into the sermons and various ceremonies. It's not the same to where a Christian minister can be non-denominational by not expressing and teaching Protestant, Catholic, etc. views.Peter wrote:They do at the temple I frequent. Once a month for the full moon day.SeerObserver wrote:It's not as if Buddhists go to a congregation, listen to a sermon, and then congregate in a main area for awhile and go home.
Interesting to explain, but I think you know what I'm trying to get at.
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: Buddhayana
and every sunday here too!Peter wrote:They do at the temple I frequent. Once a month for the full moon day.SeerObserver wrote:It's not as if Buddhists go to a congregation, listen to a sermon, and then congregate in a main area for awhile and go home.
in fact temple is a lot like church.... and 99% of asian buddhists i know dont meditate and more than that if they do meditate its not on any regular basis. they also dont study suttas so in reality the monks could probably teach them whatever...
i think, and one of our thai living monks can confirm this or not, most of the buddhism learned by lay people came from jataka tales up until recently and maybe even these days too, i know the temple is packed when theyre read.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat