where did these vinaya rules come from then if they weren't necessary? Didn't the Buddha put these rules down for the monks?meindzai wrote:I think you'd have to phrase the question more specifically to even begin to speculate. What kind of Buddhist ? Practicing how? All lay practitioners or all monks?
Buddhism does predict it's own demise (in any given world system), and if you look at the vinaya and the history of Buddhism, the demise does seem to come about through dilution. The vinaya rules weren't even necessary until the Sangha started to grow and become more well known. It seems that it's harder to keep things pure with such a a large amount of people.
To borrow and skew another buddhist analogy, I see the Dhamma as a drop of ink in a thimble size full of water (the original sangha). As the water (people) increases in volume, the dhamma becomes less recognizable as such. Drop the ink in an ocean and you won't even know it's there.
-M
What if everyone were Buddhist?
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
[quote="PaulD
I don't think much would change. 90% of Thailand's population or even more is Buddhist and Thailand is known to be a hotspot (number 1 actually in the world according askmen.com) for sex tourism since prostitution is legal. Look up patpong. UNLESS you're saying if the whole world followed Buddhism devoutly then that would be a different story altogether.[/quote]
Prostitution is illegal in Thailand.
And in response to a previous comment: In Thailand the killing of animals for meat is done by whoever....which usually means a Buddhist whoever.
And in response to a previous comment: Saying that "actual" Buddhists are those who follow the five precepts probaby rules out just about everyone....isn't the idea that you are supposed to do your best to follow them?...and of course there is also the understanding of what it means to follow them...and even if someone knows that they are not doing a good job of following them and expect to have a bad rebirth then who are we to say the these people are not "actual" Buddhists?
chownah
I don't think much would change. 90% of Thailand's population or even more is Buddhist and Thailand is known to be a hotspot (number 1 actually in the world according askmen.com) for sex tourism since prostitution is legal. Look up patpong. UNLESS you're saying if the whole world followed Buddhism devoutly then that would be a different story altogether.[/quote]
Prostitution is illegal in Thailand.
And in response to a previous comment: In Thailand the killing of animals for meat is done by whoever....which usually means a Buddhist whoever.
And in response to a previous comment: Saying that "actual" Buddhists are those who follow the five precepts probaby rules out just about everyone....isn't the idea that you are supposed to do your best to follow them?...and of course there is also the understanding of what it means to follow them...and even if someone knows that they are not doing a good job of following them and expect to have a bad rebirth then who are we to say the these people are not "actual" Buddhists?
chownah
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
How might Buddhism be introduced to, say, Greenland?
Hope this isn't a frivolous question -- I was mulling it over the weekend. Life in Greenland is practically dependent on hunting and fishing. Abstaining from these activities would entail starvation. As a Greenlandic Buddhist, what would you recommend to your family/clan/people?
-- Move out of Greenland to some other environment? (This could entail conflict with other communities)
-- Import food from elsewhere while developing more wholesome local industries, perhaps artisan in nature, for trade with the rest of the world? (This is feasible in a globalized economy, but globalization presents its own perils)
-- Concentrate on developing the monastic sangha and a strong monastic/lay relationship...Laypeople would not be expected to give up their livelihood but at least they could build merit, and by supporting the sangha materially, they create the possibility for earnest practitioners to follow the path...?
-- Pure Land?
The third choice seems like the most realistic to me. What do you think?
Hope this isn't a frivolous question -- I was mulling it over the weekend. Life in Greenland is practically dependent on hunting and fishing. Abstaining from these activities would entail starvation. As a Greenlandic Buddhist, what would you recommend to your family/clan/people?
-- Move out of Greenland to some other environment? (This could entail conflict with other communities)
-- Import food from elsewhere while developing more wholesome local industries, perhaps artisan in nature, for trade with the rest of the world? (This is feasible in a globalized economy, but globalization presents its own perils)
-- Concentrate on developing the monastic sangha and a strong monastic/lay relationship...Laypeople would not be expected to give up their livelihood but at least they could build merit, and by supporting the sangha materially, they create the possibility for earnest practitioners to follow the path...?
-- Pure Land?
The third choice seems like the most realistic to me. What do you think?
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Yes, third is the most realistic. Actually the most realistic for most people in the world I'd say due to the age we're living in.Lazy_eye wrote:How might Buddhism be introduced to, say, Greenland?
Hope this isn't a frivolous question -- I was mulling it over the weekend. Life in Greenland is practically dependent on hunting and fishing. Abstaining from these activities would entail starvation. As a Greenlandic Buddhist, what would you recommend to your family/clan/people?
-- Move out of Greenland to some other environment? (This could entail conflict with other communities)
-- Import food from elsewhere while developing more wholesome local industries, perhaps artisan in nature, for trade with the rest of the world? (This is feasible in a globalized economy, but globalization presents its own perils)
-- Concentrate on developing the monastic sangha and a strong monastic/lay relationship...Laypeople would not be expected to give up their livelihood but at least they could build merit, and by supporting the sangha materially, they create the possibility for earnest practitioners to follow the path...?
-- Pure Land?
The third choice seems like the most realistic to me. What do you think?
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Maybe the question could be, what if everyone were Dhammiko? That word "Buddhist" can be so problematic ...
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Paul, for 3 it would still be wrong livelihood to hunt and fish....
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Lazy_eye wrote:How might Buddhism be introduced to, say, Greenland?
Hope this isn't a frivolous question -- I was mulling it over the weekend. Life in Greenland is practically dependent on hunting and fishing. Abstaining from these activities would entail starvation. As a Greenlandic Buddhist, what would you recommend to your family/clan/people?
-- Move out of Greenland to some other environment? (This could entail conflict with other communities)
-- Import food from elsewhere while developing more wholesome local industries, perhaps artisan in nature, for trade with the rest of the world? (This is feasible in a globalized economy, but globalization presents its own perils)
-- Concentrate on developing the monastic sangha and a strong monastic/lay relationship...Laypeople would not be expected to give up their livelihood but at least they could build merit, and by supporting the sangha materially, they create the possibility for earnest practitioners to follow the path...?
-- Pure Land?
The third choice seems like the most realistic to me. What do you think?
The problem of this whole topic is it's speculative nature.
Our human karma is such, that some of us have more and some less favorable rebirths.
I consider the rebirth into a Buddhist family, serious Buddhists, a favorable rebirth. You're simply not confronted with circumstances as in Greenland.
I don't know, did the Buddha predict humankind would evolve to a "Golden Age", or Arcadia?
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
I didn't say they weren't necessary. I said they weren't necessary until the sangha grew.PaulD wrote: where did these vinaya rules come from then if they weren't necessary? Didn't the Buddha put these rules down for the monks?
-M
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
why weren't they necessary though before the sangha grew?meindzai wrote:I didn't say they weren't necessary. I said they weren't necessary until the sangha grew.PaulD wrote: where did these vinaya rules come from then if they weren't necessary? Didn't the Buddha put these rules down for the monks?
-M
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
True but one who is a practicing Pure Land Buddhist won't be stopped form attaining birth in Pure Land. That's why in Japan this was very popular with fisherman and people in other wrong livelihoods.Annabel wrote:Paul, for 3 it would still be wrong livelihood to hunt and fish....
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
I don't know much about Pure land, but I have a hard time with this notion. A link or quote, please?
Where are we with Buddhism anyhow, if we have all sorts of schools, and they contradict each other?
We have to agree on some basic stuff and the first precept seems crucial to me...
Where are we with Buddhism anyhow, if we have all sorts of schools, and they contradict each other?
We have to agree on some basic stuff and the first precept seems crucial to me...
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
In the larger Pure Land sutra, Buddha tells the story of Amitābha: many eons ago, as a monk, he learned from the 81st Buddha about the glories of innumerable Buddha Lands, whereupon he vowed to create his own Buddha Land (which he is now doing), making it 81 times more excellent than all the others and drawing into it all creatures who invoked his name. According to this sutra, in addition to calling upon Amitābha, one needs to accumulate merit and concentrate on Enlightenment. In the later, smaller Pure Land sutra, however, the Blessed Land is not a reward for good works but is accessible to anyone who invokes Amitābha at the hour of death.Annabel wrote:I don't know much about Pure land, but I have a hard time with this notion. A link or quote, please?
Where are we with Buddhism anyhow, if we have all sorts of schools, and they contradict each other?
We have to agree on some basic stuff and the first precept seems crucial to me...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... d-Buddhism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First precept is in all schools. What contradictions are you talking about? People are born in in Pure Land because Bodhisattvas have infinite compassion even for people who have done wrong livelihoods. The only requirement is that they have sincere faith.
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
Hi Paul,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The simplistic answer is that as the Sangha grew, and not everyone was being personally instructed by the Buddha, he realised that some things that should have been obvious (such as that Bhikkhus should not have sex) were being misunderstood, so rules were put in place.
Metta
Mike
I'm not expert on the Vinaya. There is a lot of detail here:PaulD wrote: why weren't they necessary though before the sangha grew?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The simplistic answer is that as the Sangha grew, and not everyone was being personally instructed by the Buddha, he realised that some things that should have been obvious (such as that Bhikkhus should not have sex) were being misunderstood, so rules were put in place.
Metta
Mike
Last edited by mikenz66 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What if everyone were Buddhist?
I don't think there's disagreement about the precepts, but in Mahayana there seems to be greater emphasis on the universality of the Buddha, the dharma rain (or, in Greenland's case, dharma ice?) touching everyone.Annabel wrote:I don't know much about Pure land, but I have a hard time with this notion. A link or quote, please?
Where are we with Buddhism anyhow, if we have all sorts of schools, and they contradict each other?
We have to agree on some basic stuff and the first precept seems crucial to me...
The Buddha is said to fill all time and space, inhabiting the entire cosmos. He has an infinite number of teachings and can speak to all beings according to their conditions and capacities. I'm studying the Flower Ornament sutra at the moment and this theme is repeated practically every other sentence. It clearly trumps all other considerations.
If people living in a hunting/fishing subsistence culture could not hear and practice the dharma, then this basic Mahayana principle wouldn't hold. The Buddha could not speak to the Inuit and if he did, they would be unable to hear him.
I guess the Pure Land movements took the idea of a universal Buddha and simplified things a little by giving it the name Amitabha. In any case, it's said that Pure Land (especially Shin Buddhism) is practiced not only by hunters and fishermen, as Paul pointed out, but also prostitutes and criminals...the dregs of society. Probably they are aware of the precepts, but their approach to them is conditioned by circumstances. They just do the best they can.
Maybe there is some basis for this Mahayana approach within the Theravada? Bhikkhu Bodhi writes somewhere that the Buddha is the "dhamma king", i.e., he has teachings for all.