Well, yeah. The first place I read that stuff was in 1968 in the intro to The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Law translated By H. Kern (1884), itself deeply deeply life suckingly tedious book.PeterB wrote:But Tilt, all that "Buddha as Sun Myth " stuff is just so OLD.....and deeply deeply life suckingly tedious.
Why did you choose Theravada?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Hi Peter
I believe that was a much later add on from the hindus who claimed he was an avatara of Vishnu, or which ever god it is, then others interpreted these sun-god ideas onto that! I have heard it claimed that the Buddha was born on the winter solstice, a claim I have only heard from those who look to zeitgist movies as the sharer of the truth on religion.
I believe that was a much later add on from the hindus who claimed he was an avatara of Vishnu, or which ever god it is, then others interpreted these sun-god ideas onto that! I have heard it claimed that the Buddha was born on the winter solstice, a claim I have only heard from those who look to zeitgist movies as the sharer of the truth on religion.
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
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Yes, I think it is Vishnu. I once read a hilarious funny explanation of how the Buddha "became" an avatar of Vishnu.Manapa wrote:Hi Peter
I believe that was a much later add on from the hindus who claimed he was an avatara of Vishnu, or which ever god it is, ...
The hindus accused the buddhists of being atheists - which is not so far from the truth. The story then (from the hindu point of view) says that the buddhist atheists were so thoroughly depraved that they were totally beyond salvation. In fact, if they ever reached the hindu heaven they would cause havoc with their impertinent critical questions. Therefore Vishnu decided that all atheist demons had better be sent directly to hell. The question was only how to secure this. Then Vishnu hit upon a brilliant idea: Why not incarnate as a teacher to fool the atheists? OK, he then descended from heaven and incarnated as the Buddha, in order to attract the atheist demons and sweep the world for their evil influence, securing their direct course to hell, so that heaven could be reserved for the true believers.
So the hindu adoption of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu seems to be a not so very friendly gesture towards buddhism ...
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Hi Kare,
I think Buddhism from the beginning falls between actually being completely gnostic, agnostic or a theistic tradition, but if I am going to hell I will at least have decent music, and the ability to remain calm while those mountains crush me.
I think Buddhism from the beginning falls between actually being completely gnostic, agnostic or a theistic tradition, but if I am going to hell I will at least have decent music, and the ability to remain calm while those mountains crush me.
Kare wrote:Yes, I think it is Vishnu. I once read a hilarious funny explanation of how the Buddha "became" an avatar of Vishnu.Manapa wrote:Hi Peter
I believe that was a much later add on from the hindus who claimed he was an avatara of Vishnu, or which ever god it is, ...
The hindus accused the buddhists of being atheists - which is not so far from the truth. The story then (from the hindu point of view) says that the buddhist atheists were so thoroughly depraved that they were totally beyond salvation. In fact, if they ever reached the hindu heaven they would cause havoc with their impertinent critical questions. Therefore Vishnu decided that all atheist demons had better be sent directly to hell. The question was only how to secure this. Then Vishnu hit upon a brilliant idea: Why not incarnate as a teacher to fool the atheists? OK, he then descended from heaven and incarnated as the Buddha, in order to attract the atheist demons and sweep the world for their evil influence, securing their direct course to hell, so that heaven could be reserved for the true believers.
So the hindu adoption of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu seems to be a not so very friendly gesture towards buddhism ...
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
-
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Hey Retrofuturist... well, I don't reject anything not in the sutras, because there's a lot of zen and various Mahayana works that seem very well done to me, but I'm with you on the final point.Anything that isn't found in the suttas, but especially the tri-kaya.
As for the "why?"... because such concepts are not found in the suttas and much of it makes a mockery of what is actually found in the suttas.
When first reading Buddhist texts, as I've explained, I didn't know the difference between Theravada and Mahayana and it took me a long time to work it out.
Actually, it was the different qualities of the texts that necessitated I do so - I was just reading eclectically and began to wonder why some sutras were well written and seemed to describe what I was experiencing and other sutras were full of sound and fury and sectarian attacks and poop that smelled of sandalwood etc.
It was that division in content that lead me to realise that the Pali Canon was a different order of texts (not getting into the argument about legitimacy or what came first). So I never chose a tradition, I came to investigate Buddhism as a whole and the Pali Canon spoke for itself in its claims on my attention.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
the wheel is turning.
-
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Did the Buddha exist? Is reality consistent enough to make such questions valid?
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
the wheel is turning.
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
At least historians seem to agree that the sources are good enough to give an affirmative answer. But, as it is said in a sutta, no matter whether a Tathagata comes forth in the world or not, the facts of dukkha, anicca etc. are clearly observable to anyone.Cafael Dust wrote:Did the Buddha exist? Is reality consistent enough to make such questions valid?
And if historians should prove that Gotama never existed, we still have the body of teachings, and someone must be the originator - so why not call him "Buddha"?
Which reminds me of the German professor who said: "The works of Homer are not created by Homer, but by another with the same name."
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Richard Gombrich states: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali suttas] is not theKare wrote: [
Which reminds me of the German professor who said: "The works of Homer are not created by Homer, but by another with the same name."
work of one genius."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
I'm not sure you follow my point. Why are we arguing about the illusion? Such an argument is fine for scholarship purposes, but it has no bearing on the path and shouldn't be attached to emotionally. Not saying that's what y'all are doing, but... well, not much else can be said, can it?
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
the wheel is turning.
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Well Well! thought I'd kick up a little dust and see what happened. And dust there is! Perhaps enough to obscure the original question, which should have been posited this way:
What is it about Mahayana that you've rejected?
Thought that might break the rules; hence the title.
As for this debate about the Buddha's real existence... never thought I'd ever see the question.
How is it possible to be a Buddhist and not believe He actually existed? Baffles me. I'd consider it a given.
What do you think--new topic, or just drop the matter?
What is it about Mahayana that you've rejected?
Thought that might break the rules; hence the title.
As for this debate about the Buddha's real existence... never thought I'd ever see the question.
How is it possible to be a Buddhist and not believe He actually existed? Baffles me. I'd consider it a given.
What do you think--new topic, or just drop the matter?
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17222
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Archaeological evidence for the Buddha's existence:
1) The Edicts of Ashoka http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _of_Ashoka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2) The fact that places mentioned in the Suttas, including the palace, etc. have been located (the ruins)
The Edicts of Ashoka were written only about 79 to 200 years after the parinibbana. Hard evidence, period, in my opinion.
1) The Edicts of Ashoka http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... _of_Ashoka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2) The fact that places mentioned in the Suttas, including the palace, etc. have been located (the ruins)
The Edicts of Ashoka were written only about 79 to 200 years after the parinibbana. Hard evidence, period, in my opinion.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17222
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
I didn't really reject anything from Mahayana so much, just a natural tendency to gravitate toward the 'orthodox.' When I studied and practiced other religions, I also gravitated toward (what I felt) was the original form, be it Sunni Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman Catholicism, etc.alan wrote:Well Well! thought I'd kick up a little dust and see what happened. And dust there is! Perhaps enough to obscure the original question, which should have been posited this way:
What is it about Mahayana that you've rejected?
Thought that might break the rules; hence the title.
I see the Mahayana as a skillful means as the Buddha taught different techniques to different people based on their temperaments. For me, Theravada is best, but I feel that for others, Mahayana may be best.
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
My college training in philosophy lead to only two good things. One, It was so unfulfilling I quit to go travel and look for the truth myself.
Two, it taught me to be tough on assumptions. Examine, analyze. Do a rational overview. Question and probe.
Don't accept it until you can explain it clearly to someone else.
This habit of mind does not make me popular at cocktail parties, but does sometimes reap fruit, if I keep at it.
Thanks for your responses! I really appreciate this forum.
Two, it taught me to be tough on assumptions. Examine, analyze. Do a rational overview. Question and probe.
Don't accept it until you can explain it clearly to someone else.
This habit of mind does not make me popular at cocktail parties, but does sometimes reap fruit, if I keep at it.
Thanks for your responses! I really appreciate this forum.
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
I'm not sure 'rejected' is the right word, at least not for me. I first met buddhism through zen. I have meditated with zen friends, I have studied and translated mahayana texts by Shantideva and Vasubandhu, and I still have great respect for serious practicioners of the different mahayana schools. Still, when I found theravada, I soon discovered that this was closer to my heart and to my own way of thinking. Therefore it is not so much a matter of 'rejecting' this or that, but rather of following a way that I feel and see give results, and that also has a certain degree of historical autenticity. Other ways may be OK for other people, but since I can not cross the stream on more than one raft at the same time, I simply prefer the theravada raft - or rather one of the several theravada rafts (there are several rafts also inside theravada: jhana, vipassana, vinaya, etc.).alan wrote:Well Well! thought I'd kick up a little dust and see what happened. And dust there is! Perhaps enough to obscure the original question, which should have been posited this way:
What is it about Mahayana that you've rejected?
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
Re: Why did you choose Theravada?
Yep - I was just going to post you a congratulatory message saying "Yaaaay alan! this is what you were looking for - and what you got so annoyed about when it didn't happen initially".alan said:Well Well! thought I'd kick up a little dust and see what happened. And dust there is!
You should send Mr Pink and Mr Tilt a big Thank-you Card.
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---