A serious non-Buddhist
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Probably partly because of his mental breakdown thanks to the educational experiment his dad performed on him.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Bill seems to be missing a major factor: comprehension. He rejects the doctrine of suffering - his words - though if he understood the principle of gradual training, he would’ve accepted the premise that he couldn’t possibly understand the doctrine of suffering to a sufficient degree unless he was an ariya. So, what is understood should be welcomed as incomplete (needs improvement) and therefore are not proper grounds for a rejection. With that as a basis, he would then also have room to acknowledge that he has yet to see the gratification, danger and escape in terms of the senses currently being used for pleasure, i.e., his current rejection of the doctrine is due to actual gratification but no appreciation for the danger. He delights in the ability to set suffering aside when feasible, as does everyone who hasn’t understood it. Further, he seems to also not understand “impermanence” in the sense of change that is certain to come, and has roundly accepted “things being in constant flux” as the Buddha’s definition of impermanence. There is no such definition of anicca in the suttas.
As far as “seriousness” is concerned, that really comes down to the matter of faith. Every human is serious about avoiding what is unpleasant and gaining what is pleasant (to not suffer), but not everyone is serious about their faith that the Buddha knew how to escape from that balancing act. In a sense, everyone is serious about their own methods for avoiding what is unwanted, and are willing to borrow from others in the quest for avoidance, but it takes a big leap of faith to put that trust in a method that isn’t about avoidance of suffering, and furthermore, may not pay any noticeable dividends at the outset.
As far as “seriousness” is concerned, that really comes down to the matter of faith. Every human is serious about avoiding what is unpleasant and gaining what is pleasant (to not suffer), but not everyone is serious about their faith that the Buddha knew how to escape from that balancing act. In a sense, everyone is serious about their own methods for avoiding what is unwanted, and are willing to borrow from others in the quest for avoidance, but it takes a big leap of faith to put that trust in a method that isn’t about avoidance of suffering, and furthermore, may not pay any noticeable dividends at the outset.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
flux
"The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation — namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling." When something fades, does it do so in steps. Exactly how do things change. What about decay? Is something a bit rotten for a while then at some time becomes a bit more rotten. Continual change, flux, is obvious. It is clinging that gives an illusion of permanence that is interrupted by occasional change.
All the above by sdc is correct and the inability to perceive, experience, anicca as it should finally be understood, (truly known, panna) should be understood in the same way as this b persons (and all others on and off the path according to individual conditions) inability to understand things is understood.
All the above by sdc is correct and the inability to perceive, experience, anicca as it should finally be understood, (truly known, panna) should be understood in the same way as this b persons (and all others on and off the path according to individual conditions) inability to understand things is understood.
-
- Posts: 2607
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm
-
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:25 pm
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Many people misunderstand the Buddha. Even the Buddha himself at one point decided to stop teaching because he thinks that his teaching is too advanced and no one would be interested in it, until the Sahampati talked him into it because otherwise many will suffer greatly.
reality is not shaped by your mind, if this was the case there won't exist right view and wrong view to begin with (doh)
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Of course. It's acting on the desire to detract people from some path.
I ask: Who is responsible for a person's faith in the Triple Gem?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:49 pm We can talk about "conversion at gunpoint", etc., but by this we really mean a form of insincere kow-towing. In the type of conversion that we see in the suttas - and which I think Ceisiwr is alluding to - people choose to change their ways. In fact, the "con" bit of "convert" requires this. It means "with", and so the turning is done with the other person. A unilateral conversion is impossible. That would be to divert, or pervert.
And the first reply is: That person. And further down the thread more replies in the same spirit. Evidently, some people think that conversion very much is a unilateral affair, and the responsibility solely of the prospective convert. I fear that the Buddha was like that as well.
See above. I suspect Buddhists are really proud of themselves when they are aloof toward people. And this isn't a criticism. I've spent enough time with Hindus to know better, to see the pattern.That's far too one-sided to be a credible summary.If anything, I would describe the Buddha as rather aloof. When people asked him questions, he qualified this as "pestering". Like he was ready to give up on them at any moment. One speck of dust too much in your eyes, and you're done away with.
He "went out of his way"? What was "his way" to begin with? See, even when you use an idiom, you make the same point as I.He also went out of his way to visit monks struggling with the practice, to encourage and correct them.
You've studied the spiritual right-wingers' textbook well.With the constitutionally argumentative and time-wasters, he would certainly give up on them. But that's a sign of astuteness, rather than aloofness. You can't get dust out of people's eyes if they won't let you. The best way to get dust out of someone's eye is to leave them to cry it out for a while.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
The pattern of atheism is worse
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Not really.
Can one take refuge in something one doesn't know, doesn't understand? Perhaps not, but the power of piety should never be underestimated.You are smart, do you think it is possible to take refuge in Dhamma, without understanding DO, the foundation of the Dhamma?
I suspect that to some of those scholars, Buddhism is just a study area, something they leave behind when they close the door to their office at the department of religious studies at their university. And then they go for drinks and live as if the Buddha never existed.In one scenario in the Pali canon Buddha is asked by a wanderer "How would you define a follower of Buddha?" Buddha replied "one who does not engage in identification" or something to that effect.
No wonder some great scholars do not identify themselves as Buddhists.
Sure, but merely not identifying doesn't make one a Buddhist, or someone who "walks the Path". People in institutions with white padded cells don't identify with plenty of things, but they're still not enlightened. It must be that there's more to enlightenment than just an absence of identification.Do you see what enormous effort is required to be a Buddhist? Have you tried on occasion not to identify with your thoughts, or not to identify with people you see, things you hear, things you cognize?
I don't mean to be harsh or to oversimplify. I think there is a tendency, esp. among Western Buddhists, to present the Buddha as some kind of "all-round nice guy", perhaps even as the type of person like a college professor who goes out for drinks with his students to a pub after classes. It's perhaps a well-meant positive image, but a misleading one. Of course, these same people overcorrect that image with harsh judgmentalism after someone has taken that rosy image to exents they're not willing to indulge. "We've only offered you a finger, not a hand!"This is unfair.Like he was ready to give up on them at any moment. One speck of dust too much in your eyes, and you're done away with.
Had they maintained a respectful distance from the onset, without assuming or inviting too much familiarity, everyone would be spared a lot of grief.
I think it might be best to imagine the Buddha a bit like a stern and somewhat grumpy Hindu sadhu. The kind of person one wouldn't get too familiar with, who wouldn't invite familiarity. Someone of whom one wouldn't ask many questions and of whom one wouldn't expect much explanation. Someone toward whom one would instinctively maintain a respectful distance.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Radix wrote:I think there is a tendency, esp. among Western Buddhists, to present the Buddha as some kind of "all-round nice guy"...
I think it might be best to imagine the Buddha a bit like a stern and somewhat grumpy Hindu sadhu...
Why can't He be both? Nice when needed to be, and rough... also when needed to. Heck, if I was His student, I wouldn't mind Him calling me a f...king idiot if it helped getting me out of my own idiocy ( matter of fact, He did use some pretty stern words on occasions, though not quite as "stern" as the ones above ).
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Oh, I thought it was gaining a new convert to something - a proselyte.
I don't see the point you are making here, I'm afraid. There are lots of factors in play, and with that level of generality there are going to be lots of different responses. What do you think? Who is responsible?I ask: Who is responsible for a person's faith in the Triple Gem?
And the first reply is: That person. And further down the thread more replies in the same spirit. Evidently, some people think that conversion very much is a unilateral affair, and the responsibility solely of the prospective convert. I fear that the Buddha was like that as well.
As I've said before, I think your experience of "Buddhists" is too narrow for you to make such a generalisation with credibility. You have told me that you don't practice; requests that you name those nasty Buddhists who "done you wrong" are not answered; and offers to get you to meet Buddhists online are rejected. It seems everything you "know" about Buddhists is based on your experiences here and on other forums, and you try to extrapolate from that to come up with a view of what Buddhists are like. The internet is more like the Wild West than a Sri Lankan temple. And issues which we have discussed but which are inappropriate for the open forum have also come into play, I suspect.See above. I suspect Buddhists are really proud of themselves when they are aloof toward people. And this isn't a criticism. I've spent enough time with Hindus to know better, to see the pattern.
But to deal with the substantive point, I would think that some forms of aloofness - viveka - are extremely desirable; but anything like "cold-heartedness" or an unwillingness to deal with people, is not. The whole of the Buddha's sāsana was based upon him having compassion for the world. Had aloofness been the main aspect, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
Skupnost za zavest Krišne, maybe, or maybe some of the other 620 Hindus in your country in 2013?
He "went out of his way"? What was "his way" to begin with? See, even when you use an idiom, you make the same point as I.
I meant that he made special efforts, which balances out his "aloofness" towards time-wasters.
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
Because that's not the way of a buddha.
That's harshness, that's how harshness is understood by a buddha.“In using harshness, (I teach:) ‘Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry ghosts.’
Brutally frank or just frankly brutal? Many people love to indulge in the latter under the guise of the former.Nice when needed to be, and rough... also when needed to. Heck, if I was His student, I wouldn't mind Him calling me a f...king idiot if it helped getting me out of my own idiocy ( matter of fact, He did use some pretty stern words on occasions, though not quite as "stern" as the ones above ).
Calling someone an idiot, an effing one or other, does not get them out of their own idiocity. Calling people names has no enlightening power.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: A serious non-Buddhist
And you know the way of the Buddha??? There're times when only bitter medicine would be able to cure severe illness.
MN 22 wrote:"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way? Worthless man, haven't I in many ways described obstructive acts?