What's Wrong With Buddhism?

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I think thunder answered my post.

I did write:

Even after enlightenment he didn't return (to his family).

I think I answered it better.

Irrelevent. It's not the same "he" anyway.

Thought ya might find this post interesting, concerns the Dalai Lama




www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Just for clarity I want to add that I meant thunder "responded" to my post re Gautama's actions AFTER he became enlightened. I reserve judgement which party answered it better. That is irrelevant - you are correct.

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hey guys,

How do you feel about the fact that Gautama left his family to pursue his quest for knowledge. Even after enlightenment he didn't return. Isn't that very selfish and a cause of great pain? (Well, I didn't know his wife

)

Spirituality tends to be very self-ish. Worldly detachment can leave you
as just a point of Egoity waiting for death with the illusion you have reached Enlightenment. People take up spiritual practices which fit their personality and comfort level. Mostly it is just a subtle form of Egoity.

Crane was a monk who lived for many years in a monastery. When he came to Adi Da, He told him to get married. Which he did.
Adi Da said Marriage is the most Ascetic discipline.
(Da gave him that name,"Crane" because he reminded him of a Crane.)

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Just for clarity I want to add that I meant thunder "responded" to my post re Gautama's actions AFTER he became enlightened. I reserve judgement which party answered it better. That is irrelevant - you are correct.

But Buddha had no wife, children or family. However Siddhartha Guatama did.

So, apples and oranges anyway. If noone's saying anything, then who's saying it better?

Strange that Siddhartha's mother's name, Maya, is ofted taken as meaning, "illusion". Is there supposed to be some significance to that? Some level of mystery in the historical account?

Does Suddhodana have any particular meaning?

Per an about.com source you have already cited.

The Buddha devoted himself to teaching, attracting hundreds of followers. Eventually he became reconciled with his father, King Suddhodana. His wife, the devoted Yasodhara, became a nun and disciple. Rahula, his son, became a novice monk at the age of 7 and spent the rest of his life with his father.

Seems things came to together pretty well. I'm still not sure where the dilemma is. Again, what is being argued over? Is this not correct?





[edit on 2/24/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hey guys,

How do you feel about the fact that Gautama left his family to pursue his quest for knowledge. Even after enlightenment he didn't return. Isn't that very selfish and a cause of great pain? (Well, I didn't know his wife

)

You call what the buddha did selfish? hmmm..............
my understanding is that it shows that the buddha had everything in life - he was b orn a prince- and still sought enlightenment.

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hey guys,

How do you feel about the fact that Gautama left his family to pursue his quest for knowledge. Even after enlightenment he didn't return. Isn't that very selfish and a cause of great pain? (Well, I didn't know his wife

)

You call what the buddha did selfish? hmmm..............
my understanding is that it shows that the buddha had everything in life - he was b orn a prince- and still sought enlightenment.

If you are married or in a relationship tell your partner today that it has been nice, but you are leaving tomorrow for your quest to find "truth". Let me know how it went ...

reply to post by Nichiren

(Well, I didn't know his wife )

Nich My gosh man. This is just cold. At the same time quite humorous.

I can't buy it though. No man who loved his family would leave them for a,
"quest for knowledge".

If he loved them he would've missed them and returned. Basic humanalitY.

Thought ya might find this post interesting, concerns the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is another phenomenal personality. While his story borders on unbelievable, his charisma is suggestive of only absolute truth.
Remind you of anybody?
I read somewhere that while people of that faith worship him as God.
Even he say's he is not and speaks of God in heaven all the time.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Nichiren
Hey guys,

How do you feel about the fact that Gautama left his family to pursue his quest for knowledge. Even after enlightenment he didn't return. Isn't that very selfish and a cause of great pain? (Well, I didn't know his wife

)

You call what the buddha did selfish? hmmm..............
my understanding is that it shows that the buddha had everything in life - he was b orn a prince- and still sought enlightenment.

If you are married or in a relationship tell your partner today that it has been nice, but you are leaving tomorrow for your quest to find "truth". Let me know how it went ...

yeah- women have gained a lot of power in 2600 years......

he was a PRINCE- he could anything he wanted besides the fact he was a man

he might have said what he did really is none of your business because your business is self-enlightenment- you are not in a position to judge.

i'd say who the hell are you to put your morality on the buddha? you are giving power to a concept and a historical 'mickey mouse' frontman of a religion.......kill the buddha, they say, for good reason. in a way, if you're on someone else's trip, you have fallen from your own....

[edit on 24-2-2010 by IandEye]

reply to post by IandEye


That's right...Seek and Destroy!



Leave nary a twitching thing.

reply to post by IandEye

... a historical 'mickey mouse' frontman of a religion ...

Why would you call the Buddha a rodent and why is Buddhism a religion? Just curious ...



edited for humor, I think ...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Nichiren]

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by IandEye

 

... a historical 'mickey mouse' frontman of a religion ...

Why would you call the Buddha a rodent and why is Buddhism a religion? Just curious ...



edited for humor, I think ...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Nichiren]

only for effect.........
he has been built up into something over 2600 years....judging him by our standards is futile...

so the answer to "what's wrong with Buddhism" is "mu".....

get it?

Originally posted by IandEye
so the answer to "what's wrong with Buddhism" is "mu".....

get it?

[size=10]MU

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by IandEye

 

... a historical 'mickey mouse' frontman of a religion ...

Why would you call the Buddha a rodent and why is Buddhism a religion? Just curious ...



edited for humor, I think ...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Nichiren]

ok, so rodents dont have buddha-nature so i wouldn't call him a rat....

also i know buddhism isn't a religion, but to a lot of people it is. to those who worship buddha or dalai lama as god.....to them it's still a religion.

double post

[edit on 25-2-2010 by IandEye]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by IandEye
so the answer to "what's wrong with Buddhism" is "mu".....

get it?

[size=10]MU

mu me?

mu you!!

;;;;;;

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by Nichiren

 

I think Buddhism is a closely-observed, functional system of mental hygiene techniques/practices, compared to many another religion it's like a functional martial art vs. a mostly decorative folkdance...

I do have one problem with the backstory...if everything is nothingness, if nothing really exists, then how does ignorance make things seem to be? If nothing is real, where is the ground that the hall is built on which ignorance rents to put on this pageant?

Very true.

I have seen numerous answers to this in the Buddhist texts, and I have asked those seemingly advanced Buddhists I have encountered, over the years...and all the answers I've run across suck, in my humble opinion, Buddhism has no answer to this question, it falls down completely in this area.

Well a few things about this.
Firstly you obviously have not been lucky enough to meet a real teacher as you would understand it a bit more.

HOWEVER Emptiness is not so much about the illusion of the solid world out there, but more of the Ignorance and illusion of your and mine and their EGO's. The idea we live forever, even when we die, the idea that a chair is a chair, but it is only that because we call or name it a chair, leave it alone for a thousand years where’s the chair?

Isn’t it really just wood, or even if we accept that, surely just water and soil and leaves? but before that? ad infinitum etc.

The Ego and minds way of thinking things are inherently as they are, as they appear and what we call them, that they have an everlasting theme or label, good, bad, chair, human, under time all change.

So emptiness is seeing the world for what it is, everything is made up from previous causes, and many different things, nothing lasts for ever or has an attribute or quality that is permanent. All is change.

Also this relates to good and bad of ourselves and others, our likes and dislikes too. Hitler is regarded as Evil by many, he certainly did many such deeds and habitually behaved this way.

However if you asked his beloved Alsatian, or his nephews, who only experienced him showing love and caring they would experience, name and label him very differently. So who is right his dog and family who saw the love, compassion and such like of him, or those whom he committed genocide on?

So even Hitler’s nature under scrutiny, not emotions just truth and logic, is not Inherently Evil or always evil. He when feeling compassion or love felt it the same as all other people in history, is the 20 minutes of love he showed or felt in his life different from the love of Saint or charity worker, at the time he felt it?

So we get ourselves in all sorts of problems when we see the world from an ignorant point of view. I like Pasta and Red Wine, my best friend curry and white..... who is right?

Really though even just skimming this, is not helping, from teachings and some limited personal experience Emptiness is a bit like the love we talk about above, we all know Love is real it exists, it is one of the most important driving factors of out behaviours, shapes nations, lives and cultures etc.... can be felt, physiological responses measured etc tears and joy seen in others, but you show me just ONE particle of Love, one solid separate thing that is love or hate for that matter.

So emptiness is the same, you can read and wax lyrical with poets, writers and singers about Love, but like emptiness unless you experience it yourself it is just words, with no "solid" proof it exists, until you experience it, just hysterical musings from the uninitiated until then.

This experiential experience is something that needs to be experienced directly by oneself, and at my very limited level of experience, I feel confident in saying is understood upon such an insight, and not on logical thought experiments or learning theory, no matter how intelligent or well versed.

The only way I know to truly approach this subject with any success is to firstly realise the "emptiness" of one self, of the illusion of the separate and everlasting Ego. If you can truly, and I mean here subconsciously break down your own Ego, and experience mind, reality, the unlimited in one separate individual nature of your mind.

The changing nature of ourselves, the lack of a concrete real separate thing or state of being of ourselves, once tasted, then understanding of Emptiness of things "Out there" seen as separate from ourselves when looked at locked in the trap of our ego becomes more and more apparent.

Like Love discussed above, again the "solid" world out there we experience, and you mention cannot be pinned down either. 99.99% of all "Matter" what we see as solid and hard things like metal is made up of space. This is a proven scientific fact. The things that make those atoms and molecules that make that practically empty space seem so solid and real to us, are infact just made up of possible and immeasurable points of energy that jump in and out of existence, dependent on who, what and how they are observed. Again coming back to our Labelling and naming things.

Our minds create the world.....and we interpret what we experience based on our likes dislikes and conditioning, I just made a coffee. Ive drunk it. it will be poisonous piss in a few hours time, where did the coffee go?

When I pee it out will my mind and experience still want to drink it?

If not is it really "sick" or "disgusting" if I do or is that an illusion based on conditioning.... anyone watching someone drinking their own piss might feel or react thinking it is wrong, but its actual nature is not "yuck" or "sick"... its just piss, was coffee a few hours ago.

Millions of bacteria and the tree outside would see it as food and as yummy as my coffee... who is right me or the tree?

Hopefully you can see the emptiness in the coffee once made, also in the Piss an hour later, also in the leaves it might make on the tree, and also a bit of the nature of emptiness within our minds of Good or evil, Hitler was always bad.

Emptiness means also though that even a normal man over time can become enlightened, a Sinner like Hitler should be loved and not judged as the judging comes from an non existent Ego of ours saying what is right and wrong, and labelling and imputing another empty Ego with characteristics it cannot have, like always evil, or always good out there
.............................................................................................................
OP two things to say.
Please be aware of one of Buddha’s main teachings when posting things such as "why are you not a Buddhist?" it is very much not right to try and change the views or beliefs of another being.

Buddhists should never be evangelical otherwise you are not being Buddhist.

Secondly, though I respect your practise Nicheren Buddhism for those who do not know was set up by an Abbot with the same name from a Japanese monastery, who decided he was the Buddhist Saviour. He taught that all of the Buddha’s teachings and all practise of such a path is to be found in one of the Sutras the "Diamond Sutra". That enlightenment can be found just by chanting certain parts of the Sutra and focusing on this.

This is imho very dangerous as it is well documented that the traditional way to teach Buddhism is to those of an "low" "middle" and "advanced" ability depending on their nature and abilities, and he taught different students different teachings to satisfy their capabilities.

Now this is very similar to say the Mantra Om Mani Padme Hung in Tibetan/Indian (mahiddsatva) Buddhism, the belief that all the teachings are contained within that Mantra, and it alone can bring enlightenment with no other teaching or practise if experienced fully (tantric Deity Yoga).

However there is one major difference, the mantra can only be said, used and invoked for the relieving of suffering of others - it is a Bodhisattva path.... never in no way can it be used for ones own benefit, (except to clear karma, to reach enlightenment as you feel the sufferings of other so much you have become enlightened so you lead others there to)

Also ignoring the rest of the teachings, limits understanding of his message to just one aspect, it is like saying Christians should only upturn tables in churches and throw out money lenders.... very limited....

However it is also my opinion that if you have Faith in your practise and lineage this is more important and better for you, than joining another that you do not have faith in.

The last worry I have about Nicherin is that it is taught that you can like in the "Secret" chant for situations, and material things you want, using the Buddha’s Sutra and the chanting to create these things and attract them as such to us.
Well as the roots of Samsara and like in your tradition the "10 Worlds" and suffering therein is based on 3 things:

Ignorance

Desire

Anger/Hate

The aim of enlightenment is to uproot and lessen these factors in our minds, as they to are not permanent and our true nature is not inherently ignorant, selfish and angry etc…

Well if the dichotomy is not apparent there, between the practise and core teaching of Buddhism and some interpretations of it…. well Maybe next lifetime you will get it.

………………………………………………………………………………………
Contd.......

To Surmise:
Everything is impermanent, nothing is solid or fixed forever, materials or emotions, or Ego or ways of being.

We are ignorant and do not see this reality and act, experience and feel the world is real and permanent, especially in regards to our egos and likes and dislikes.

Perspective is everything.

Everything is one, there is no separation we are all part of the same ground of being, of the same mind, but perceiving itself through different points of view and therefore thinking we are separate or different from all that is.

Solid things out there "I kicked the stone and it moved, and I felt the pain in my toes" are not as they appear, there is no-thing (you ego impermanent) which is made up of a foot and body which it itself is just


Again empty space, with potentials of energy that might be here or there, but until a Mind or consciousness looks and interacts, has no actual state of being. Of course the same is true for the rock, maybe it fell of a mountain yesterday but then surely it was a mountain not a rock….infact maybe its best to call it Lava or sand as that’s what made the stone that was pressed up into a mountain, but no infact it was before that a dust cloud in space, but before that one of the first stars in this universe, but before that just plasma, wait there at the moment of a big band, or before hand was not all the things we see and measure in the universe just all mixed up into one thing?

So what’s the really correct name (and therefore attributes) we as humans should call such a “Rock”

Rock? Mountain? Sand? Lava? Volcano? Plasma? Star? Big Bang? Before time?

Which name is right? Which name bests describes the underlying nature of this part of the universe….

Maybe we are getting somewhere here?

Anyone else think that the act of naming these things into separate bits of our experience, and therefore having positive and negative beliefs, behaviours and reactions to such things is when looked at properly a bit Ignorant?

My attempt at Emptiness 101 is not very successful I am sure, however I am sure that in the future I will communicate better, if I do the Casual factors now, as my ignorance of ability to explain my knowledge is as empty as the positing that all rocks are rocks, and all Bad people are always bad…. Or that my next cup of coffee is actually a cup of piss.

Kind Regards,

Elf.

There is nothing wrong...
Nam myoho renge kyo is a beautiful phrase, one can trance into it in silence. and the lotus is a beautiful summary of teachings culminating in the essence of Buddhism - no wonder it is used everywhere from Hindu astrology to chakra teachings and Buddhism.
The LS to me was a bit exaggerating from a conscious POV but it surely works from an unconscious one. There are many secrets. Usui, founder of Reiki used to glean some incorruptible truth from the Lotus sutra. Yet many Reiki researchers failed to find the exact location. Maybe there is none.
I once met an Asian American Nichiren woman who came upstairs for a minute to give us a leaflet in downtown Baltimore. I liked their main phrase of the chanting immediately, yet I am not one for masses and louder things.

Mikkyo made me appreciate some finer points of esoteric Buddhism. Yet i think the whole thing is universal, a teaching of spirits from another realm - it is nor useful to take it as dogma. This lady was a bit closed to any comparisons - and we tried to explain in the ourse of a few minutes that deep meditation requires one to be washed away by the practice not just walking and chanting and thinking... Hope she got there later with this one chief phrase. It is one of the best of all Japanese mantras.