Devilnaut

lugotrix,

I believe dostf was just trying to be helpful in suggesting that labels such as that are means of identifying and becoming attached to one's self, something that is contrary to buddhist teachings. He wasn't trying to nitpick or be pedantic.

dostf

lugotorix:

Well, I promise not to murder anyone. Come to think of it, I vowed not to do this already when I became a Buddhist -- it's the first Precept.

- I certainly don't have any doubt you will. However the point remains, many who do identify with any particular "label" are more than happy to destroy/ridicule/hate/ etc. others of a different "label"
- I would also maintain the "precepts" are a morality code no different than other religions. If one has a developed conscience they are not needed.

If you truly believe it's wrong to apply labels to oneself, why are you posting in a thread that deals with these labels, which requires you to accept the fact that people describe their beliefs through generally accepted terms like "atheist", "Christian","Buddhist", etc?(lugotorix)

- I accept the fact that others ascribe labels to themselves ad infinitum. It is a sad fact that I wished to bring to attention here. Certainly with no malice intended--merely food for thought as it were..

If I were to try and live up to your philosophy, I would be forced to say "I may or may not be a being that may or may not exist and that may or may not believe certain things." At which point, any discussion becomes meaningless.(lugotorix)

- Or you could call yourself a human being -void of any "labels" or "boxes" you yourself, or others try to define and categorize for you .....

Be seeing you...

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: dostf ]</p>

Seraphim

"I hope it is not too late to emphasize that Buddha's teaching was an atheism.
There are many forms of corrupted buddhism with theistic leanings, but his original doctrine was atheistic. "

My reply : And how may I ask that you managed to get hold of his (Gautama Buddha's) original doctrine?

Seraphim

"I think you are missing my point. I was just pointing out what Deism refers to, not recommending it as a belief."

My reply : My point was Deist not necessary is new to one society alone, others could have thought of it as well. In the end, whether to accept Deism or not is individual's understanding.

"To clarify, in the Pali scriptures he makes references to the realm of devas or gods, but in the Brahmajala Sutta he specifically denies the existence of a Creator God as is worshipped in most other religions. Here's a link to the scripture; look for the section entitled Partial Eternalists."

My reply : He (Gautama) denied existence of ONE God which rules over the fate of humans. A human's existence is simply product of his own deeds, learning and continuous change. Here, I will send you a site :

<a href="http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaconcepts.htm" target="_blank">http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaconcepts.htm</a>

It sounded simple enough for me.

"I am a Buddhist, having gone for refuge in the 3 Treasures and taken the 5 precepts in the presence of a Buddhist monk (who is Chinese, by the way; I only point this out since you seem to have a dim view of western Buddhist teachers...). I have been reading Buddhist scriptures of both Theravada and Mahayana since I was 15 years old; I even have a portion of the Pali Scriptures in English translation stored on my hard drive. My views are not pulled out of some hippy-dippy New Age books, but directly from the Buddhist scriptures."

My reply : Buddhist scriptures don't lead your life, you do. In the end, it is how much you understand that counts, not how much you read, brought or exprienced. Don't think just because you have row of books in your house, it makes you an expert. Live life first.

dim view of Western teachers? Hmph ... forgive my "arrogance" but my personal view is that Western should stay in the West ... Eastern had strive and built better society which is humble and follows the natural cause of things without Westerners interference.

"It does not follow that denying the existence of a soul implies that there is no rebirth. The various traditions have their own ideas how this occurs; some say the last thought in one life is immediately followed by the first thought in the next. In Tibet, they think that the person's awareness is reborn into an in-between realm (bardo) and stays for a while until it is attracted to its future parents in the act of conception. In both cases, they believe that the awareness is a stream of moments, with nothing permanent about it.

I don't know if either of these scenarios is true; I wonder if it is even possible to know. This make me an agnostic with regards to rebirth."

My reply : Let just follow each others path and see where it leads, shall we?

"No, Buddhadasa believed in the possibility of enlightenment and in karma. He just thought that the Buddha was misunderstood by his followers, who took his metaphor literally and thought reincarnation really happens. He thought that the rebirth that the Buddha was refering to was actually the rebirth from moment to moment of the concept of "I" as a separate being. Hence the goal (enlightenment) was to get rid of that false duality in this lifetime."

My reply : Duality is not false, it is product of the Self in attempt to find its place in its surroundings. In my opinion, enlightment is simply getting rid of the duality and need to attach itself to the physical world.

"No, as I stated above I am a Buddhist, because of my taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and vowing to uphold the 5 Precepts. As far as being free of negative emotions and duality, of course I'm not. That's why I'm a Buddhist. If I were already free of these things, I would be a Buddha, at the end of the path instead of traveling on it."

My reply : what's the difference between you're calling yourself a Buddhist and someone else calling himself/herself a Christian and a Muslim?

You can uphold anything you want, but in the end, if your understanding of what you are holding fails, you are back to square one.

lugotorix

This was exactly my point. He denied the existence of a Creator that is guiding the Universe; so do atheists. Hence, one can be both. That is the topic of this thread, after all.
My reason for pointing out that I was a Buddhist and went through a public ceremony to affirm it was because twice in your previous posts, you said I wasn't a Buddhist. You were wrong, and I offered that as proof. I assure you I am living my life quite okay. I just felt the need to point out your misunderstandings of basic Buddhist teachings.

As far as your assertion that "Westerners" should stay in the West, I disagree. Buddhism originated in India, which has as much in common with "the West" as with Eastern Asia. Their language and mythology are essentially a hybrid between the Indo-European nomads that arrived from the West around 1000 BCE and the local Dravidian culture. Buddhism is in effect as much "Western" as it is "Eastern". It spread to Eastern Asia eventually and adapted to the less trancendental and more immanentist cultures there; in India it was wiped out by the Moslem invasions. As a result, the types of Buddhism people now see are more "Eastern" oriented. But at its heart, it is as readily adaptable to my culture as yours.

For someone who claims to know about Buddhism, you seem rather unhappy about it spreading to America and Europe. I would think that a fellow Buddhist would be overjoyed that the Dharma is reaching more areas and thereby allowing more people the chance at enlightenment. Very strange attitude.

Anyway, this thread seems to have strayed very far from the original post's question. It may have far outlived its usefulness. fcuk, I hope (if you're still reading this thread) that I answered your question sufficiently.

lugotorix

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: lugotorix ]
[edited to try to be as clear as possible... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ]

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: lugotorix ]</p>

Answerer

Sorry Sep, but your given website is a hindu website. Just as my hindi friend always like to call Buddha as his God, krishna( or rather incarnation) while criticize the Dharma for its 'unperfect teachings'. In Zen or Chan and some Mahayana teachings, the notion of God(and gods) and souls were completely lifted out of the Dharma while the essence of Dharma remains. If Buddha acknowledge the existence of the Absolute One, then Buddha would have merged Buddhism with Hinduism ages ago as there are no fundamental difference in them. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Seraphim

"This was exactly my point. He denied the existence of a Creator that is guiding the Universe; so do atheists. Hence, one can be both. That is the topic of this thread, after all."

My reply : We can agreed upon the Creator part but One can be both? You think Atheists can be a Buddha? You are certainly welcomed to try and it will be interesting to watch.

"My reason for pointing out that I was a Buddhist
and went through a public ceremony to affirm it was because twice in your previous posts, you said I wasn't a Buddhist. You were wrong, and I offered that as proof. I assure you I am living my life quite okay. I just felt the need to point out your misunderstandings of basic Buddhist teachings."

My reply : You are wrong about my misunderstanding of the "basic" Buddhist teachings. I don't care actually whether someone calls me a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist or a Hindu. I live life the way I see if and follow it with principle that suits my needs. I will not lie, kill (unless in self-defence), hurt (unless force to do so), drink alcohol, free sex etc and I certainly don't need some monks to come and put me through ceremony to show whether I'm a Buddhist or not.

If you think going through ceremonies and collecting and reading books is what makes you a Buddhist, you are welcomed to that opinion. It is not my business to say otherwise, is it?

"As far as your assertion that "Westerners" should stay in the West, I disagree. Buddhism originated in India, which has as much in common with "the West" than with Eastern Asia. Their language and mythology are essentially a hybrid between the Indo-European nomads that arrived from the West around 1000 BCE and the local Dravidian culture. It was in effect as much "Western" as it was "Eastern". It spread to Eastern Asia eventually and adapted to the less trancendental and more immanentist cultures there; in India it was wiped out by the Moslem invasions. As a result, the types of Buddhism people now see are more "Eastern" oriented. But at its heart, it is as readily adaptable to my culture as yours."

My reply : When I said West, I meant those of Mid-East, Europe and American continents. East simply means those who lived in Indian continent, China, Japan and areas.

"For someone who claims to know about Buddhism, you seem rather unhappy about it spreading to America and Europe. I would think that a fellow Buddhist would be overjoyed that the Dharma is reaching more areas and thereby allowing more people the chance at enlightenment. Very strange attitude."

My reply : No use spreading it to US or Europe. I don't see what it (Buddhism) could do in the West.
Bring peace? Useless if you don't want it.
Bring enlightment? Useless if you don't seek it.
Bring understanding of the Self? You got head-shrinks to teach you about yourself.

Do Westerners really have patiences to commit themselves to level of determination required to learn and follow Buddhism? I don't think so ... you people got too used to having everything in instant form.
In the end, Buddhism will become another religion and Buddha will become another God.

By Answerer

"Sorry Sep, but your given website is a hindu website. Just as my hindi friend always like to call Buddha as his God, krishna( or rather incarnation) while criticize the Dharma for its 'unperfect teachings'. In Zen or Chan and some Mahayana teachings, the notion of God(and gods) and souls were completely lifted out of the Dharma while the essence of Dharma remains. If Buddha acknowledge the existence of the Absolute One, then Buddha would have merged Buddhism with Hinduism ages ago as there are no fundamental difference in them. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. "

My reply : I was looking at the similarities in principles and what been said in the site, not who wrote it.
Then again, if it doesn't suits you, that's OK.

Answerer

Sep, I had looked and there is a few fundamental differences in it. People, who are not careful, are easy to be misled.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

monkey mind

Wow Sepharim. Not only is that view a speculation without any basis in reality, it's also ignorant and rascist. Everybody west of India is too impatient to learn Buddhism eh? Get a clue man. Your ignorance repeatedly betrays you on this forum.

Seraphim

"Wow Sepharim. Not only is that view a speculation without any basis in reality, it's also ignorant and rascist. Everybody west of India is too impatient to learn Buddhism eh? Get a clue man. Your ignorance repeatedly betrays you on this forum. "

My reply : A view without any basis in reality? My view is from point of history of the Asian people, not something I simply stated.

From various aspects such as medicine, philosphy, science and Arts (among others), it is people of Asian region which brought new discoveries and developments and such tasks doesn't require brain power alone, it also needs higher spiritual strenghts such as celibacy, willingness to endure hardship and pain, willingness to let go what people in your society holds dear - wealthy and power and things such as that.

Your society didn't show much progress in such spiritial strenghts, I doubt it has any which required to learn and master such as Buddhism.