|
|
| belovedofthegod - 2005-12-17 7:34 PM
"I disagree with this, ask anybody who's gone deer hunting how long they can sit for."
Right, but do they go deer hunting everyday for months?
No, but going for several days at a stretch isn't that odd, and from kids who usually can't sit still for a minute in school.
I also didn't do a great deal when I was a kid, just not that motivated to get up and move around, I prefered to sit and read. The point being that not all kids are hyper-active bundles of energy that need to move around a lot. Is he really sitting there without moving? Most people I know who meditation aren't that devoted, so I'm going to assume he's making some movements, maybe not getting up, but some.
Its difficult circumstances to put oneself into. Also, I don't know about deer hunting, but I doubt people sit absolutely still for hours - that would greatly surprise me.
Deer are very sensitive, and doubly so for movement. They at least sit are still as most people who meditate.
"I don't think it possible to tell what's really going on with him, but I find that fact that it's made internation news much more likely that it's not true."
Again, my basic point stands. He doesn't really talk, so he hasn't claimed anything - those around him have. It makes no sense to accuse him of making this or that claim.
No, but there's also no reason to accept it whole cloth. Also not speaking doesn't necessarily imply not making a claim. By publically doing exactly what he's doing, particular with aping previous historical circumstances he's making a definite claim. Much the same if I decided to dressed up as Abe Lincoln, or a policeman's uniform, and never said a word.
I've yet to hear any reason why if he's so sincere in his practice he doesn't attempt to change his circumstances to a more private place, which IMHO should definitely help his practice. Instead he appears to be engaged in doing something that's hurting it (drawing attention), to the point that he's getting upset about people's claims regarding his intentions.
Unfortunately most of the news stories I've seen have been very sparse on the sort of details I would find most interesting. How are his parents reacting? Does he has a set of followers or other promoters? Are the people who are attracted to this making any sort of offerings, including food? How are the offerings handled? How is he conducting himself on a day to day basis? (I'd like to see this personally) What started all the people gathering around to see him do this?
I'm also reminded of the fact that most of the girls involved in the Salem witch trials were teenagers. They were able to perpetuate a very vast and cruel hoax for months many for attention.
I don't think the fasting, etc... is true, but there seems as of now no reason to believe the person is not sincere in practice.
It's not an absolute by any measure, but I find the publicity makes it very unlikely IMHO. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, since it's not possible to discern his intentions either way. |
|
| |
|
| "It's not an absolute by any measure, but I find the publicity makes it very unlikely IMHO. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, since it's not possible to discern his intentions either way."
Indeed... We'll see how this proceeds. |
|
| |
|
| Hi Shiva,
'the buddha also said, "don't take it from me. experience it yourself." or something to that effect. i guess i'm not trying to argue against the path of moderation. but even moderation in moderation! it is wise to avoid making mistakes. but to avoid making mistakes, when you don't know in your heart of hearts why you're doing what you're doing, is just following another's dogma. and of course all traditions agree that you should follow their dogma..."
Moderation in moderation, etc... is just intellectualization. No one says you have to follow advice, but there is no wisdom or good reason to not follow clearly good advice. Would you tell a child who wants to learn about suicide to try for themselves and experientally discover the truth instead of dogmatically listening to people who say "don't kill yourself!"? Keep in mind that even speaking purely physically, excess fasting can lead to death - its not something innocuous.
" i don't know if he would have said that anyone "HAD" to "practice the path to get liberation...that sentence kind of reads grammatically like "You have to believe that jesus christ is your savior in order to go to heavan" which is fine and dandy, but not what buddhism is about."
Often people have romanticized notions of Buddhism being completely undogmatic, etc... particularly because of some charismatic leaders who are popular in the west, but official Buddhist position (and in my experience held by most practioners including westerners) in all major schools of Buddhism (yes, very explicitly even in Zen), there is no liberation outside Buddhism.
Whether this was what the Buddha meant or not (complicated discussion - especially since one doesn't know to what extent Buddhist scripture was spoken by the Buddha), this is the position of Buddhism. The reason it is not as bad as Christianity is that non-Buddhists don't automatically go to eternal hell so Buddhists can be more flexibile and accepting and don't have such an urgent zeal to convert people,
R.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2005-12-18 4:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
| belovedofthegod - 2005-12-18 4:45 PM
Often people have romanticized notions of Buddhism being completely undogmatic, etc... particularly because of some charismatic leaders who are popular in the west, but official Buddhist position (and in my experience held by most practioners including westerners) in all major schools of Buddhism (yes, very explicitly even in Zen), there is no liberation outside Buddhism.
I'm going to assume you're refering to Alan Watts. I'm also wondering where the idea of no liberation outside Buddhism comes from. Maybe I've just been reading the authors you're refering too, but I don't think I'm come across that concept anywhere. I'm sure they'll tell you that you can't get to there by just doing any old thing, or that they're not sure where the other paths go, but the no liberation outside Buddhism sounds very dogmatic and overly zealous to me.
I'm also wondering what your background is, would you care to discuss it? Your screen name seems to imply some sort of Christian/monotheistic background to me. |
|
| |
|
| Hi GreenJello,
"I'm also wondering what your background is, would you care to discuss it? Your screen name seems to imply some sort of Christian/monotheistic background to me."
Quite ironic; when I registered the name, I meant to register "belovedofthegods" but the last "s" didn't get in because of character limit or perhaps some other computer-related reason. I'm Hindu by birth and practice.
"I'm sure they'll tell you that you can't get to there by just doing any old thing, or that they're not sure where the other paths go, but the no liberation outside Buddhism sounds very dogmatic and overly zealous to me."
Again, this is standard Buddhist position shared by all standard schools. Of course Buddhist writers catering westerners will not write "no liberation outside Buddhism" but if you speak and discuss in detail with learned traditional Buddhists, this is clearly their position. I am not sure how I can go about showing this, you really only get an idea of this by talking with Buddhists since there is no common presentation that one can just go and find somewhere.
In Zen you can find this out quite easily, since they talk about the five types of Zen, with the second kind being meditation for spiritual purposes, but non-Buddhist - this cannot ever lead to liberation, at best temporary heaven. You can check out the "five types of Zen" even with a google search. If even a relatively eccentric sect such as Zen believes this, one should expect the same from rest of Mahayana. Besides the Mahayana Sutras are very clear on this, for instance the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:
"O good man! The tirthikas [non-Buddhists] are ignorant and are like children. They do not have the expedients of Wisdom. They cannot truly see what is meant by eternal, non-eternal, suffering, bliss, pure, not-pure, Self, not-Self, life, non-life, being, non-being, real, non-real, what is or what is not. They partake of only a little of the Buddhist teaching. In a false way they say that there are the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and Purity. A person congenitally blind does not know what the colour of milk is like. He asks: "What is the colour of milk like?" Another says: "It is as white as the colour of a shell." The blind man further asks: "Is the colour of milk like the sound of a horn?" "No" is the reply. "What colour is the colour of a shell like?" The answer comes back: "It is like the colour of rice powder." The blind man asks: "Is the colour of milk as soft as rice powder? And what is the colour of rice powder like?" The answer comes: "It is like snow." The blind man says: "Is rice powder as cold as snow? And what is it like?" The answer comes back: "It is like a crane." Even though this congenitally blind man receives four similes in reply, he cannot arrive at the true colour of milk. It is the same with the tirthikas. To the end, they cannot arrive at what is meant by the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and Purity. The same is the case [here]. O good man! For this reason, the real truth rests with the Buddhist teaching. Things do not stand thus with the tirthikas."
The Vajrayana position is summarized by Sakya Pandita (widely respected 13th century Tibetan Buddhist):
"Without repelling thoughts of this world,
Even an excellent pracitioner attains the tips of samsara.
Without relying upon the Triple Gem,
Even an excellent person is a heretic."
The problem is I can get you a lot of quotes from contemporary Buddhist teachers which reflects the tradition but I don't know how else I can explain that this is their view. Quotes seem too limited (you might say "maybe only some of them believe this but its not the traditional position"), but it should give some indication anyway. Some quotes (just from googling) then:
"In terms of teachings in general, there are two types: Buddhadharma and the teachings of the mu-teg-pa (Skt: tirthika) [See Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 320-21.] The latter are teachings based on mistaken beliefs, an understanding opposite to that of Buddhadharma - teachings followed by outsiders. By following such non-Buddhist teachings, you can be born anywhere from the lower realms to the peak of samsara, the highest of the four formless realms, but can never escape samsara." ( |
|
| |
|
| Hi GreenJello,
"I'm also wondering what your background is, would you care to discuss it? Your screen name seems to imply some sort of Christian/monotheistic background to me."
Quite ironic; when I registered the name, I meant to register "belovedofthegods" but the last "s" didn't get in because of character limit or perhaps some other computer-related reason. I'm Hindu by birth and practice.
"I'm sure they'll tell you that you can't get to there by just doing any old thing, or that they're not sure where the other paths go, but the no liberation outside Buddhism sounds very dogmatic and overly zealous to me."
Again, this is standard Buddhist position shared by all standard schools. Of course Buddhist writers catering westerners will not write "no liberation outside Buddhism" but if you speak and discuss in detail with learned traditional Buddhists, this is clearly their position. I am not sure how I can go about showing this, you really only get an idea of this by talking with Buddhists since there is no common presentation that one can just go and find somewhere.
In Zen you can find this out quite easily, since they talk about the five types of Zen, with the second kind being meditation for spiritual purposes, but non-Buddhist - this cannot ever lead to liberation, at best temporary heaven. You can check out the "five types of Zen" even with a google search. If even a relatively eccentric sect such as Zen believes this, one should expect the same from rest of Mahayana. Besides the Mahayana Sutras are very clear on this, for instance the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says:
"O good man! The tirthikas [non-Buddhists] are ignorant and are like children. They do not have the expedients of Wisdom. They cannot truly see what is meant by eternal, non-eternal, suffering, bliss, pure, not-pure, Self, not-Self, life, non-life, being, non-being, real, non-real, what is or what is not. They partake of only a little of the Buddhist teaching. In a false way they say that there are the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and Purity. A person congenitally blind does not know what the colour of milk is like. He asks: "What is the colour of milk like?" Another says: "It is as white as the colour of a shell." The blind man further asks: "Is the colour of milk like the sound of a horn?" "No" is the reply. "What colour is the colour of a shell like?" The answer comes back: "It is like the colour of rice powder." The blind man asks: "Is the colour of milk as soft as rice powder? And what is the colour of rice powder like?" The answer comes: "It is like snow." The blind man says: "Is rice powder as cold as snow? And what is it like?" The answer comes back: "It is like a crane." Even though this congenitally blind man receives four similes in reply, he cannot arrive at the true colour of milk. It is the same with the tirthikas. To the end, they cannot arrive at what is meant by the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and Purity. The same is the case [here]. O good man! For this reason, the real truth rests with the Buddhist teaching. Things do not stand thus with the tirthikas."
The Vajrayana position is summarized by Sakya Pandita (widely respected 13th century Tibetan Buddhist):
"Without repelling thoughts of this world,
Even an excellent pracitioner attains the tips of samsara.
Without relying upon the Triple Gem,
Even an excellent person is a heretic."
Some modern Vajrayana teachers quickly from google search:
"In terms of teachings in general, there are two types: Buddhadharma and the teachings of the mu-teg-pa (Skt: tirthika) [See Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 320-21.] The latter are teachings based on mistaken beliefs, an understanding opposite to that of Buddhadharma - teachings followed by outsiders. By following such non-Buddhist teachings, you can be born anywhere from the lower realms to the peak of samsara, the highest of the four formless realms, but can never escape samsara." (Khunu Lama Rinpoche)
"The Inferior Path
Some religions or philosophical traditions while claiming to yield good results actually lead their practitioners to undesirable destinations. For instance, the inferiors Tirthikas (non-Buddhist Indian schools) as well as those who propound Nihilism only lead their followers to rebirths in the miserable realms of existence. The higher Tirthikas can lead one to the acquisition of a rebirth in the higher realms, but not to liberation. And even the paths of Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana are inferior, for they lead only to simply liberation, and not to complete Buddhahood.
The Special Path
The special path is the Mahayana. It is superior to both non-Buddhist paths and the lower Buddhist paths for it alone is the means by which perfect Buddhahood can be attained" (Sakya Trizin)
To be fair, Theravada teachers don't seem to teach no liberation outside refuge and their contention is simply that there is no liberation outside the eightfold path - which does however mean on has to explicitly adhere to "right view," a doctrine of non-self (which excludes all other religions anyway).
Despite the good marketing, the traditional Buddhist position is that there is no liberation outside Buddhism - this is not to say that all Buddhists believe this, however I have found that most do,
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2005-12-22 3:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Hi BOTG,
That was my experience with the Tibetan Buddhist as well. That is the main reason I left and quit the practice...I just simply could not adhere and agree with their concepts of them being the only way and everyone else was going to hell or to the lower/hell realms.
Thanks for your post, that was interesting reading, 
Take care and Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, New Year and whatever else holiday is going on!
Cyndi |
|
| |
|
| BOTG, That's an interesting post. I'll have to think about it for a while. Some of it seems to go back to you're not going to get there by doing that, while some of it does reflect a certain smug, you're going to hell sort of attitude.
As a Hindu, how do you feel about the Buddhists? |
|
| |
|
| Hi Cyndi,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too!
Hi GreenJello,
"BOTG, That's an interesting post. I'll have to think about it for a while. Some of it seems to go back to you're not going to get there by doing that, while some of it does reflect a certain smug, you're going to hell sort of attitude."
Yes, its a bit of both; some of it is extremely important psychological considerations that should indeed be stressed by all, and some of it is just sectarianism.
"As a Hindu, how do you feel about the Buddhists?"
Sorry, I tried typing up a response three times (wrote about a paragraph each time), but I don't really know how to answer! Of course I can't generalize about all Buddhists, but I was trying to give my impressions of my encounters with their tradition. The problem I find is that I get to a point where what I say would apply to all/most religions. If you like, please ask some more specific questions, as I do want to share my thoughts but, this question has me stuck!
R. |
|
| |
|
| I freely admit it's a bit of a leading question. I'm attempting to figure out your biases, and if you're aware I'm doing this it makes it harder.
Anyway, since I'm leveling, I'll admit that my main reason for asking this was that my understand was that in traditional india culture the Buddhist are not dealt with very well. 'Untouchable' is the term I've heard applied. Please do not take this the wrong way, I'm just attempting to access the validity of what you're saying. Nothing you've said indicates you have any sort of bad prejudices against them, but I am cautious about accepting such a radical shift in my view point. |
|
| |
|
| "Nothing you've said indicates you have any sort of bad prejudices against them, but I am cautious about accepting such a radical shift in my view point."
And rightly so, you should of course explore more thoroughly.
"Anyway, since I'm leveling, I'll admit that my main reason for asking this was that my understand was that in traditional india culture the Buddhist are not dealt with very well. 'Untouchable' is the term I've heard applied."
Well, this account is a bit mixed up.
In Indian society, a group of people called the untouchables has been around for a long time, but has no specific relation with the Buddhists. Some Buddhists might have been from that part of society, but most people from that part of society were Hindu. Basically, its an extension of the caste system created by those in power.
Traditionally, in India, no sect liked each other's philosophic views but other than in extremely rare cases, there was little violence because of this. Mostly it was just mutual intellectual agression.
The relation between the Buddhists and the untouchables is a very recent one. Its not that Buddhists are considered untouchables, but it is that a large number of untouchables, led by Ambedkar mass-converted to Buddhism (and continue to do so). This Buddhism is not really Buddhism and is widely discredited by most Buddhists (though basically everyone respects Ambedkar for his social and political role). He gets rid of ideas he doesn't like by simply claiming that they were invented by later monks. And he does this to the four noble truths too: he says they are too negative to have been the Buddha's words and were invented later by monks.
In general, Ambedkar was very openly anti-Hinduism (not anti-Hindu, he wasn't against the people who were Hindu but he hated the religion). His followers uphold this and are extremely aggresive and critical of Hinduism. The Dalai Lama has critcized them (he refers to them as neo-Buddhists in interviews) for this and consequently they want the Dalai Lama to leave India. One thing is that there is a tendency by this movement to spread a lot of misinformation and often they invent history (so they said the original religion of the untouchables was Buddhism, a theory that has no historical foundation) so this might be where you got the idea that Buddhists were considered untouchables.
In addition to general information, another source a lot of people on the internet come across with is dalitstan.org. This site is not even accepted by mainstream untouchable movement since it is a front for the Islamic fundamentalist group, Hezb-e-Mughalstan which wants a Muslim India. A lot of people get information from there and the information they tend to get is very much flawed. They even have forged documents by Ambedkar,
R. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
  
| I heard an interview with someone at a world conference (or something similar) of the untouchable group on CBC (Canadian NPR) and the understanding I got was that people converted to Buddhism simply to escape the "untouchable" label. If one is not Hindu, one is not a part of the caste system, is the way I heard it. It all seems odd at best, to western ears that ideas/systems so medieval can persist into what is being called a post-modern era. In North Amercia in particular, nobody knows you if you're down and out but if you have money and position, we don't seem to care much what your family did or where you came from.
|
|
| |
|
| belovedofthegod - 2005-12-26 10:04 AM
Traditionally, in India, no sect liked each other's philosophic views but other than in extremely rare cases, there was little violence because of this. Mostly it was just mutual intellectual agression.
So what else is new. Sounds completely human to me.
In general, Ambedkar was very openly anti-Hinduism (not anti-Hindu, he wasn't against the people who were Hindu but he hated the religion). His followers uphold this and are extremely aggresive and critical of Hinduism.
I assume this stems from their dislike of the caste system, and it's links to Hinduism.
The Dalai Lama has critcized them (he refers to them as neo-Buddhists in interviews) for this and consequently they want the Dalai Lama to leave India. One thing is that there is a tendency by this movement to spread a lot of misinformation and often they invent history (so they said the original religion of the untouchables was Buddhism, a theory that has no historical foundation) so this might be where you got the idea that Buddhists were considered untouchables.
Probably.
There's also an interesting Wikipedia entry about the man as well. He sounds like a pretty devisive leader, not unlike America's Malcom X. Some very good things about the man (such as his involvement in adding human rights to the India constitution), and some very bad things (such as insistence of rights for the Dalits to the detriment of others).
I think I'm going to back off now, the wikipedia article made it clear that this is a _very_ touchy subject. I appreciate your attempting to discuss it civily. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Hi BOTG and SF,
Satyam says in his culture from Nepal, they think that Buddha is a part of Hindu. But, the Buddhist people do not feel this way.
There is a festival called Doshain, which is a cultural festival based on Hindu belief's, but NOT in the VEDANTA, that some Hindu's practice. They take an animal sacrifice to Kali and Durga, give them a shower with that blood and then take the meat as prasad from the God's. Also, a lot of Brahmins drink liquor and spend time with a lot of different women during this time. These are the things Buddha did not like. According to the Veda, Buddha thought that Hindu's should not be drinking and having sex with various women and violence against animals. That is one of the reasons he made Buddhism seperate from Hinduism, but, even Buddhist don't follow their own rules in this regard. So, there are also many if not most, Hindu's that do NOT agree with this practice of killing animals, just the same as there are some that still practice this today in the villages.
The main things Buddha wanted to bring by forming Buddhism, was Satya(truth), Dharma (rite conduct), Shanti (peace), and ahimsa (non-violence). These are already teachings of the Veda, but since people were not following these teachings of the Veda, Buddhism was formed. Actually it is no different from Hinduism. Buddha opened their eyes so to speak to what was already known that they should of been practicing in the first place. The killing of animals originated from Hindu priest's....the same kind of priest's that formed the caste system as well.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-12-26 11:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| even Buddhist don't follow their own rules
This is pretty common within all religions, which is why so many of us, like you Cyndi, have become disenchanted with organized religion. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Yep, your right Tourist. I think my problem is being more dis-enchanted with humans than anything, Like yesterday, there was nothing wrong with the church and the atmosphere I was in yesterday, for the most part...it was the interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the biased attitudes that PEOPLE have to justify their NAUGHY behavior and to say that Jesus Christ is their savior so that they can continue with their behavior, NOT taking responsibility for themselves...ahhhh the saga continues...as the world turns,  |
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2005-12-26 10:23 AM
It all seems odd at best, to western ears that ideas/systems so medieval can persist into what is being called a post-modern era. In North Amercia in particular, nobody knows you if you're down and out but if you have money and position, we don't seem to care much what your family did or where you came from.
Things in western cultures are much more fluid, but there is definitely still a certain amount of class stratification. Nobody would expect a working guy like me to end up with Paris Hilton, it just wouldn't happen.
The wikipedia entry for the Hindu caste system has a couple of interesting points. First, it mentions that the idea of "caste" was imposed on the hindus by the Portugese, and that even the word caste is Portugese in original. It also mentions the idea that originally there was supposed to be more fluidity in the system, and that this waxed and waned over the years. Much the same way that during the victorian era my mentioning any desire for Paris Hilton would have been shunned for caste reasons, instead of just matter of general taste (I really really don't like the girl).
As far as the struggle with hypocricy goes, there are some far deeper forces involved, particular when you start talking about the majority religion of an area. Anyway, I generally tell people I'm a Jedi knight if I'm hanging with my fellow geeks, a yogi with yogis, and a freak with normal people. Labels are important when giving people some idea of where you're coming from, but not entirely essential. |
|
| |
|
| GJ - "Hark the harold angel sing, glory to the newborn king!"
If I'm not mistaken, there were a few converts to Christianity just prior to Jesus' birth and these people believed Jesus was their savior, like the 3 wise men.
Of course, there were lots of other people that didn't believe Jesus was God, like Pontius Pilot. I think Pilot said "If you're God then you can get yourself out of this mess" - sort of.
I don't understand that.
|
|
| |
Call for Academic Papers
