Original teaching - Discussion
John:
Thing is, when I consider claims of teachers being unique, I take a very broad view that there have been a lot of people coming and going in this world, billions of which have left no intellectual trace after death, so I think it would be unwise to believe that nobody before Gotama shared any of his insight.
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.
Hmm...
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.
Hmm...
The above post is based on zero evidence. It is not real. Archeology supports evolutionary theory. In other words, we have no evidence of any teachings that match the Buddha before the Buddha. This is the only factual evidence we have.
You seem to be imagining so many things in your post but if we merely think about the social & technological change that occured only over the last 100 years we can witness how fast evolution occurs and thus how primitive life was hundreds of years before the Buddha.
Great intelligence obviously has not occured billions of years before the Buddha, as you seem to be asserting.
Just as your life will be very short, so human evolution is something very short.
For example, a man can live for 100 years. Therefore, only 25 lifetimes from the Buddha until now.
Funny how we can acknowledge great inventors & discoverers like Edison, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Newton, etc, but we struggle to acknowledge the unsurpassed acheivement & discovery of the Buddha.
But then, how can we, if we have zero understanding of what he discovered & explained.
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
Nicky:
John:
Thing is, when I consider claims of teachers being unique, I take a very broad view that there have been a lot of people coming and going in this world, billions of which have left no intellectual trace after death, so I think it would be unwise to believe that nobody before Gotama shared any of his insight.
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.
Hmm...
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.
Hmm...
The above post is based on zero evidence. It is not real. Archeology supports evolutionary theory. In other words, we have no evidence of any teachings that match the Buddha before the Buddha. This is the only factual evidence we have.
You seem to be imagining so many things in your post but if we merely think about the social & technological change that occured only over the last 100 years we can witness how fast evolution occurs and thus how primitive life was hundreds of years before the Buddha.
Great intelligence obviously has not occured billions of years before the Buddha, as you seem to be asserting.
Just as your life will be very short, so human evolution is something very short.
For example, a man can live for 100 years. Therefore, only 25 lifetimes from the Buddha until now.
Funny how we can acknowledge great inventors & discoverers like Edison, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Newton, etc, but we struggle to acknowledge the unsurpassed acheivement & discovery of the Buddha.
But then, how can we, if we have zero understanding of what he discovered & explained.
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There being no known record of comparable teaching doesn't mean there has not been one. Do you know what went up in flames in the Library of Alexandria ? What the Mongols destroyed in decades of war ? What the church destroyed in South America ? Which oral traditions have come and gone in the jungles, deserts and mountains of the world ? You are making an assumption that you know what is going to be unearthed in the future, or what may be stashed away in a collection somewhere. How do you know who did or didn't keep quiet about what they found in meditation and contemplation ?
I have not asserted at all that great intelligence arose billions of years ago, merely that our record of civilisation (and intelligence) is incomplete - a record which is constantly being found to be older than we thought.
The parallel with science is valid, simultaneous discoveries occur, people get credit for discoveries which they were not the first to make. This is much easier to do in a non-technical field, of something which is only dependent upon brains which rot after death, on which we have no record or only fragments.
Jesus did claim to be unique, as did Mohammed. I don't recall Jesus claiming there was another guy that was sent to fulfill his role. He was pretty clear about that - according to what records we have. It's entirely possible there were others lost to us.
Claims of past primitiveness are constantly being revised. You have heard of Gobekli Tepe and Blombos Cave, Benin ?
John:
Nicky:
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There being no known record of comparable teaching doesn't mean there has not been one. Do you know what went up in flames in the Library of Alexandria ? What the Mongols destroyed in decades of war ? What the church destroyed in South America ? Which oral traditions have come and gone in the jungles, deserts and mountains of the world ? You are making an assumption that you know what is going to be unearthed in the future, or what may be stashed away in a collection somewhere. How do you know who did or didn't keep quiet about what they found in meditation and contemplation ?
I have not asserted at all that great intelligence arose billions of years ago, merely that our record of civilisation (and intelligence) is incomplete - a record which is constantly being found to be older than we thought.
The parallel with science is valid, simultaneous discoveries occur, people get credit for discoveries which they were not the first to make. This is much easier to do in a non-technical field, of something which is only dependent upon brains which rot after death, on which we have no record or only fragments.
Jesus did claim to be unique, as did Mohammed. I don't recall Jesus claiming there was another guy that was sent to fulfill his role. He was pretty clear about that - according to what records we have. It's entirely possible there were others lost to us.
Claims of past primitiveness are constantly being revised. You have heard of Gobekli Tepe and Blombos Cave, Benin ?
There are no lost records. You are imagining things. Religious culture & doctines were preserved in communities by word & book. For example, many Christian sects were destroyed yet knowledge of these sects remain.
Jesus did not teach anything unique but did claim he was from the one true god.
The fact u are unable to accept is only the Buddha systematically taught the doctrine of NOT-SELF & EMPTINESS, which are the original teachings.
John:
Nicky:
John:
Does buddhism as a religion claim Gautama to be unique ? If not, why would the religion start from him and not for some other similarly wise person ?
And yet these are the same things I've heard about Jesus, Mohammed, a bunch of Western gurus.....
Actually, what you wrote again is without evidence. To make your post something both true & substantiated, please provide some quotes from Jesus or Mohammed where they claimed to have revealed something completely original.
For example, Jesus said what he taught was taught to him by his Father in heaven therefore it was not original to him. Further, evidence shows Jesus taught nothing that is totally original. Mohammed extensively refers to the old Biblical teachings and, similarly, teaches nothing profoundly unique. As for old Moses, his commandments are common to many morality systems in many old cultures.
Therefore, you would need to provide evidence to refute the claims of the Lord Buddha, who declared his core revelations were 100% unique & profoundly special.
In this world with its devas (gods), Maras (devils) & Brahmas (angels), in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.
Garava Sutta: Reverence
John:
]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.
Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings?
Nicky:
John:
]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.
Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings?
That's not modern physics, that's old physics - Newtonian mechanics.
Nicky:
John:
]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.
Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings?
This is really bad. Physics - predates buddha, for a start. The interlink between science and atheist disbelief in the soul - belief in a perpetual self - developed in the European enlightenment period hundreds of years ago. The observation that matter in the body is continually changing, reforming and replacing itself - impermanent - is neither a development of the last 50 years, or a consequence of eastern teachings. Records of the idea of constant change go back to Heraclitus at least. Who knows what has been lost or not recorded ?
Why go to all the trouble of adopting a belief in reincarnation for the purposes of being buddhist, only to have to drop it again upon progressing on the buddhist path ? Why not just keep the starting point of modern science which is disbelief in afterlives and pre-lives ?
regards
John:
[quote=
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]
No, this is wrong. Many cults & sects may claim these ideas to be true but not the Buddha himself. The Buddha was not Tibetan & what became Buddhism found its way to Tibet hundreds of years after Buddha.
You asked about the Original Teachings but show zero interest in them when they are mentioned to you. Instead, you post about the children's fairy tale versions of Buddhism and Tibet ideas that are many 100s years after the orignal teachings. Seems like you head is full of ideas and can't take in anything new. All the best.
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
Ani Sutta: The Peg
Nicky:
John:
[quote=
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]
No, this is wrong. Many cults & sects may claim these ideas to be true but not the Buddha himself. The Buddha was not Tibetan & what became Buddhism found its way to Tibet hundreds of years after Buddha.
You asked about the Original Teachings but show zero interest in them when they are mentioned to you. Instead, you post about the children's fairy tale versions of Buddhism and Tibet ideas that are many 100s years after the orignal teachings. Seems like you head is full of ideas and can't take in anything new. All the best.
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
Ani Sutta: The Peg
I'm not saying the Buddha did believe in reincarnation - at least after enlightenment.
What are the original teachings ?
All we have are writings taken down, edited, altered, added to hundreds of years after the events. It would seem quite a lot to ask of me to refer to the original teachings when all we have are secondary sources.
Regards.
John:
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when
discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
mastering.
discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
mastering.
Ani Sutta: The Peg
Jeremiah 23:16
This
is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are
prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions
from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.
This
is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are
prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions
from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.
The above quote from Jeremiah is irrelevent because the quote by the Buddha is about a certain subject matter.
The quote from Buddha is referring to EMPTINESS (SUNNATA) as the core original & unique teaching of the Buddhas.
Where as Jeremiah is only referring to morality, which is found in many religions.
Regards
Let the Blessed One exhort & instruct us in a way that may lead to our welfare & happiness for a long time.
You should train yourself thus: "From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathagata that are deep, deep in their meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness". In such a way you should train yourselves.
SN 55.53
You should train yourself thus: "From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathagata that are deep, deep in their meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness". In such a way you should train yourselves.
SN 55.53
John:
Nicky:
I'm not saying the Buddha did believe in reincarnation - at least after enlightenment.
What are the original teachings ?
All we have are writings taken down, edited, altered, added to hundreds of years after the events. It would seem quite a lot to ask of me to refer to the original teachings when all we have are secondary sources.
Regards.
The original teachings are what bring liberation from suffering. But because your mind is not enlightened, it has doubt about the teachings. The teachings clearly explain an unenlightened person, called a 'puthajjana', has doubts about the teachings.
~~There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters.
~~Sanyojana Sutta: Fetters
~~Sanyojana Sutta: Fetters
John:
As for the Buddha, since he came before Christianity, he did not use the word in the same way as a Christian (however Jesus may have used the word in the same way as the Buddha).
Regards
In as much as it does not refer to a physical death and rebirth in the afterlife, but rather a psychological one. Granted the Buddhist view is different philosophically.
Regards.
The Buddhist view is not different. When Buddha referred to the word "birth", he referred to something psychological.
Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.
Angulimala Sutta: About Angulimala
Angulimala Sutta: About Angulimala
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person assumes form to be 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
Parileyyaka Sutta: At Parileyyaka
Parileyyaka Sutta: At Parileyyaka
