huli

Down towards the big entertainment center end is a new business being built. I been wondering what it is. Name says SOHO. Anyways, I stopped by yesterday with my wife, thinking I would show her, and we would figure out what kind of business it was. There was a new sign up saying price is discounted at 199 baht. My wife asked the lady gardener out front, what's up with this place? Seems it's a hotel but the rooms are just a small bare box with a bed, and that price is for something less than a whole night, a shorter-time, you might say. I told my wife, I never heard of a hotel advertising for less than one night, even if that was the intention.

anybody else heard anything?

In Theravada it is respect for the Dhamma which is why monks are placed upon higher seats than the lay-followers when teaching....and why generally monks are seated higher too.... respect for the higher precepts a monk is keeping.

Honoring, praising the Teacher and his teachings shows respect and shows to others that we have such respect, and consider the teacher and his teachings worthy and of great value.

Humbling ourselves is a good thing to do, especially if trying for Nibanna...all a part of destroying the ego.

I can relate to being humble and respectful.

My feeling is that we should be respectful of all, as everyone has the potential to become awakened (eventually).

I'm also very respectful of those who dedicate their lives to authentic practice (Monks).

I had a quick google about obscurations and accumulations.

This is what I found.

A beginner should start out with practices for gathering the accumulation of conceptual merit. He should practice going for refuge, developing relative bodhicitta, practicing visualization, as well as the practice of the seven branches. The seven branches are: offering prostrations, presenting offerings, making confessions, rejoicing in merit, requesting the Buddhas not to pass into nirvana, supplicating the Buddhas to turn the wheel of Dharma, and dedicating the merit. Once these teachings have been received, a beginner has the perfect tools for generating great conceptual merit without needing to undergo any hardships.

Apparently it can take an eaon of merit.

I'm not to sure about obscurations!

PS: Requesting Buddhas not passing into nirvana sounds awfully like Nirvana the place rather than the state of being.

Obscurations is merely a word that can be defined like any other word, ditto for accumulations. Basically, something obscure, or something accumulated. All that stuff in italics is someone's idea that should not be accepted as true, unless you see it to be true, or trust the source to that extent as to believe it on faith. Just because you googled it, come on.....

Be patient, Huli. Maybe these misguided souls with their rituals and chanting and dialectics, etc have something to offer. Certainly the Tibetan people I saw in Dharamsala, the pilgrims from all traditions at Bodh Gaya, the people in Bhutan, the Chan monastics and lay people at Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, all seemed aglow with the richness these traditions had brought them. For many Westerners, especially in the US, the different forms of Japanese-derived Zen have been liberating.

Buddhism as a religious faith, philosophy and practice has evolved over the years. No one doubts the special status of the Pali Canon, but it may not be the only vehicle or pathway to effective practice and genuine insight at both intellectual and intuitive levels.

I'm reminded of Jack Kornfield's story about Ajarn Chah. A former nun who had become a born-again Christian visited the wat and tried to convert the monks. They were annoyed and complained to Ajarn Chah. He just laughed and told them not to worry about it. "After all", he said, "she might be right!"

Xangsamhua,

I know there is wisdom in your words.

I admit, I have a couple of favorite ideas. First, how much better off everyone would be if all Buddhists were on the same page. I agree that some of the evolved Buddhist traditions have been very good for Buddhism, but others seem more like heresy.

Second, that Buddhism is a unique religion (if I may use the word) based on mind-culture and not divine revelation.

I resist the often-stated opinion that all religions are the same. How can Christianity be the same as Buddhism? Maybe someday I'll see that, but I hope not! Really!

As a final point, it is my observation that people can seem aglow from a wide variety of incompatible beliefs, and some of them are really screwy. Seems good for them, tho'.

Thanks for the council.

People continue to discuss, explain, and distill Buddha's teachings of 2500 years ago, and this seems both very positive and inevitable. However, one bemoans the fact that, for so many people, they want to improve on them by adding complexity, and their own, supposedly advanced, spin.

It is probably inherent in human nature. People just want to be personally prominent. The allure of prestige is so strong, and the satisfaction of creating something unique and lofty bolsters the self.

Here we have a tremendous effort to remember and then finally record the words of the Buddha, creating a set of sutras that are agreed to be the most accurate in existence. Now, can we all agree these are the basis of Buddhism? No.

Take Buddhism to China and Japan, pretty soon they have their own sutras, popped out of the ether, with new teachings. Ha! Do you really think China or Japan wants to adopt an Indian teaching? Got to improve on that. The 8-Fold Path to Enlightenment? Not important because Enlightenment is transmitted directly from one who has it. Oh, yea, and we are already Buddha. Sitting meditation isn't really necessary. Really a Buddha isn't all that great, bodhisattvas are way bettter.

Or lets make a ton of rituals and chanting of mantras of prime importance. Never mind that Buddha advised not to be attached to rituals.

Nowadays, we still discuss if there is a soul or not, pretending Buddha did not answer that question. Is Nirvana a noun or a verb? Whose opinion do you agree with? Funny, if we are Buddhists why don't we read what Buddha had to say about Nirvana instead of asking each other? Not with faith, but with the simple and sincere effort to try to understand. Modern day commentators make their name by criticizing other commentators, and not in an entirely scholarly way, by trying to destroy them and their motives (Peacock vs Buddhaghosa). It's sad.

Endless parsing of words, and attempts by people to take Buddhism to the next level, rather than understand it as Buddha taught.

Too smart by half.

I didn't know his name is Memphis Harry. He has been playing at Boy's Blues Bar every Monday which is open mic night weekly. My wife and I have been going every week. This last Monday he was there playing and about 3 other guys who were nearly as good, plus Boy. We really enjoyed ourselves, as we always do. I left with the feeling that Boy's Blues Bar deserves to be better known among farangs in this town. Boy is super friendly and happy person. There was a pretty big crowd there Monday. The other nights Boy has himself and his house band. Boy really plays crisp Blues electric guitar rifs.

Rocky,

If you don't want to answer my simple and direct question, that is your prerogative, of course. If you don't answer this time, I will assume that. You seem to have missed my question:

***** If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

I just don't understand how the Noble Truths could re-explained differently than they are commonly understood.

I also do not want to listen to Mr. Peacock's lectures to get this answer. I am asking what you mean.

Respectfully,

Huli

Posting on a forum can be very two dimensional and a difficult medium to conduct a discussion.

Sorry if you feel that I hadn't answered your question directly as I thought I had.

The Four Noble Truths as I see them are multi layered.

From their specific titles, they can be expanded to ever increasing detail and level.

The high level doesn't change.

The area which I view as a sea change as explained earlier was:

1. A religion with belief in multiple relms of existence, including Deva (God), and hungry Ghost relms, a cycle of Re Birth into endless lives as a consequence of Kharma, in which we suffer (Dhuka), until this is extinguished by becoming enlightened into a permanent metaphysical existence or state called Nibhanna through successful practice of the eightfold path.

vs:

2. The cessation of Dhuka, in this life, through practicing the eightfold path, which leads to freedom from attachment to greed, aversion and delusion, eliminating the ego and allowing us to live compassionate lives by seeing life as it really is, with freedom from craving generated from the sensory association of the six senses, in this life.

The sea change is "the offer of Immortality through Re Birth or through Nibhanna - Enlightenment" vs "Living our real lives free from Greed, Aversion & Delusion in this lifetime, where Re Birth is a moment to moment event and there is no soul inside".

Which can be summarized even further to:

Nibhanna (metaphysical) vs Awakened (real).

or Permanent vs Impermanent.

Or the Buddha no longer experiences Re Birth into ongoing lives as he is now Enlightened vs the Buddha was a Wise and Noble Man who learned how to free himself from Greed Aversion & Delusion in his lifetime but has now passed away.

Would you agree that these two opposing scenarios are a sea change view or interpretation?

John Peacock indicates that straying into the metaphysical is like building a staircase to a home, over a crossroad but with no home around it.

The staircase basically leads no where.

Hi Rocky,

I think you have explained well two sides of an important facet of Buddhism, and thank you for taking your time. I myself lean heavily towards the explanation you gave in the 2nd area, above, as you and John Peacock do also I gather.

I will add that, however, in my view, the Noble Truths, per se, are the same no matter what side of this issue a person is on. Understanding and accepting the existence of dukkha, the cause of dukkha, the possibility of overcoming dukkha, and the 8-Fold Path to do so, it all applies whether you envision the goal as this life perfected, or in some future life.

Probably if we follow the 8-Fold Path and especially meditate well, we would get insight into all this, and this seeming dilemma wouldn't seem so important.

Got some good points there, and I really do appreciate you responding to my question.

Sincerely,

Huli

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Yo Rocky,

The 4 Noble Truths are the core beliefs in Buddhism of any tradition, Theravada, Mahayana, or Tibetan, and it surprises me to read that John Peacock has some newer and different understanding of them.

If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

Huli

Mainly that Buddhagosa takes things literally whilst the original texts suggest ridicule of things metaphysical and pointing the way to the real.

If you're interested in learning more about the early Buddha, rather than reading second hand knowledge through my interpretations I can link you to 8 lectures by John Peacock.

At the very least it can either reaffirm what you already believe in or get your to start thinking about "making your way" through life.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm still opened minded, but to dismiss John Peacock might be close minded on my part.

After all, what skills does Buddhagosa have over John?

Both are removed from the Buddha himself, but Buddhagosa teaches something we all want to hear (immortality).

Rocky,

If you don't want to answer my simple and direct question, that is your prerogative, of course. If you don't answer this time, I will assume that. You seem to have missed my question:

***** If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

I just don't understand how the Noble Truths could re-explained differently than they are commonly understood.

I also do not want to listen to Mr. Peacock's lectures to get this answer. I am asking what you mean.

Respectfully,

Huli

The little amount of study I've devoted has shown me a sea change on what the four noble truths is all about.

Yo Rocky,

The 4 Noble Truths are the core beliefs in Buddhism of any tradition, Theravada, Mahayana, or Tibetan, and it surprises me to read that John Peacock has some newer and different understanding of them.

If you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on this specifically, what do you mean by John Peacock showing you "a sea change on what the Noble Truths are all about"?

Huli

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

Hi Huli.

Please don't take me as an expert, nor someone with first hand experience.

I, like most, depend on teachers (sangha), in order to learn of the dhamma, until practice can yield some fruit.

At this stage I view my self in dualistic terms.

The first, a heavily conditioned character, carrying much baggage in terms of delusion, greed, and aversion.

The second, a traveler with a slender hold on the four noble truths.

One of my conditioned characteristics is that I like cover all bases with any project I get involved with.

Indirectly this fits into the Buddhas direction:

"Do not believe a spiritual teaching just because:

1. it is repeatedly recited,

2. it is written in a scripture,

3. it was handed from guru to disciple,

4. everyone around you believes it,

5. it has supernatural qualities,

6. it fits my beliefs anyway,

7. it sounds rational to me,

8. it is taught by a respectable person,

9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,

10. one must defend it or fight for it.

But when you know for yourselves

This leads me to be completely open to two possibilities regarding the Buddhas message and teachings:

Either

We recycle via re birth, from life to life, endlessly due to karmic forces, with endless suffering until the cycle of re birth is extinguished through enlightenment, after which we end up in Nirvana or.

The Buddha was teaching a system by which travelers could free themselves from the cycle of suffering (moment to moment) by practicing the eightfold path, which ultimately leads to awakening, a compassionate state free of delusion, greed, and aversion.

Until each of us has actual experience through practice, the Buddhas very teaching directs us to remain open.

Anything else is a clinging or an attachment which can feed the ego.

On the one hand we have the Pali Canon with many Suttas, some illustrating the metaphysical, such as recounting many past lives, thirty one relms of existence, and non self hinting at a soul/spirit or something enduring (otherwise what becomes enlightened).

Whilst on the other hand we have academics, such as John Peacock, with 25 years experience as a Monk in the Theravadan tradition who, through his studies in early Buddhist texts and specialisation in Pali and Sanskrit languages, is telling us that much of the Buddhist translations are incorrect, not least of all, that Theravada as we know it today is based on Bhuddagosa's interpretations, in the 5th century. Bhuddagosa, by his own admission, embarked on these works in order to gain merit so he could be re born at the same time as the Buddha's next appearance. He basically constructed a religion out of the material at hand.

John Peacock, on the other hand, paints a picture of a man who was attempting to wake people up from their delusion (deeply affected by Brahman religion amongst others) as well as greed and aversion.

John, more succinctly can elaborate on the difference between the meanings of Awakening vs Enlightenment and other translations.

More importantly, are we as followers of the Buddha going to dedicate our entire lives on what Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, believed the Buddha was telling us or should we travel with open minds?

Why were we attracted to Buddhism in the first place?

Are we so dedicated to what we believe Buddhism means that anything challenging it might amount to undermining the bedrock on which we have structured our lives?

Should we embrace the eightfold path with open minds, until first hand experience removes the dust from our eyes, or will we blindly follow doctrine and belief because it is written?

From where I sit, one may conceivably practice for most of ones life before yielding first hand experience.

It would be very sad to expend ones life following the wrong path.

In summary, all I'm saying is, follow the eightfold path towards personal experience, but keep an open mind about beliefs until we know the answer first hand.

I throw up the alternatives to get people thinking and to challenge possible attachments.

Hi back at you, Rocky

I don't think a person needs to be Awakened (or Enlightened) to express a view. Nor do I think expressing a view need be an attachment to that view, but it could be.

If your purpose in knocking the word "Enlightened" was to "get people thinking", it certainly did that for me, hence my post. However, when I asked you about your problem with this word in this Buddhist Forum, you only referred me to John Peacock, and I thought you should have manned up and explained your words in response to my direct question. I mean, I just asked, what is your problem with the term "Enlightenment"?

If I may say so, I find Buddhaghosa and John Peacock to have a lot in common. Both are unusually deep thinkers who produced commentaries on Buddhism that appeal to many people, and have followers. I don't see how either is starting a new religion or anything like that. It's not like the sutras went away. True, Theravadins have incredible respect for Buddaghosa's work regarding it as the ultimate Commentary, but you don't see his golden image in the wats, do you?

I have a copy of Buddaghosa's Path of Purification and I can tell you, it is extremely difficult to understand. However, it is organized based on Buddha's teachings, and not entirely new ground. It is certainly not something that you or I would base our lives on, it's too detailed, dry, and erudite, something only a very special monk could begin to fathom.

John Peacock seems to have lead an exemplary life and have some very interesting views to consider. However, as you quoted Buddha, above, we shouldn't believe him just because he is respected, etc, etc. I say this because you seem to see him as an authority.

If I am not mistaken, Buddhadassa pretty much came up with the idea of moment to moment rebirth in the 1960's, and it was a revolutionary idea in it's time. It makes sense to me, but, who knows, maybe there are both kinds of rebirth. I don't think that settling this issue is fundamentally necessary to benefiting from Buddha's core teachings.

Buddha's analogy of the fire going out is very interesting in trying to understand if there is a soul or not.

Thank you for your interesting comments, and the opportunity for dialogue.

Huli

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

The only problem is that enlightenment is an 18th century word with its roots from 1,350 -1,400AD.

Early Buddhist texts never mention the word enlightenment but often refer to becoming "awakened".

When one translates the Sanskrit & Pali words, these equate to Awakening.

Also, I was unaware that Buddhism teaches of a soul or spirit, something which would be reincarnated if it existed.

Buddhism teaches of re birth (a condition which brings about re birth), but then is this moment to moment or does it involve many lives?

Dear Rocky,

In regards to your often-repeated statement that "Enlightenment" is a word which was never used for 1000 years, at least, after the Buddha died, I have two questions for you.

First, it is my understanding that language changes over time in the normal course of events, and different words assume different meanings along the way. The exact same sentiments would be described differently in different centuries, and also in different places. The words "awakened" and "enlightened" at this present time are very close. To awaken to transcendent truth or to be enlightened seem like the same thing to me. May I ask, since you make the point often enough, what is it exactly about the word "enlightened" that you object to?

Secondly, most people only ever have but a faint inkling to what the Buddha achieved, if that. If we follow his directions, what has come down to us anyway, we hope to make progress, but how many of us are qualified to say that we know what word is exactly appropriate to describe his achievement, and what is not? When you say the word "Enlightenment" is wrong, are you speaking from personal experience?

In my view, words are merely symbols of the real, and mean only what they mean to the people that say or hear them. To many people the word "enlightenment" serves a useful purpose pointing to the transcendent achievement of the Buddha. For a third party like yourself to parse the word, and then object to it, is, in my opinion, to fall into the error of arguing over semantics.

I don't have any problem with the word "Enlightenment", even if it is not terribly ancient, because it means the penultimate achievement of the Buddha, period.

Regards, Huli

I don't think so. What spirit or divine entity entered the Buddha's mind? The prophets in the Abrahamic tradition (Jewish, Muslim and Pauline) did not claim to speak on their own behalf. They were channels of God's will.

The Buddha's teaching proceeded from his personal enlightenment, the outcome of his own analyses, not any inspiration from a source other than his own mind. He was an enlightened teacher rather than an inspired one.

I think "prophetic" inspiration implies more than just being a logical and persuasive, perhaps even charismatic teacher. Indeed, a teacher could have these attributes and still be quite wrong.

Isn't the influence of divinity only one of the definitions?

I refer to the fifth definition of prophet in dictionary.com

a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

My thought was that great inspiration could come from the fruits of awakening rather than the more commonly viewed source, a divinity.

Inspiration isn't exclusively from a theological source, but can come from stimulation, creativity, enthusiasm, motivation, & illumination, all of which could stem from awakening.

an inspiring or animating action or influence

a thing or person that inspires.

In other words, awakened, the Buddha would have been, at the very least, an inspirational teacher.

Well, if we are having a serious discussion about whether or not Buddha was a prophet, it all hinges on the definition of prophet. If we now say a prophet is just an inspirational teacher, then, yes, of course he was.

I think it is important to tell when an actual dialogue is turning into a question of semantics.

[i think this is referred to as Buddhist Cosmology.

From Access to Insight;

It is pointless to debate whether these realms are real or simply fanciful metaphors that describe the various mind-states we might experience in this lifetime. The real message of this cosmology is this: unless we take steps to break free of the iron grip of kamma, we are doomed to wander aimlessly from one state to another, with true peace and satisfaction forever out of reach. The Buddha's revolutionary discovery came in finding that there is a way to break free: the

Noble Eightfold Path

, which equips us with precisely the tools we need to escape from this wearisome wandering, once and for all, to a

true and unshakeable freedom

.

Agreed Bruce, with the exception that those who cling to cosmology as reality can cling to the notion of stream entry/multiple chances (lives) at achieving the goal.

This can easily produce obstacles (excuses) which impede or stop ones progress (something we are all guilty of).

to believe in the "notion of stream entry" and multiple lives strikes me as quite orthodox in a Buddhist Forum. The "notion" that these beliefs easily produce "obstacles to progress" seems a lot more of a stretch, but, of course, each his own.

The viewpoint on Cosmology quoted by Brucenkhamen seems altogether reasonable to me. Take it or leave it, get some ideas from it, ponder it, whatever, it's not the heart of the matter anyway.

On first glance, it seems that Buddha's teachings can be either accepted on faith, or seen directly to be true. Surely the Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path have a cohesive beauty that seem almost obvious with ample reflection. It doesn't take a lot of faith to believe in them. The meditation as taught by Buddha is also very beneficial if given a chance to develop, and so again, we don't need to just take his word for it. However, some of Buddha's descriptions of the different levels of consciousness, for example, will forever be beyond most of us. Do we just take his word for these things by faith in him, as we believe he is a proven genius?

It occurs to me that it is possible to have an "inkling" regarding some of the further teachings of the Buddha, even if we don't fully realize them. Having a good foundational experiential knowledge, and pondering his further teachings, it is possible to have an inkling of the next level, as it were. Our relationship to Buddhism is not only either faith-based, or fully understood. There is a third factor, our inklings. It is rational and reasonable to follow our inklings, and they can not be undermined by someone else.

This can all get very interesting, and can explain why people have different views.

an "inkling" - a slight suspicion about something that is happening

As far as Buddha being a prophet, a cursory answer would be no, because he lacked any revelation from God, or whatever, that is the hallmark of a prophet. We usually consider a prophet someone with a divine connection, the source of his power to prophesy.

Buddha did, however, make predictions, but he specifically denied that he had superhuman powers, insisting he had simply enlightened/awakened himself thru his own efforts. The predictions of a next Buddha, and the demise of Buddhism in 500 years, are suspect as to their authenticity, mainly because they are mentioned only once in the original sutras. In any case, such predictions were not central to his core teachings, as prophesies are in other religions.

Two concepts that confound the present discussion are karma and reincarnation. I don't see how these can be understood by people on the same level as the Noble Truths or Eightfold Path, by seeing their truth directly. However, I sometimes think that they are the inevitable consequences of a world with cause and effect, and so can perhaps be predicted on that basis. If these concepts are considered central to Buddhism (I don't think so), and are believed only because Buddha said so in the sutras, then to some people maybe he was a prophet, at least in part.

In m mind, the main reason why Buddha is not a prophet is because I think his teachings were focused on improvement of this life. Prophets and their revelations concern themselves primarily with either the "next life", after our mortal demise, or the future of the human race.

Predictions about the "next life" might be considered prophesy, and they weren't shy to make those without prompting.

So are you saying there are instances in the pali canon where the Buddha said something along the lines of "This person will be reborn as an x"?

Do you have some references you can point me to?

There I go using pronouns that are misunderstood, again. By "they", I meant the other founders of religions, primarily the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all predict an afterlife for the "soul", as a core teaching, which could be considered a prophesy.

I do not think that Buddha was a prophet, in essence. Some might say that discussing karma and future births would make him a prophet, but in my mind this is not central to his core teaching.

Got to watch those pronouns, I stand corrected.

I think the main reason that founders of world religions appear to be given to prophecy is that their followers who recorded their teachings expected it of them.

Predictions about the "next life" might be considered prophesy, and they weren't shy to make those without prompting.

The Hindus take a similar line, as do many new agey type movements I guess, i wonder why they feel the need to fit the Buddha into their worldview as if they needed some kind of endorsement from him.

As you've pointed out there are one or two prophecies within the canon but the fact that there are so few possibly makes their authenticity more doubtful, and compared with other religions that are riddled with prophecy it seems pretty unimportant in Buddhism.

I'd be inclined to ask your friend if he believes the Buddha is a prophet then what practises or techniques that the Buddha taught does he practise? or is just believing that he is a prophet enough?

I suspect it's a case of throwing away the cereal and keeping the box.

To elaborate a bit more, along the lines of your inclination, Brucenkhamen, I believe the critical issues for the Bahai are, first, that the multitude of religions share that they all had prophets and, second, that each of these prophets predicted a "second coming". Since Buddhism is a major world religion, the Bahai need to include it in their grand scheme somehow. Although my friend does profess to have a lot of respect for what he knows about Buddhism, his real focus is only that the Bahai represents the culmination of all other religions.

While Bahai is a moderately interesting phenomena, I don't think it differs quantitatively from the Abrahamic religions, having a God who sent a prophet with a revelation, etc. So, it's just another fear-based tradition that Buddha saw through. I only mentioned it because of the claim they make for Buddha, that he was a prophet, which I reject, but I wondered what others thought.

I have made acquaintance with a gentleman of the Bahai faith who is convinced that Buddha was a prophet. It is a tenet of this particular religion that all the major religions have prophets who predicted the coming of yet another great teacher. A man born in the last century claimed to be that teacher and founded the Bahai religion. This is just a bit of background.

In an effort to include Buddha within their world view of prophets, they quote Buddha saying how he is, I think, the 4th Buddha of this era and another one is coming in 5000 years. I don't think they have any other examples of Buddha making a prophesy, but, I suppose once is enough. I have since learned or heard that this particular statement is found only once in the Pali sutras, and this sheds some doubt on the importance and authenticity of the statement in my mind.

However, there is also the matter of Buddha describing his and others past lives in detail, an otherworldly knowledge to the rest of us. If we were to believe such statements we would have to invoke faith, and this inches him towards being a prophet, it seems to me.

I originally resisted the contention that Buddha was a prophet. I guess it depends on the definition of the term. Did he predict the future? Maybe. Did he make some statements we need to just accept on faith? Probably, but they not the core of Buddhism, in my opinion.

I think the Bahia folks are wrong to try to make Buddha into just another prophet from "God."

Karma is a "law", same as gravity.

If you jump from a plane without parachute, do you think the fact you're aware or not of the law of gravity will change anything of the outcome ?

Good and bad don't exist. It's the Apple from Adam and Eve. The day you "bite", you start believing in good and bad, is the day you lose the clear vision of the reality.

Good and bad do exist. We have to do good and not bad in order to be able to purify our mind and have the essential insights that dispel ignorance and delusion. It just won't work otherwise.

Hi again Xangsamhua,

I have to thank you for prodding me to investigate Stoicism. It seems to be a really cool Western philosophy that sure did share many of the same views that Buddha taught. It makes me wonder what the Stoics would have come up with had they been born into the Hindu culture as Buddha was. Stoicism certainly does espouse mental culture and transformation as the basis for right living, just like Buddhism. I wonder if someone hasn't written a paper comparing the two in detail. I think that would be very interesting.

I bemoan the fact that multiple schools of Buddhism have evolved, and many of them seem to have changed what Buddha taught. Examples abound. One example you mention is that some don't even practice sitting meditation. Come on you guys, Buddha gave explicit instructions for that, described the path in detail, and included it in the 8 Fold Path. Can these other "traditions" be still considered Buddhist? Does a word like "Buddhist" still have a definition and meaning?

If I may, I would express surprise to read that you interpret Buddha's discourse and practice to be limited to the physical realm. Knowing something of your mental prowess, is that a typo? It strikes me that virtually all of Buddha's teaching was in the mental realm. At any rate, the statement is preliminary to your comparison of Buddha with militant atheists, and further, that he actively preached against a metaphysical ground of being. I could swear that Buddha's position was that he didn't teach about metaphysical stuff because it was not conductive to his core mission, teaching the Noble Truths. As far as I know, he specifically did not teach: trust me, there is no metaphysical ground of being (which would require faith). If you have any examples that he did, I would be very interested in hearing them if you have time.

Thanks again for turning me onto Stoicism, and also for the dialogue. I'm sure I have a lot to learn.

It is not uncommonly asserted that, seen from the mountaintop, so to speak, there is a universal thread in all religions. I believe this was also asserted by the Dali Lama, who holds near universal respect, and is way smarter than me, that's for sure. However, I think this is an over-simplification, and does a disservice to Buddhism, which is actually unique. While it may be true that monastic cults sometimes form in any religion, and with some similarity to Buddhist mind-culture, that is not enough to equate other religions with Buddhism.

Regarding the concept of faith, the bulk of the other religions need a lifelong faith in their revelations to sustain them. Faith is only necessary in Buddhism at the outset. After practicing and learning for a while, the Noble Truths, and other teachings well known to the members here pull one along as insight sharpens. Buddhism does not depend on faith to the degree of the other popular religions, and I believe this is self-evident.

The uniqueness of Buddhism among religions, and the lack of emphasis on faith in Buddhism are often discussed, and observed.

With all due respect to Xangsamhua.

Thanks Huli.

I agree that Buddhism as an expression of a body of teachings is unique. There's nobody quite like the Buddha, despite some similarities between his teaching and practice with those of, e.g. Mahavira, his Jain contemporary. But I'm suggesting that teachings such as those expressed in the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path are found outside Buddhism as well. After all, to attest that attachment to and craving for transient things brings about disappointment and dissatisfaction, and may lead to behaviours that do no one any good at all, is not a particularly profound insight. If that's all the Buddha came to tell us, his dharma would never have stood out above the teachings of the many other ascetics in ancient India. The Buddha went further, of course, prescribing a path known as the Eightfold, and developed his teachings as a practical and realistic response to the fundamental human condition, i.e. impermanence. This proved fruitful and satisfying for many, especially when married to pre-Buddhist notions of Karma and rebirth, but the recommended eight strategies for overcoming greed, anger and delusion are, I think, not exclusive to the Buddha. The Stoics, for example, based their philosophy and practice on the need to avoid unrealizable attachments and goals, and to be satisfied with what one has and what one can realistically manage and control (i.e. one's own attitudes, responses, self-discipline, etc.).

What is really distinctive in the Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is his rejection of any form of permanence, except Nibbana/Nirvana, and yet he taught this without defending it. When asked about eternity, infinity, life after death, the self, etc., the Buddha remained silent. But these are quintessentially religious and philosophical questions. The Buddha's silence encourages the view that Buddhism is not a religion so much as a set of practices, but an assertion that there is no essence to anything and a refusal to engage in discussion on the implications or questions arising from such a claim, suggests a faith-based assertion and one that requires faith to accept.

In his response to the monk, Malunkyaputta, the Buddha does not so much defend as reiterate his rejection of any essence or underpinning reality, asserting in contrast a Kantian, representational view of reality based on the senses, with no "you" or anything else to be the ground from which the senses derive. This radical reductionism is the distinguishing feature of Buddhism. It certainly runs counter to theism, deism or any philosophy/religion that accepts a "ground of being" in which all instances of being have their source and their end. It is a massive claim, which makes phenomena fundamental while denying them any foundation. All is contingent, process and relational - all accidents; no substance. This avoids the ad infinitum conundrum of a creator God, but in denying anything beyond dependent origination, it is still a faith-claim, one that denies actual origination.

Thank you Xangsamhua for such a substantial and interesting reply to my previous comments. It really gave me pause to consider your points. I believe you have carefully rebutted the contentions I made about Buddhism being unique, and not based largely on faith. If I may, I would like to briefly respond, in the spirit of lively discussion on this Buddhist Forum.

As you say, I too am convinced that there are elements of the 8-Fold Path in other religions, in my view, especially the three factors on Ethical Conduct. However, I don't think the three factors of the Concentration Division are included in the philosophy of the Stoics, for example. The definition of delusion in Buddhism is not shared with other religions either, as far as I know. The meditative path laid out in detail leading to specific insights is surely unique. The overarching comprehensiveness of Buddha's teaching, in my mind, makes it far superior to the fragments present in other religions.

The Buddha did not discuss certain philosophical or religious questions, and gave his reason, saying, I believe, that the answers were not useful to his basic concern of overcoming suffering. I don't see how it requires faith to accept this answer. It is a real answer. Likewise, he explained his views on "radical reductionism", to use your term, via the 5 aggregates, which can each be seen directly to be impermanent. This is not a faith-based assertion or belief. And again, just because Buddha did not teach beyond Dependent Origination, how does this imply a need for Buddhists to have faith in a denial of origination? The issue just does not come up. Buddha either explained his reasoning, or was silent, neither of which require faith, in my humble opinion.

It depends on which theory you subscribe to.

For example, some are of the view that the universe (everything) never had a beginning and will never have an end.

That the universe may go through cycles with cataclysms punctuating each of these.

This would mean that life forms in the era you refer to (life without awareness) is a phase which had a previous origin with awareness.

To be sporned through the process of re birth as a lifeform without awareness might be the result of much Kharma.

i guess you are referring to the theory that universe is in a continuous cycle of bigbang, expansion, retraction, big crunch. Surely in the singularity conditions present at big bang/crunch where time and space do not exist (such as in a black hole), then in these conditions surely it is impossible for karma to have been communicated from previous cycles of crunch/bang.

In any case, the universe has been observed to be in a runaway process of expansion.

It seems reasonable to speculate that there was no karma, as we define it, operating in the universe prior to the emergence of self-aware organisms with intention. However, potential karma was probably inherent in the universe from the beginning, as was the emergence of life forms, etc.

I am surprised to see you write that "the universe has been observed to be in a runaway process of expansion." I believe the expansion of the universe has been slowing right along, and there still exists doubt about it's ultimate fate, largely because of all the dark matter. May I ask, where did you get this idea?

Hi Huli.

I was of the understanding that the universe's expansion is accelerating at the moment.

What this may suggest, I don't know.

http://en.wikipedia....rating_universe

Hi Rocky,

I was wrong on that one....I read up on it....what I learned is that it is now believed that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating for the last 10 billion years, supposedly due to "dark energy". It was slowing down for 5 billion, then voila, it got faster. Anyways, I stand corrected. And thanks for your comments. Back to Buddhism!

It depends on which theory you subscribe to.

For example, some are of the view that the universe (everything) never had a beginning and will never have an end.

That the universe may go through cycles with cataclysms punctuating each of these.

This would mean that life forms in the era you refer to (life without awareness) is a phase which had a previous origin with awareness.

To be sporned through the process of re birth as a lifeform without awareness might be the result of much Kharma.

i guess you are referring to the theory that universe is in a continuous cycle of bigbang, expansion, retraction, big crunch. Surely in the singularity conditions present at big bang/crunch where time and space do not exist (such as in a black hole), then in these conditions surely it is impossible for karma to have been communicated from previous cycles of crunch/bang.

In any case, the universe has been observed to be in a runaway process of expansion.

It seems reasonable to speculate that there was no karma, as we define it, operating in the universe prior to the emergence of self-aware organisms with intention. However, potential karma was probably inherent in the universe from the beginning, as was the emergence of life forms, etc.

I am surprised to see you write that "the universe has been observed to be in a runaway process of expansion." I believe the expansion of the universe has been slowing right along, and there still exists doubt about it's ultimate fate, largely because of all the dark matter. May I ask, where did you get this idea?

Once somebody asked the Buddha is one could attain to Nibbana by following the teachings of other teachers.

He replied...'yes..... as long as their teachings include the Four Noble Triths and the Eightfold Path...'

which only his do.....

Xangsamhua says: I think the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are not exclusive to the Buddha. In essence they are found in Stoicism and in Advaita Brahmanism, and probably to Christian monasticism and Sufiism. However, they may be put forward differently in these and other schools of thought, not so much as a way to overcome suffering, but to attain peace of mind, equanimity, balance, rationality and, possibly, joy.

A Buddha's Dhamma is perfect....but we are not.... and if we have insufficient perfections and good karma then we cannot understand them..... not yet spiritually ready....

Xangsamhua says: How can we say the Buddha's Dhamma is perfect? Do we stand above all perfections and near-perfections and therefore have the ability to judge which is perfect and which is not? Are we godlike in our vision of the pinnacle of perfectibility, and what approaches, what falls short, and what attains it? I'm sure there are many people in the world who would claim perfection for their particular religious teachings, but to do so, albeit an act of faith, is nevertheless simply a sectarian assertion.

It is not uncommonly asserted that, seen from the mountaintop, so to speak, there is a universal thread in all religions. I believe this was also asserted by the Dali Lama, who holds near universal respect, and is way smarter than me, that's for sure. However, I think this is an over-simplification, and does a disservice to Buddhism, which is actually unique. While it may be true that monastic cults sometimes form in any religion, and with some similarity to Buddhist mind-culture, that is not enough to equate other religions with Buddhism.

Regarding the concept of faith, the bulk of the other religions need a lifelong faith in their revelations to sustain them. Faith is only necessary in Buddhism at the outset. After practicing and learning for a while, the Noble Truths, and other teachings well known to the members here pull one along as insight sharpens. Buddhism does not depend on faith to the degree of the other popular religions, and I believe this is self-evident.

The uniqueness of Buddhism among religions, and the lack of emphasis on faith in Buddhism are often discussed, and observed.

With all due respect to Xangsamhua.

but i knew a lady who was giving money by a monk for sexual favors so how can he touch a lady and the rest of the monks cant that a load of codswobble

Wow, that is a very bad monk indeed. Perhaps comparable to the Catholic priests who got in all that trouble. Human nature being what it is, some people fail to keep their vows or precepts, as the case may be. If that monk were exposed he would be disrobed or kicked out. The codswobble apples to the wayward monk only.