Buddhism school

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
jota
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:01 am

Buddhism school

Post by jota » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:34 am

Dear members,

In the first place sorry for my not so polished english.
I know how paradoxal and "dumb" this question may sound but even so, I've decided to ask for your support in this matter.
For some years now I' been studying Taoism and for some reason, in the last years I have approached Buddhist thought.

Please don't take me wrong, I have no intention to offend in any away and I know how "ego related" this may sound but I would like to know if there's any school of Buddhism that does not deal with "reencarnation in the sense of ghots, hell...", "cult of anthropomorphized figures", "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", a more "logical" and nature based approach in the transmission and after that contemplation of the observed (even limited to our eyes) reality.

As I said I've no intention to be disrespectful.

Thank you so much.

Tiago Simões
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Tiago Simões » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:18 am

jota wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:34 am
more "logical"
Whose logic?
Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti spoke to the elder Śāriputra and the great disciples: “Reverends, eat of the food of the Tathāgata! It is ambrosia perfumed by the great compassion. But do not fix your minds in narrow-minded attitudes, lest you be unable to receive its gift.”

- Chapter 9, The Feast Brought by the Emanated Incarnation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Teaching of Vimalakīrti”

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:51 am

jota wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:34 am
Dear members,

In the first place sorry for my not so polished english.
I know how paradoxal and "dumb" this question may sound but even so, I've decided to ask for your support in this matter.
For some years now I' been studying Taoism and for some reason, in the last years I have approached Buddhist thought.

Please don't take me wrong, I have no intention to offend in any away and I know how "ego related" this may sound but I would like to know if there's any school of Buddhism that does not deal with "reencarnation in the sense of ghots, hell...", "cult of anthropomorphized figures", "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", a more "logical" and nature based approach in the transmission and after that contemplation of the observed (even limited to our eyes) reality.

As I said I've no intention to be disrespectful.

Thank you so much.
It seems to me that your current mindset would be suited to Western Buddhism or Secular Buddhism.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6397
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Queequeg » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:49 pm

Some forms of Zen? Secular "Buddhism".

Yes the quotes are meant as critique... Lol
That stuff doesn't have a lot of fans around here. :smile:
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Aryjna » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:46 pm

If you accept karma it is impossible for infinite different realms, including hells, not to exist. If you do not accept karma and are a nihilist that is not buddhism, so there are no schools of buddhism with this view.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:29 pm

Aryjna wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:46 pm
If you accept karma it is impossible for infinite different realms, including hells, not to exist. If you do not accept karma and are a nihilist that is not buddhism, so there are no schools of buddhism with this view.
It is not impossible, one can view them as mental states or metaphor. Like somebody in another thread said about Bodhisattvas just being archetypes.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Spelare
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Spelare » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:48 pm

I think a lot of practitioners who lack confidence in any of those sort of metaphysical claims just go ahead and receive teachings from traditions that do maintain them. And the practitioners either ignore them, interpret them psychologically, or eventually encounter what they consider to be proof that such phenomena do manifest. Because they're actually phenomenological claims you can investigate through practice.

Buddhism invites us to take an empirical approach and not accept claims merely on the basis of authority. It is not necessary to agree with everything that you hear in a dharma context in order to feel at home or challenged to grow in your practice. Rather than seek an approach that most closely resembles your present worldview, I would seek out a teacher whom you feel you could learn a lot from and a sangha that feels supportive and accessible.
Neither person nor skandhas
but stainless wisdom is Buddha.
In knowing ever serene—
I take refuge therein.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:52 pm

The thing is that we all start from where we currently are.

The point of the exercise is to be able to develop our understanding and realisations and evolve our view.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Aryjna » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:22 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:29 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:46 pm
If you accept karma it is impossible for infinite different realms, including hells, not to exist. If you do not accept karma and are a nihilist that is not buddhism, so there are no schools of buddhism with this view.
It is not impossible, one can view them as mental states or metaphor. Like somebody in another thread said about Bodhisattvas just being archetypes.
There are people who think so of course, but in my opinion it doesn't make much sense.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism school

Post by DGA » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 am

jota wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:34 am
Dear members,

In the first place sorry for my not so polished english.
I know how paradoxal and "dumb" this question may sound but even so, I've decided to ask for your support in this matter.
For some years now I' been studying Taoism and for some reason, in the last years I have approached Buddhist thought.

Please don't take me wrong, I have no intention to offend in any away and I know how "ego related" this may sound but I would like to know if there's any school of Buddhism that does not deal with "reencarnation in the sense of ghots, hell...", "cult of anthropomorphized figures", "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", a more "logical" and nature based approach in the transmission and after that contemplation of the observed (even limited to our eyes) reality.

As I said I've no intention to be disrespectful.

Thank you so much.
I don't think there is any Buddhist school that does quite what you say. I do think it would be worthwhile for you (and for all of us) to study Buddhist teachings with greater care before coming to hasty judgments.

Is it realistic to expect a Buddhist teaching to conform to the expectations of someone who is not a Buddha?

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:53 am

DGA wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 am
Is it realistic to expect a Buddhist teaching to conform to the expectations of someone who is not a Buddha?
No, but it is plausible for a teaching to conform to the expectations of someone who is not a Buddha. Now whether or not it is Buddhist is a completely different story! :smile:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

jota
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:01 am

Re: Buddhism school

Post by jota » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 am

First of all I would like to thank all the answers and advice. Very grateful for that.
Nothing you've written below consists of any form of attack on one's sensibilities or convictions. They are questions and they live as such.

It is intriguing an element of the forum to have pointed out my issues as judgments. They were not at any time. If one can not question, then Buddhism becomes dogma.

Another element also stated that if I do not believe in things as they are established, then I bring no benefit to a community, nor should I study Buddhism. If Buddha had done this today were his teachings studied? Buddha did not break with the issues of his time? I am not at all putting myself in his position, but was it precisely this questioning that he taught, or am I wrong?

At no point will I put the questions in the terms in which they are usually put "if you can not prove it, then it is because it does not exist". The more sensible perspective (perhaps a middle way), in my opinion is "if you can not prove, in the light of limited knowledge, then why give it importance and seek to profess and defend something you do not know? If we do not know, something, if something may not be coherent or significant to give relevance to it, should we give focus to it? Should we not channel our actions for other purposes? Questioning is a manifestation of observation about the facts and phenomena that are presented to us, just that. Of course our perception is limited, words will always be insufficient, but along with thought are one of the vehicles that, by nature, we have for the purpose.

In relation to the concept of karma, in the sense that it is transmitted, it is somehow of difficult internal validation because it presupposes a relation of judgment between actions and consequences, a conscious judge who pervades or punishes. By a natural law, there is no conscious judgment, theistic and paternalistic. If we look at all phenomena from the perspective of the energy they manifest, then it is legitimate, as it is in the laws of physics, that something we project in one sense will receive a return in the same sense or in the opposite direction depending on the action. So, why to promote iconography, imaginary, anthropomorphisms, laws of human behavior to something that might not be?

If we can choose what we want to believe in and do not give importance to karma or any other aspect, then each of us has his own Buddhism. Is this not a misconception about the objectives of a transmission? Do not subvert the role of a "master"? If this is possible does not occur an annulment of the very principle that gives rise to it, or am I wrong?

On the other hand, I sometimes feel a dense manifestation of argumentation on the basis of fallacies of authority, of hierarchy, of antiquity, and again of dogma. One of the principles inherent in Buddhism is that everything can be questioned. If one can not call into question a "transmission made and acquired", are not we subverting the values of Buddhism itself? Would Buddha be complacent with this?

Thank you so much.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:46 am

jota wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 am
If we can choose what we want to believe in and do not give importance to karma or any other aspect, then each of us has his own Buddhism.
You CAN choose what you want to believe in, but what you believe in may not necessary be a "Buddhism" as Buddhism is a teaching of the enlightened and we, last time I checked, are not enlightened.
One of the principles inherent in Buddhism is that everything can be questioned.
No, this is not the case. This is misconception.

The Buddha did not say "Don't believe me."

He said: "Here, take this. Test it and if it is wrong..."

And don't bring up the Kalamas Sutta (again), that is a teaching to non-Buddhists, about non-Buddhist teachers. The Kalamas became followers of the Buddha after hearing it:

"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. We go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Aryjna » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:03 am

jota wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 am
Another element also stated that if I do not believe in things as they are established, then I bring no benefit to a community, nor should I study Buddhism. If Buddha had done this today were his teachings studied? Buddha did not break with the issues of his time? I am not at all putting myself in his position, but was it precisely this questioning that he taught, or am I wrong?
Your question was: "I would like to know if there's any school of Buddhism that does not deal with "reencarnation in the sense of ghots, hell...", "cult of anthropomorphized figures", "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", a more "logical" and nature based approach in the transmission and after that contemplation of the observed (even limited to our eyes) reality."

The answer is no, there is no such school of Buddhism. That is like asking, is there a form of Christianity that does not accept that Jesus was resurrected? No, there isn't because then it would not be Christianity. It has nothing to do with thinking that you were making judgements or that you should not study Buddhism.

At no point will I put the questions in the terms in which they are usually put "if you can not prove it, then it is because it does not exist". The more sensible perspective (perhaps a middle way), in my opinion is "if you can not prove, in the light of limited knowledge, then why give it importance and seek to profess and defend something you do not know?
Because you examine the whole of the teachings, and you see that a big part of them makes perfect sense, then you develop more confidence as you practice and study more, as a result you have good reason to accept the things that you cannot at the moment directly confirm for yourself on the authority of the source of the other teachings. Also, depending on one's level of practice, and as one example. certain insights may give certainty that the mind is not simply produced by the physical brain in one's skull and then disappears when the brain is damaged.
In relation to the concept of karma, in the sense that it is transmitted, it is somehow of difficult internal validation because it presupposes a relation of judgment between actions and consequences, a conscious judge who pervades or punishes. By a natural law, there is no conscious judgment, theistic and paternalistic. If we look at all phenomena from the perspective of the energy they manifest, then it is legitimate, as it is in the laws of physics, that something we project in one sense will receive a return in the same sense or in the opposite direction depending on the action. So, why to promote iconography, imaginary, anthropomorphisms, laws of human behavior to something that might not be?
It does not presuppose any such relation. Are you sure you have studied extensively and in depth the things that you are talking about?
If we can choose what we want to believe in and do not give importance to karma or any other aspect, then each of us has his own Buddhism. Is this not a misconception about the objectives of a transmission? Do not subvert the role of a "master"? If this is possible does not occur an annulment of the very principle that gives rise to it, or am I wrong?
No, everyone cannot have their own Buddhism. That is absurd. If that were the case we could say that a Christian is a Buddhist, because he has his own Buddhism.

The way the dharma is practiced is described in the Noble eightfold path. If you do not practice that then you are not a Buddhist. It is not a matter of attacking you or saying you should not study or practice if you feel like it, it is just the way things are at the moment. If anything, I'm sure anyone here would encourage you to study and think on it more if you want to.

Edit: I'm not sure what you mean by "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", that does not seem to make any sense.
Last edited by Aryjna on Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tiago Simões
Posts: 962
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Tiago Simões » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:07 am

jota wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 am
"if you can not prove, in the light of limited knowledge, then why give it importance and seek to profess and defend something you do not know? If we do not know, something, if something may not be coherent or significant to give relevance to it, should we give focus to it?
Why would we question the teachings of the Buddha in favour of less profound doctrines, if we have found them to be inferior?

Why is it that, if we do not know something, that thing does not hold relevance? If we compare it to others and find it to be more profound, why should we hold in equal that which we found to be less so?
jota wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:17 am
In relation to the concept of karma, in the sense that it is transmitted, it is somehow of difficult internal validation because it presupposes a relation of judgment between actions and consequences, a conscious judge who pervades or punishes.
Karma, has taught by the Buddha, does not function conditioned by a third observer. Which means that karma and its results depend entirely on oneself.
Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti spoke to the elder Śāriputra and the great disciples: “Reverends, eat of the food of the Tathāgata! It is ambrosia perfumed by the great compassion. But do not fix your minds in narrow-minded attitudes, lest you be unable to receive its gift.”

- Chapter 9, The Feast Brought by the Emanated Incarnation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Teaching of Vimalakīrti”

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism school

Post by DGA » Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:44 am

Grigoris wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:53 am
DGA wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 am
Is it realistic to expect a Buddhist teaching to conform to the expectations of someone who is not a Buddha?
No, but it is plausible for a teaching to conform to the expectations of someone who is not a Buddha. Now whether or not it is Buddhist is a completely different story! :smile:
I think you and I are on the same page here.

User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2228
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Josef » Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:57 am

jota wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:34 am
Dear members,

In the first place sorry for my not so polished english.
I know how paradoxal and "dumb" this question may sound but even so, I've decided to ask for your support in this matter.
For some years now I' been studying Taoism and for some reason, in the last years I have approached Buddhist thought.

Please don't take me wrong, I have no intention to offend in any away and I know how "ego related" this may sound but I would like to know if there's any school of Buddhism that does not deal with "reencarnation in the sense of ghots, hell...", "cult of anthropomorphized figures", "see meditation as a mean to reflect about human and mental issues, and then walk into the void", a more "logical" and nature based approach in the transmission and after that contemplation of the observed (even limited to our eyes) reality.

As I said I've no intention to be disrespectful.

Thank you so much.
What makes you think a single-life theory is "logical"?
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

jota
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:01 am

Re: Buddhism school

Post by jota » Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:56 am

Dear friends

I am sorry if my words do not show the thoughts I would like to convey. My mistake.
As I said, my whole life I have lived with Taoism, Buddhism is something more recent in my life and I try, with your support, to understand how to contemplate its teachings.

My question with regard to "logic" being that I made a point of using quotation marks precisely so that this was not interpreted in a literal way, has to do with the fact of perceiving, up to the moment, two lines of thought that apparently were fused in time :

1) The teachings of the historical Buddha, in my point of view, are based on the observation of the phenomena of humanity, consciousness, nature manifestations, where they are illustrative and rich in parables and analogies. Logical in this sense, observable and evident in form and context;

2) The teachings influenced and resulting from interpretations, appropriations from other schools of thought such as Hinduism, Bon, animistic concepts, and other ways of facing phenomena and consequent adaptations and personal visions;

In my view, these two approaches refer us to two distinct lines of thought. We can not ignore that the oral transmission, the passage of generation in generation, the social context, the transmission beyond borders, in the geographic domain, tend to introduce adaptations. This has happened to a large number of religions.

In my opinion, there is a substantial difference between creating hope in people, giving them a doctrine, and presenting them with a path that allows them to evolve.

I wonder, if the historical Buddha were physically among us today, would he accept the terms that are presented by all the currents of Buddhism. I speak of the historical Buddha because I assume that it is legitimate to consider that the teachings were conveyed by a man and not a divinity. If we introduce divinity into this context, then everything else self-justifies itself. I no longer even question whether his words uttered today would be taken seriously and whether Buddhism would have gained the dimension we now know.

Thank you all.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18026
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Grigoris » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:05 am

jota wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:56 am
Dear friends

I am sorry if my words do not show the thoughts I would like to convey. My mistake.
As I said, my whole life I have lived with Taoism, Buddhism is something more recent in my life and I try, with your support, to understand how to contemplate its teachings.

My question with regard to "logic" being that I made a point of using quotation marks precisely so that this was not interpreted in a literal way, has to do with the fact of perceiving, up to the moment, two lines of thought that apparently were fused in time :

1) The teachings of the historical Buddha, in my point of view, are based on the observation of the phenomena of humanity, consciousness, nature manifestations, where they are illustrative and rich in parables and analogies. Logical in this sense, observable and evident in form and context;

2) The teachings influenced and resulting from interpretations, appropriations from other schools of thought such as Hinduism, Bon, animistic concepts, and other ways of facing phenomena and consequent adaptations and personal visions;

In my view, these two approaches refer us to two distinct lines of thought. We can not ignore that the oral transmission, the passage of generation in generation, the social context, the transmission beyond borders, in the geographic domain, tend to introduce adaptations. This has happened to a large number of religions.

In my opinion, there is a substantial difference between creating hope in people, giving them a doctrine, and presenting them with a path that allows them to evolve.

I wonder, if the historical Buddha were physically among us today, would he accept the terms that are presented by all the currents of Buddhism. I speak of the historical Buddha because I assume that it is legitimate to consider that the teachings were conveyed by a man and not a divinity. If we introduce divinity into this context, then everything else self-justifies itself. I no longer even question whether his words uttered today would be taken seriously and whether Buddhism would have gained the dimension we now know.

Thank you all.
So how do you square your theorising with the (apparent) fact that the "historical Buddha" taught rebirth and multiple lives?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism school

Post by Aemilius » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:10 am

jota wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:56 am
Dear friends

I am sorry if my words do not show the thoughts I would like to convey. My mistake.
As I said, my whole life I have lived with Taoism, Buddhism is something more recent in my life and I try, with your support, to understand how to contemplate its teachings.

My question with regard to "logic" being that I made a point of using quotation marks precisely so that this was not interpreted in a literal way, has to do with the fact of perceiving, up to the moment, two lines of thought that apparently were fused in time :

1) The teachings of the historical Buddha, in my point of view, are based on the observation of the phenomena of humanity, consciousness, nature manifestations, where they are illustrative and rich in parables and analogies. Logical in this sense, observable and evident in form and context;

2) The teachings influenced and resulting from interpretations, appropriations from other schools of thought such as Hinduism, Bon, animistic concepts, and other ways of facing phenomena and consequent adaptations and personal visions;

In my view, these two approaches refer us to two distinct lines of thought. We can not ignore that the oral transmission, the passage of generation in generation, the social context, the transmission beyond borders, in the geographic domain, tend to introduce adaptations. This has happened to a large number of religions.

In my opinion, there is a substantial difference between creating hope in people, giving them a doctrine, and presenting them with a path that allows them to evolve.

I wonder, if the historical Buddha were physically among us today, would he accept the terms that are presented by all the currents of Buddhism. I speak of the historical Buddha because I assume that it is legitimate to consider that the teachings were conveyed by a man and not a divinity. If we introduce divinity into this context, then everything else self-justifies itself. I no longer even question whether his words uttered today would be taken seriously and whether Buddhism would have gained the dimension we now know.

Thank you all.
You can look what the term Buddhist Epistemology contains and means. This question or problem of epistemology existed already at the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and there are teachings about in the sutras, directly and indirectly. For example, there is knowledge that is gained in a state of dhyana, which may be different in character and scope than the knowledge gained from sense perception (in the ordinary state of consciousness). This is an important source of knowledge according to Buddhism.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.)

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Temicco and 32 guests