The Noble Eightfold Thread: Buddhism

[Florestan]

True, but in Luke 10:27 , did he not tell an expert in the Law that if he followed the Jewish "Shema", that he would be saved?   How can one reconcile both statements? This was a paradox I wrestled with in my Southern Baptist days.

Well, as usual the answer is to be found in reading a verse in its full context. Lk 10:25 speaks about ""a certain lawyer" who "stood up and tempted Him." Christ simply fended off that man's trap: He was notorious for his aversion for lawyerish disputations.

Later on, Luke 18:18-23 tells a very different story, one in which Christ again speaks of Himself as some kind of way, for what "come, follow Me!" can mean other than an invitation to a journey? Only this time He addresses the invitation to a sincere and honest inquirer, not to a Pharisee.

[Florestan]

Perhaps this will be of interest while waiting for an answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)

Thank you, Neal.

[Grazioso]

Buddhism has been bent, folded and mutilated by Easterners as well.  It does not have much of a need for purity, and has no true canonical scripture.  It is very accomodating of incorporation of outside elements from other faiths if it can help relieve human sorrow.  I had several shocks when I first visited Thailand and saw how the faith was practiced.

Quite right. There were sectarian squabbles--or at least disagreements--from the start of the Sangha, and Buddhism has undergone huge transformations in thought and practice as it has crossed the East and intermingled with Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism, and local animist and folkloric religions.

In Western popular publications on the subject, Buddhism's practicality, empiricism, rationalism are often (rightly) emphasized, along with meditation (to the point where you would think that's all the Buddha ever taught ). But in practice in the East, there are also elaborate cosmologies, divine heavenly beings, demons, psychic powers, prayer and offerings, etc.

The parable of the vehicles likens the differenent branches to the case where he needs to get his children to run out of  a burning house.   They can't understand the danger they  are in, and won't leave until teh father promises them different toys.  The "branches"  or sects were the toys-- necessary to save the children, since they could  not understand the reality of their situation.  the father was justified in lying because it was the only thing the children would leave the house for...

I'm reminded, indirectly, of the parables of the arrow and the boat. In the first, the Buddha asks, if you were shot with an arrow, would you let the doctor pull it out right away, or would you insist on him first answering a hundred questions about it: who shot it? Why? What is the arrow made of? Etc.

In the second, he likens Buddhist teaching to a boat used to cross from a shore of dangers and torment to one of safety and peace. Do you worry about the boat, or just take it across? When you get across, do carry the boat around with you everywhere, or do you put it down since it's served its purpose?

Eminently, refreshingly practical.

[jowcol]

Well, as usual the answer is to be found in reading a verse in its full context. Lk 10:25 speaks about ""a certain lawyer" who "stood up and tempted Him." Christ simply fended off that man's trap: He was notorious for his aversion for lawyerish disputations.

Later on, Luke 18:18-23 tells a very different story, one in which Christ again speaks of Himself as some kind of way, for what "come, follow Me!" can mean other than an invitation to a journey? Only this time He addresses the invitation to a sincere and honest inquirer, not to a Pharisee.

Before going further-- just a remainder that I'm not trying to show any disrespect, and have no interest in converting anyone- only to further our mutual  understanding on the paths we are taking.

Interesting interpretation, and I admire the aversion for Lawyerish disputations.    It does raise the interesting theological issue that Jesus told an untruth to avoid persecution, and ran the risk of misleading any other witnesses.   Given the fact that he did not use this approach later, it raises some interesting questions.  When he healed a man on the Sabbath, did he deny it?

I had always interpreted this event in terms of theme of his coming as the fulfillment of the Hebrew tradition, which is heavily emphasized in the Gospel of Matthew.  Particularly the verse in Matthew 5:17,  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".  Isn't that similar to stating to someone that a person who obeys the prime commandment of Judaism would be saved?    I'll admit, this is my personal interpretation-- your mileage may vary.

[jowcol]

Quite right. There were sectarian squabbles--or at least disagreements--from the start of the Sangha, and Buddhism has undergone huge transformations in thought and practice as it has crossed the East and intermingled with Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism, and local animist and folkloric religions.

In Western popular publications on the subject, Buddhism's practicality, empiricism, rationalism are often (rightly) emphasized, along with meditation (to the point where you would think that's all the Buddha ever taught ). But in practice in the East, there are also elaborate cosmologies, divine heavenly beings, demons, psychic powers, prayer and offerings, etc.

I'm reminded, indirectly, of the parables of the arrow and the boat. In the first, the Buddha asks, if you were shot with an arrow, would you let the doctor pull it out right away, or would you insist on him first answering a hundred questions about it: who shot it? Why? What is the arrow made of? Etc.

In the second, he likens Buddhist teaching to a boat used to cross from a shore of dangers and torment to one of safety and peace. Do you worry about the boat, or just take it across? When you get across, do carry the boat around with you everywhere, or do you put it down since it's served its purpose?

Eminently, refreshingly practical.

Dude!  I was just about to get to the parable of the raft, which is a total fave.  I can't tell how many times that has come useful, and how many times I've needed to drop previous ideas and assumptions that had helped in the past.

[jowcol]

Hi jowcol, I was hoping you'd show up.

Just a question: are you a member of a sangha? Are there any teachers that you work with on a one-to-one basis?

Folks- some great topics running on a few threads here, but I need to tear myself away and crank out some stuff for work. 

Coco-- answer forthcoming.

[Grazioso]

Before going further-- just a remainder that I'm not trying to show any disrespect, and have no interest in converting anyone- only to further our mutual  understanding on the paths we are taking.

Just in case, I'd like to clarify that I too have no horse in the race, so to speak, and am not seeking to convert anyone to anything, just discuss and offer what info I can.

Dude!  I was just about to get to the parable of the raft, which is a total fave.  I can't tell how many times that has come useful, and how many times I've needed to drop previous ideas and assumptions that had helped in the past.

I love those early Buddhist scriptures: the parables and metaphors are delightfully homely and profound at the same time.

[Florestan]

Before going further-- just a remainder that I'm not trying to show any disrespect, and have no interest in converting anyone- only to further our mutual  understanding on the paths we are taking.

I fully subscribe.

Interesting interpretation, and I admire the aversion for Lawyerish disputations.    It does raise the interesting theological issue that Jesus told an untruth to avoid persecution, and ran the risk of misleading any other witnesses.   Given the fact that he did not use this approach later, it raises some interesting questions.  When he healed a man on the Sabbath, did he deny it?

I had always interpreted this event in terms of theme of his coming as the fulfillment of the Hebrew tradition, which is heavily emphasized in the Gospel of Matthew.  Particularly the verse in Matthew 5:17,  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".  Isn't that similar to stating to someone that a person who obeys the prime commandment of Judaism would be saved?    I'll admit, this is my personal interpretation-- your mileage may vary.

That's indeed a paradox - to which I have no answer and I generally avoid any debate about who will be saved and how; if I'd knew the answer I'd be God. 

[Coco]

That's indeed a paradox - to which I have no answer and I generally avoid any debate about who will be saved and how; if I'd knew the answer I'd be God. 

I wish more Christians felt the same way. 

[Karl Henning]

I wish more Christians felt the same way. 

I daresay many do; but they're not the ones standing at the train platforms wearing sandwich boards . . . .

[Florestan]

I daresay many do; but they're not the ones standing at the train platforms wearing sandwich boards . . . .

QFT.

[bwv 1080]

I have posted some critical stuff because I think its too easy for Westerners to make Buddhism into a magic spiritual bullet and project all their modern sensibilities into it.  The question I would have to anyone describing themselves as a Buddhist is how much more respect is due to Gautama than, say, Marcus Aurelius or Socrates.  I am also curious to the extent Gautama is given credit as inventing or discovering the major tenets of Buddhism vs. consolidating existing Indian Shramana traditions

[kishnevi]

always liked this piece by science writer John Horgan.

http://www.johnhorgan.org/why_i_can_t_embrace_buddhism_19872.htm

He does get the most important point wrong.  Buddhism does not teach detachment from everyday life, except that such detachment is a good means of attaining the real end--but it's not the only means.

What Buddhism is concerned with is detachment from one's ego.  Don't act as if the everyday world does not matter. Instead, act with the understanding that the person you think of as yourself is nothing more than a temporary conglomeration of phenomena.

[bwv 1080]

He does get the most important point wrong.  Buddhism does not teach detachment from everyday life, except that such detachment is a good means of attaining the real end--but it's not the only means.

What Buddhism is concerned with is detachment from one's ego.  Don't act as if the everyday world does not matter. Instead, act with the understanding that the person you think of as yourself is nothing more than a temporary conglomeration of phenomena.

I would generally agree up to the point where one can unequivicably state that Buddhism in total has this view.  Certainly there are major figures and schools within the tradition that flirt with nihilism - not that they represent or define the whole. Would say it's similar to young earth creationists within Christianity - they do not represent the religion, but on the other hand one cannot claim their positions are heterodox either.

[jowcol]

I fully subscribe.

That's indeed a paradox - to which I have no answer and I generally avoid any debate about who will be saved and how; if I'd knew the answer I'd be God. 

And that is a debate we should avoid (RE: Sermon on the Mount).   For my own "logic", I had to adopt a broader definition of the "way".  But this is something we all need to do.. or choose not to, which would be unfortunately.

[Karl Henning]

I have posted some critical stuff because I think its too easy for Westerners to make Buddhism into a magic spiritual bullet and project all their modern sensibilities into it.

Man, you need to listen to some Enya and chill. (j/k)

[jowcol]

I am curious: what is the Buddhist conception of hell? What is it needed for? Who goes there and why? Who or what are those devils who torment them?

In the core teachings, the Buddha did not address the afterlife, but basically, the first of his 4 Noble truths is that we are in Hell right now.  (Yes,  the long suspected truth that the GMG is Hell).  Life in Samsara is subject to old age, sickness and death, and we are tormented by our likes and dislikes.  Implicit in the notion of Reincarnation is that you keep coming back to Samsara until you get it right-- it's sort of like the notion of Purgatory.  But one thing I like about this approach is that you don't need to take the punshment factor on faith-- it's right in front of you.


That being said, I know my Thai relatives have a notion of a Hell-based afterlife sort of like a bus station (How appropos), where you wait to get reincarnated, and, among other things, can only eat the same types of food that you have donated to monks on their alms walks while you were alive.

If you get into Tibetan Bhuddism, there are many Bardos between death and reincarnation where all sorts of wild and unpleasant stuff happens.

[jowcol]

I have posted some critical stuff because I think its too easy for Westerners to make Buddhism into a magic spiritual bullet and project all their modern sensibilities into it.  The question I would have to anyone describing themselves as a Buddhist is how much more respect is due to Gautama than, say, Marcus Aurelius or Socrates.  I am also curious to the extent Gautama is given credit as inventing or discovering the major tenets of Buddhism vs. consolidating existing Indian Shramana traditions

Excellent point. 

[jowcol]

Hi jowcol, I was hoping you'd show up.

Just a question: are you a member of a sangha? Are there any teachers that you work with on a one-to-one basis?

Frankly, I'm pretty shallow.  We typically hit the local temple for the major holidays, and the widespread availability of inexpensive, delicious Thai food has a lot to do with it.  Since I'm a "farang" (caucasian) a lot of the monks like to try out their English with me-- it's been fun, but most of my study is self driven, and I don't buy into everything the order endorses.  (For example, I see value in other forms of centering activity than traditional seated meditation, and I don't believe that music is a distraction with no redemptive value)

Let's see-- I started out Southern Baptist (both grandparents were southern baptist ministers) , became a Charismatic/Evangelical, had doubts, more doubts, became an atheist, became an agnostic, then a gnostic, and then a sort of free-lance unitarian.

I married a Thai woman who wanted me to participate in  a Buddhist ceremony.  I said I'd need to check it out first, and did some reading, and it all seemed to "fit". I particularly liked the part about being able to freely consider other religious teachings.  It did not contradict the key principles I lived by, but rather confirmed them.

[Grazioso]

I am curious: what is the Buddhist conception of hell? What is it needed for? Who goes there and why? Who or what are those devils who torment them?

Not my area of expertise, but in traditional Buddhist cosmology (going back to the Pali sutras of Theravadan Buddhism), a multiplicity of realms is posited. Rebirth is a cornerstone concept of Buddhism, and it is said that one can be reborn into a variety of different realms, as different types of beings, based on one's karma (the fruits of one's conscious action). These realms include heavenly realms and hell realms outside our normal experience, which is one of the reasons it's incorrect to speak of "reincarnation" in Buddhism: one might not necessarily be reborn "in the flesh" but rather as a non-material, otherworldly being. This can all be read literally and/or psychologically: i.e., your thoughts and actions bear new fruit, good and bad, all the time, and you reap your own rewards and suffer your own inner torments in this life, depending on which you choose.

More importantly, it's important to distinguish between reincarnation and rebirth because of other key Buddhist propositions^*: all dependently originated phenomena, including the aggregates (skandhas) that make up the personality, are impermanent and "not-self" (anatta, or devoid of permanent, indivisible essence). Technically speaking, there is no "Self," no "I," to "come back" as something physically different. (Cf. Brahmanism)

_{* Bearing in mind that the Buddha's teachings were provisional and practical, designed for assisting in spiritual liberation, not making inviolable pronouncements about the ultimate nature of things.}