Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rockyysdt

Why are you drawn to Buddhism?

Recommended Posts

In an attempt to get Rocky's thread back on track I was drawn to Buddhism through crises in my life and the four noble truths really resonating at the time, I had a stop the world I want to get off type attitude.  Life just seemed suffering, the Buddha claimed to have the answer, I was inspired by the hagiography of the Buddha and ideals of renunciation.

 

Over time of course this changed, my interest in Buddhist as a religion waned, I wasn't so inspired by these ideals, I suffered less.  This was replaced by an interest in the mind,  an interested in cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings.

 

I think for a lot of people they just start dabbling in meditation as a form of stress reduction and it gradually grows from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



In an attempt to get Rocky's thread back on track I was drawn to Buddhism through crises in my life and the four noble truths really resonating at the time, I had a stop the world I want to get off type attitude.  Life just seemed suffering, the Buddha claimed to have the answer, I was inspired by the hagiography of the Buddha and ideals of renunciation.
 
Over time of course this changed, my interest in Buddhist as a religion waned, I wasn't so inspired by these ideals, I suffered less.  This was replaced by an interest in the mind,  an interested in cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings.
 
I think for a lot of people they just start dabbling in meditation as a form of stress reduction and it gradually grows from there.

If your primary interest is now cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings, this should tell you two things.

1. Awareness is non dual.
2. Scriptural references are secondary to direct experience of awareness.

You don't need to put a label on that or engage me on a battlefield where Advaitists are fighting Buddhists but instead appreciate the universal truth of Buddha's teachings. When i spoke of the essence of Buddhism you immediately had a knee jerk reaction towards dogma, yet here you are following my advice in your practice. Funny huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buddhism may be succinctly described as - you are born; you suffer; you die.
No, that's just a description of ignorance. The cessation of suffering is the primary teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, trd said:


 


If your primary interest is now cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings, this should tell you two things.

1. Awareness is non dual.
2. Scriptural references are secondary to direct experience of awareness.

You don't need to put a label on that or engage me on a battlefield where Advaitists are fighting Buddhists but instead appreciate the universal truth of Buddha's teachings. When i spoke of the essence of Buddhism you immediately had a knee jerk reaction towards dogma, yet here you are following my advice in your practice. Funny huh?

 

Non-dual is just a view, not an ontological ultimate truth, not the goal of the path.  Awareness is a process of mind, just because it seems relatively stable, relatively spacious, relatively profound, relatively non-dual doesn't make it an ultimate truth or goal of the path.  This is how I understand the Buddhist view, of course I'd never go on an Advaita Vedanta forum to say so.

 

Scriptural references provide a basis for a methodology, of course it's secondary to direct experience of awareness.  But when someone promotes alternative facts about who taught what direct experience of awareness won't help you, historical evidence will.

 

You did not speak of the seesnse of Buddhism, you spoke of the essence of Advaita Vedanta and said the Buddha taught that, I don't know why other religions need to make such claims as if the Buddha lends integrity that would otherwise be absent.

 

Learn to appreciate the methodology we are discussing here and then you'll be able to draw parallels.  For example were you aware that I know of at least 3 vipassana teachers that were students of HWL Poonja in their early days, one was recommended vipassana as the right practice for her by Poonja-ji ?  Of course not because your only interest is here is promoting your own beliefs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, trd said:
44 minutes ago, superglue said:
Buddhism may be succinctly described as - you are born; you suffer; you die.

No, that's just a description of ignorance. The cessation of suffering is the primary teaching.

You are right of course, if there was no solution it would be a pointless teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great posts from both of you, that while drinking my coffee, I'm trying hard to digest everything.

:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rev Billy Graham - evangelist - jumped on the band wagon and claimed 'You are born; you suffer; you die.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Non-dual is just a view, not an ontological ultimate truth, not the goal of the path.  Awareness is a process of mind, just because it seems relatively stable, relatively spacious, relatively profound, relatively non-dual doesn't make it an ultimate truth or goal of the path.  This is how I understand the Buddhist view, of course I'd never go on an Advaita Vedanta forum to say so.

 

I don't know how you can say that non dual is just a view. Awareness is non dual if there is only awareness as subject without an object. One pointedness of mind or samadhi is just awareness knowing itself. That's what makes it non dual. It's not an idea. It's a direct experience. What you describe as awareness as a process is a duality when awareness consists of knower and object that is known. I am aware of this is a duality. I am aware is non duality. I wish you would stop pidgeon holing this as Buddhist or Advaita.

 

 

 

Scriptural references provide a basis for a methodology, of course it's secondary to direct experience of awareness.  But when someone promotes alternative facts about who taught what direct experience of awareness won't help you, historical evidence will.

 

I can assure you that historical evidence won't change anything about your awareness.

 

 

 

You did not speak of the seesnse of Buddhism, you spoke of the essence of Advaita Vedanta and said the Buddha taught that, I don't know why other religions need to make such claims as if the Buddha lends integrity that would otherwise be absent.

 

Why do you want to keep talking about Vedanta. I don't. I am taking about the essence of Buddhism which happens to be the same as the essence of Vedanta. Is there one kind of awareness for Buddhists and another kind for Vedantists?

 

 

 

Learn to appreciate the methodology we are discussing here and then you'll be able to draw parallels.  For example were you aware that I know of at least 3 vipassana teachers that were students of HWL Poonja in their early days, one was recommended vipassana as the right practice for her by Poonja-ji ?  Of course not because your only interest is here is promoting your own beliefs.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Papaji recommended Vipassana. It is a very sound practice. In fact I can't tell you how many times  I have heard those steeped in the Vedanta tradition quote from Buddhist teachings. If your primary practice is what you call the cultivation of awareness then why do you continue to have a mental tug of war within yourself that feels the need to defer to Buddhist dogma in a protectionist way? The direct knowledge and spontaneous wisdom arising from awareness is your inner guru which is not different from Buddha. Learn to appreciate the methodology I am discussing here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been said before, as long as a decade ago by my co-mod, but if all we do is offer unsupported opinions on what the Buddha taught, there won't be much meaningful discussion. There has to be a reference point and the obvious (though not perfect) one is the early suttas and vinaya of the Pali Canon.

The Mahayana scriptures are not a good reference point because of their diverse teachings and because scholars tell us they were created hundreds of years after the Buddha died.

I suggest the non-dualism issue be opened as a new topic instead of letting it hijack this one.

Sent on the move with my mobile phone. Please excuse the brevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been said before, as long as a decade ago by my co-mod, but if all we do is offer unsupported opinions on what the Buddha taught, there won't be much meaningful discussion. There has to be a reference point and the obvious (though not perfect) one is the early suttas and vinaya of the Pali Canon.

The Mahayana scriptures are not a good reference point because of their diverse teachings and because scholars tell us they were created hundreds of years after the Buddha died.

I suggest the non-dualism issue be opened as a new topic instead of letting it hijack this one.

Sent on the move with my mobile phone. Please excuse the brevity.


Don't be so naive. The debate about what Buddha said and how his teachings are interpreted has been going on for centuries, long before Thai Visa, and is set to continue. Your comments sound like censorship which I find unacceptable. The thread is about why people are attracted to Buddhism. Bruce has already said that his initial interest was in the ideas and concepts behind the teachings but has since shifted to cultivating awareness. I'm happy to hear that and it's a worthy subject to discuss. That awareness is the same for a Mahayana Buddhist as it is for a Theravada Buddhist.

Is it really going to be doing a service to novices who are attracted to the teachings to restrict the discussion to Theravada texts when many of those novices don't even appreciate the differences. Let's have a free and open debate in the spirit of the universality of Buddha's teachings without building walls between the various schools and traditions and let's not go the route of my Buddhism is better than your Buddhism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re just not getting it, Trd. You are the one pushing Vedanta and making claims about what the Buddha really taught, yet declining to support those claims. If non-Buddhists turn up in a Buddhist forum pushing their personal beliefs or dubious claims they can expect to be challenged, and it’s ridiculous to then play the victim and cite censorship, sectism, orthodoxy, or narrow-mindedness.

 

This is a forum for the discussion of Buddhism, so we aren’t obliged to dilute the content by accommodating non-Buddhists who feel the need to have their own personal belief system validated. We do have a responsibility to newcomers to give them factual information and a solid foundation to work with rather than confusing and contradictory arguments. If you - or anyone else - has a problem with this, PM myself or Sabaijai or feel free to request a Spirituality-Religion forum that is broader in scope than this one. Don’t bring it up in forum topics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You’re just not getting it, Trd. You are the one pushing Vedanta and making claims about what the Buddha really taught, yet declining to support those claims. If non-Buddhists turn up in a Buddhist forum pushing their personal beliefs or dubious claims they can expect to be challenged, and it’s ridiculous to then play the victim and cite censorship, sectism, orthodoxy, or narrow-mindedness.
 
This is a forum for the discussion of Buddhism, so we aren’t obliged to dilute the content by accommodating non-Buddhists who feel the need to have their own personal belief system validated. We do have a responsibility to newcomers to give them factual information and a solid foundation to work with rather than confusing and contradictory arguments. If you - or anyone else - has a problem with this, PM myself or Sabaijai or feel free to request a Spirituality-Religion forum that is broader in scope than this one. Don’t bring it up in forum topics
I'm not pushing Vedanta. I never mentioned it. Bruce did for some reason which I don't understand. I want to talk about the essence of Buddhism. This is a Buddhist forum isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Camerata that your topic is inappropriate on this thread, so this will be my last post on it unless you want to create a new topic.

 

9 hours ago, trd said:

 

I don't know how you can say that non dual is just a view. Awareness is non dual if there is only awareness as subject without an object. One pointedness of mind or samadhi is just awareness knowing itself. That's what makes it non dual. It's not an idea. It's a direct experience. What you describe as awareness as a process is a duality when awareness consists of knower and object that is known. I am aware of this is a duality. I am aware is non duality. I wish you would stop pidgeon holing this as Buddhist or Advaita.

 

Whether awareness is non dual or not it's a matter of perspective and how you understand and relate to experience.  Yes in our practice we want to get away from the idea of me (subject) aware of object and it's quite liberating when one consistently does so, it's just that it's not central to our religion like it is yours, it's not the goal like it is in yours.

 

Samadhi may well be one pointed and therefore non dual, but so what, again it's not considered the goal or purpose of the path in the Buddha's teachings as it's temporary and subject to causes and conditions.

 

 

9 hours ago, trd said:

Why do you want to keep talking about Vedanta. I don't. I am taking about the essence of Buddhism which happens to be the same as the essence of Vedanta. Is there one kind of awareness for Buddhists and another kind for Vedantists?

 

You absolutely keep talking about Vedanta, it's just that you keep calling it Buddhism.  You believe your own rhetoric and Advaita propaganda to the degree that you are oblivious to the feedback that the central concepts you espouse are totally absent from the Pali Canon and totally absent in Theravada.  Mahayana does have similar concepts about non-duality, though my feeling is that they use them quite differently.  Claiming Buddhism as some kind of subset of your own religion is just arrogant religious colonialism, alternative facts, and fake news.

 

Instead of flogging a dead horse you'd find it less frustrating to talk about approaches to practice that we share that are similar.

 

 

9 hours ago, trd said:

 If your primary practice is what you call the cultivation of awareness then why do you continue to have a mental tug of war within yourself that feels the need to defer to Buddhist dogma in a protectionist way? The direct knowledge and spontaneous wisdom arising from awareness is your inner guru which is not different from Buddha. Learn to appreciate the methodology I am discussing here.

 

I can assure you I have no inner tug of war about the nature of awareness, I just don't buy into the conceptual framework around it that you are promoting here.  When I'm talking about awareness I'm talking about a mental process, and a very important one in developing the path of practice.  When you do sometimes you talk about it like that and other times it's some kind of monist non dual ultimate reality, which frankly makes no sense.  If you can drop the latter and stick to the Buddhas framework we'll get on fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, but I'm done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...