Why e-sangha is starting to get on my nerves

[Josh Young]

This being so, why not just have fun in life to the fullest. Drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll.

In the words of Buddha, because mine have no sway:

212 From pleasure comes grief, from pleasure comes fear; he who is free from pleasure neither sorrows nor fears.

 

247 And the man who gives himself to drinking intoxicating liquors, he, even in this world, digs up his own root.

 

248 O man, know this, that the intemperate are in a bad state; take care that greediness and vice do not bring the to grief for a long time.

 

I think it is clear.

No argument that man is mortal can be used to justify self destructive behavior.

 

I know many people, many of them are alcoholics, do you think that the best reason not to drink excessively is because of a next life? The misery I have seen it cause in this life is enough for me to know that the reason to abstain has everything to do with this life.

 

The price we pay for vice is in this life.

 

If you are just going to be born again why not drink cheat, steal and kill? If you believe you will have another life then what does it matter?

 

But if you believe you have but one life, why squander it?

 

If we believe that others are born again, why fear killing them?

Why have any compassion at all? Out of desire of reward for compassion?

 

But if you believe that there is but this life, is that not all the more reason for compassion? Does it not make killing all the more cruel?

 

Most atheists I know care more about right mind, right thought and right action than any religious people I know. They respect life and good behavior more than any christian I have met, and I was raised as a christian. True some of them are fools who have been known to steal, thinking that since there is no God, what does it matter? None of them that are like this are happy, they are plagued by mental, physical and psychological problems. They are looked down upon by all who know them, for they cannot be trusted. They are like the man who forsakes his health and body thinking of obtaining merit in an afterlife.

 

A dog carried a bone over a bridge and looking down saw his reflection, he schemed that if he had both bones then he would be happier. So he barked at the reflection, forsaking what he had for what he wanted, and so in the end had nothing and the bone dropped into the water. People are like this, even in regard to this life, for they forsake this life out of the desire to obtain what they want in the next, in the end all they have is a wasted life.

 

If there is no afterlife why waste life on empty pleasures? Why not go for tranquility and clarity that last? Drugs do not satisfy, neither does sex, or any material pleasure, for they do not last, so how can someone stay satisfied? But the truth alluded to in the teachings of Buddha does satisfy, for it does last. It is like a food that if you partake of it, you will be full evermore. It is like water that ends thirst forever.

 

I am very sad, indeed tearful at the moment, that this is not more apparent. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. Thanks.

Josh

Edited July 10, 2009 by Josh Young

[Siliconvalley1]

Talking to yourself again SV?

 

Visualisations of plenty of Hindu Tantric deities are also for the sake of metaphor, like the gory Kali image. As well as the image of Kali dancing on top of Shiva, etc.

To practice and read the tantras properly one needs a qualified Guru who one can relate experience to and ask about clarification of meaning.

 

 

I choose not to respond to DO and your attachment to it as we have done that before on other threads and I have clarified that it is really of no importance to me.

 

You again miss my point. You and your friend, in the past have made comments on how Hindu Gods are fighting, funny, selfish etc. based on the myths and symbols. What I was trying to say was that such myths or representations are not unique to Hinduism but seen in various other religions, especially in Buddhism which is greatly influenced in many respects by Hindu culture. So, it would be ridiculous to see every aspect of Buddhism to be symbolic and signifying the metaphysical aspect - while ridiculing similar symbolism in other cultures. That was the first point I was trying to make. There needs to be a common, unbiased attitude while explaining related phenomena.

 

Second, going by these stories blindly - such as the one where Buddha liberated Shiva or something - to be TRUE and quoting such myths to prove the superiority of Buddhism over other religions is laughable at most. We cannot hide behind expressions such as "other realms" or "cosmic spaceship travels" to explain incoherency that has been clearly exhibited in your previous post and the current one. You have not answered any of my questions with anything faintly sensible. This is not ad hom..just a flat observation.

 

Intent of the post is really clear - those living in a glass house cannot throw stones at others, irrespective of whether the stone is dependently originated

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Siliconvalley1]

I don't know since I don't have the capacity to look in the past or other realms. I don't think this is particulary relevant to ones practice though.

 

I agree you have not stated anything to that effect. I was just making a point as the inability to look into "other realms" has been pointed out by "others" as a serious disability and as the key to identify the usefulness of not of a teaching or a religion.

 

They're just as real as you and I (but with yidams it's a little different). But that doesn't mean I have to believe the newspapers if they come out with a story that you're an astronaut who landed on the moon in a secret mission last week. True or not, it would be irrelevant to my having discussions with you about Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

I thought it was relevant, as you seemed to think of Hindu deities as "real" and Hindus as insanely attached to them while "all" the Buddhists were swimming in the enlightened sea of DO

 

If such a baseless assertion was not what was intended in your earlier post, then we have nothing to discuss. I think I am sick as well of trying to explain why DO does not mean anything to a Hindu and why the lack of a fanatic assertion of DO does not make it a lower or incomplete path. Different - may be... incomplete or inferior ..... duh

 

Also, I explained earlier what Hindu deities represent. So how are they different from dhammapalas, or yidams or dhyani buddhas? The approach, ritualistic offerings made, way of propitiation through offering of sixteen articles are all concepts borrowed from Hindu culture. But, while retaining the cultural aspects, Buddhists did want not to be identified as "Hindu" and they thus proclaimed these practices to be different than Hindu practices. Someone like VH will probably point repeatedly to lack of essence (was it vanilla?) as the key differentiation, but that explanation is simply indicative of a forced attempt to appear different or distinct. And there are historical or cultural reasons for that. So, there really is not much difference between Hindu and Buddhist deities, in spite of what the Buddhists may try to project. The Hindu and Buddhist religions, as they are today, are the result of much more social & cultural exchanges than philosophical. I think failing to trace the former will render the study of the latter deficient. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

 

This being so, why not just have fun in life to the fullest. Drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll.

 

Sure, is there a new Pali Sutta unearthed that says Buddha recommended these?

 

And by the way my name is Vivek, the one you referred to is my current teacher

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Josh Young]

By the very definition of Hindu, Buddhism is Hinduism.

There is no single "Hinduism" such a thing is only a straw dog, or perhaps for some, a straw god.

[Siliconvalley1]

By the very definition of Hindu, Buddhism is Hinduism.

There is no single "Hinduism" such a thing is only a straw dog, or perhaps for some, a straw god.

 

 

Well, some agree, others don't ... and this inclusiviness was rather a changing phenomenon along the historical timeline.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Josh Young]

How can someone disagree that Buddhism is Hinduism?

The word Hindu means of India.

[Siliconvalley1]

How can someone disagree that Buddhism is Hinduism?

The word Hindu means of India.

 

The word Hindu came from the Sanskrit Sindhu, coined by Persians to refer to Sindu valley civilization. I did point out earlier than Hinduism is not exclusively Advaita or Dvaita or Shaiva or Shakta, but got carried away into using the same term incorrectly with growing threads. While not technically correct to the core, most religions or isms that come under Hinduism are referred to as a part of Sanatana Vaidika Dharma tracing their thoughts to the Veda in some way. They are all theistic. The exception would be the Buddhists and their influential predecessors the Jains. So, in spite of being technically incorrect, the popular notion is that Hinduism solely represents the vedic or the theistic group and not the other two. This is rather incorrect as atheism has its echo in certain portions of the veda as well.

 

In the current modern day usage, "Indian" is not equal to "Hindu" and this is stated in the so-called secular Indian constitution.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Josh Young]

Very informative reply. Thank you for that.

 

I use the term in general to mean of India and do not mean to address any specific tradition. I rather like Shaivite and Brahmanic traditions.

 

In the current modern day usage, "Indian" is not equal to "Hindu" and this is stated in the so-called secular Indian constitution.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I do like the Constitution of India compared to others.

[Pero]

I thought it was relevant, as you seemed to think of Hindu deities as "real" and Hindus as insanely attached to them while "all" the Buddhists were swimming in the enlightened sea of DO

 

Haha, I told you I was joking just because of something I very vaguely remember. Now I'm sorry I brought it up.

 

Also, I explained earlier what Hindu deities represent. So how are they different from dhammapalas, or yidams or dhyani buddhas? The approach, ritualistic offerings made, way of propitiation through offering of sixteen articles are all concepts borrowed from Hindu culture. But, while retaining the cultural aspects, Buddhists did want not to be identified as "Hindu" and they thus proclaimed these practices to be different than Hindu practices.

 

My understanding in general is that a lot of vajrayana practices originate from Hindu tantra, but what is different is the view, as already said many times.

Basically it seems to me that Hindus (and sorry if I'm using the term incorectly, now you just confused me about it hehe) are realists, while Buddhists are not. Plus DO (ducks for cover ).

But frankly I've come to the conclusion I don't know enough about either views to really discuss much.

 

Sure, is there a new Pali Sutta unearthed that says Buddha recommended these?

 

Not that I'm aware of, I just hope you didn't just give someone an idea how to make money, would certainly attract more students.

 

And by the way my name is Vivek, the one you referred to is my current teacher

 

Are you sure you're not confused?

Seriously, because a Harsha added me on Facebook and if it's not you (as I thought), who added me on Facebook?

I like your name, it's like a god from Morrowind (PC game) hehe.

[Sunya]

How can someone disagree that Buddhism is Hinduism?

The word Hindu means of India.

 

 

umm, because it's not? one has the Vedas as authority while the other does not? you're joking right?

[Sunya]

If there is no afterlife why waste life on empty pleasures? Why not go for tranquility and clarity that last? Drugs do not satisfy, neither does sex, or any material pleasure, for they do not last, so how can someone stay satisfied? But the truth alluded to in the teachings of Buddha does satisfy, for it does last. It is like a food that if you partake of it, you will be full evermore. It is like water that ends thirst forever.

 

I am very sad, indeed tearful at the moment, that this is not more apparent. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. Thanks.

Josh

 

how can tranquility and clarity last if death is complete cessation with no continuation?

 

you need to think more deeply into this matter, as its very important. nothing should be taken on faith, but you're stopping short. how can there be eternal peace if there is no 'after-life' ? afterlife has many meanings to different people, the buddha did hint at the beyond, but just didn't give any concepts about it. Nirvana is non-conceptual. to completely dismiss the true nature of mind which is beyond the physical is merely foolish since you are cutting yourself short and creating a concept that needs to be broken.

 

to say that the physical continuum is the self is wrong because then there would be no difference between your version of Buddha's enlightenment and shooting yourself in the head. since suffering comes from physical existence all one has to do is kill themselves. this has been said before. you cannot have Buddhism without rebirth and karma. the Buddha taught these. you should look into the 5 skhandas which make up the self, and realize that these 5 skhandas are not the 5 senses, there is more to the 5 skhandas than the physical body and brain.

 

as much as you dislike Buddhism and claim to be all about what the Buddha taught, you really don't understand that Buddhism is based on what the Buddha taught. all of Buddhism is method to get you to the realization that Buddha taught himself. unless you get yourself a teacher and stop pretending that you already know what the Buddha taught, you will never truly realize it.

[Josh Young]

you need to think more deeply into this matter, as its very important.

 

Sir, you presume to know what I have or have not thought deeply of. Having read your comment, that you think using a standard definition of Hindu is joking, then I must question your willingness to think deeply yourself on this matter. For example, hindu religions vary and are not one. You say "one has vedas" and yet anyone who has looked briefly into Hinduism knows it is not "one" but many.

 

nothing should be taken on faith, but you're stopping short. how can there be eternal peace if there is no 'after-life' ?

Because eternity is not an infinite time line, it is known through the infinite nature of mind. Where in the teachings of Buddha does he mention things lasting forever?

Nirvana is non-conceptual. to completely dismiss the true nature of mind which is beyond the physical is merely foolish since you are cutting yourself short and creating a concept that needs to be broken.

Where do you get the impression that I dismiss the true nature of mind? Where in Buddhas words is it said there is something beyond the physical? Where in Buddhas words is it said that the physical exists? You have my permission to cease putting words in my mouth. You also have my permission to cease putting words in the mouth of Buddha.

 

to say that the physical continuum is the self is wrong because then there would be no difference between your version of Buddha's enlightenment and shooting yourself in the head.

You must be joking. You either do not understand what I have said, or do not understand firearms. I am leaning towards the former.

since suffering comes from physical existence all one has to do is kill themselves.

If suffering comes from physical existence, then even rocks suffer. Where does Buddha say that the physical exists? Where does he say that it is the cause of suffering?

you cannot have Buddhism without rebirth and karma.

I have neither rejected rebirth nor Karma. That you presume I have is insightful. If you had read my posts, which i do not think you have, you would note that I included rebirth and karma in my view.

you should look into the 5 skhandas which make up the self, and realize that these 5 skhandas are not the 5 senses, there is more to the 5 skhandas than the physical body and brain.

Please tell me, what texts are the these in?

 

I have a book called The Teachings of Buddha, but sadly it does not contain the teachings of Buddha, just the teachings of Buddhism. Still I offer this from it:

If one carefully considers all the facts, one must be convinced that at the basis of all suffering lies the principal of craving desire, if avarice can be removed, human suffering will come to an end. That is from the section on Dependant Origination.

It does not say suffering is from existence or that to exist is to suffer. But more to the point, what is to exist? Tell me: what exists?

 

as much as you dislike Buddhism and claim to be all about what the Buddha taught, you really don't understand that Buddhism is based on what the Buddha taught.

My honest opinion about your words here is not one I choose to share. You say I claim to be "all about" the teachings of Buddha, but I only said I love them. It is clear to me you have not considered my words honestly. You do not understand: what I understand. As far as what else you may or may not understand, I cannot know, for I am only a man at a keyboard and am not all knowing.

 

 

all of Buddhism is method to get you to the realization that Buddha taught himself.

Is that what you believe?

A method is a formula, you are saying a formula/method exist for enlightenment and that the formula is Buddhism. I am saying that is not true, that the Buddha taught that there is no formula/method. I can quote him if that is what you need, but since I did before and you ignored it I will not do it automatically.

 

unless you get yourself a teacher and stop pretending that you already know what the Buddha taught, you will never truly realize it.

You presume much.

 

Who was the teacher of the Buddha?

Why am I not entitled to the same?

 

You have shown me much about yourself. I do not think continuing our conversation on this will be productive for either of us. Please forgive me, for I place greater trust in the wisdom of the teachings of Buddha, which I find insightful and coherent, than I do in your opinion or any method.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Josh Young

[Sunya]

Edited July 11, 2009 by mikaelz

[Pero]

The price we pay for vice is in this life.

 

That's what you think. I think that's true, but we "pay" for vice in other lives and from other lives also.

 

If you are just going to be born again why not drink cheat, steal and kill? If you believe you will have another life then what does it matter?

 

Because of karma, and endless rebirth into this suffering.

 

If we believe that others are born again, why fear killing them?

 

Karma and why cause more suffering?

 

Why have any compassion at all?

 

Oh believe me, sometimes I wonder about compassion (for some people at least...), but not because of the things you say. In any case I'm not very compassionate.

 

 

If there is no afterlife why waste life on empty pleasures? Why not go for tranquility and clarity that last?

 

That sounds eternalistic.

 

I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

 

I don't see why anything you have said would offend someone.

 

 

Anyway you make very good points.

 

 

edit: have to go away from posting for some time now.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Pero

[Josh Young]

mikaelz,

should I presume to tell you what you do and do not understand?

 

You say there is a path and a method, but Buddha said there was not.

His teachings make perfect sense to me, yours do not.

 

I wish you clarity and insight.

 

I may be wrong about the teachings of Buddha, however I may be right. I cannot know and do not care. What I have found in the teachings changed my life profoundly for the better.

 

Pero,

I disagree with you about the topic. I do not "behave" out of fear of Karma. I behave because of the direct benefit upon my life. I do not mean to tell people they are wrong, merely to share what I understand, which is a view that is the subject of misunderstanding in this thread. That is to say that I have yet to see a response that addresses what I said and believe.

 

I said for example that i do not believe in an afterlife. This does not mean that I believe there is not an afterlife, which is a different belief.

When asked what happens when we die, i replied that i do not presume to know. And yet people are saying that I said there is no afterlife. At this pace I am wasting my time sharing my beliefs, because they are not being considered.

 

Buddhism cannot be called Hinduism because it doesn't take the Vedas as authority

That is redefining Hinduism.

 

I have yet to see any nihilism anywhere on this forum.

 

 

to imply that there is no after-life, and if that is so.. then physical existence has to be the cause of suffering. because there cannot be a pre-life if there is no after-life. consciousness is then just a byproduct of brain and suffering is merely its natural function. thus, then, killing yourself is a pretty good option. no?

If there is no pre-life or after-life then how does that entail that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain? Consciousness could be a fundamental part of the universe and there could still be no pre and post life existence.

 

It does not follow that killing self is a good option. Nor does it resemble the enlightenment I speak of.

[ZenStatic]

I disagree with you about the topic. I do not "behave" out of fear of Karma. I behave because of the direct benefit upon my life.

 

Just wanted to point out, that your thoughts on karma are rather confused. Your "behaving" for the direct benefit to your life, is karma. Karma is not just something for when people do "wrong", it is a simple matter of action -> result. It's not somthing that can be feared, unless one fears any and all actions one may ever take.

[Josh Young]

Good point. I should have written that I do not behave out of fear of karmic punishment. For example I don't lie because it makes things so much more simple to be truthful. I don't steal because it does not serve my purposes and I like being trustworthy.

 

I can see this as a type of karma as you point out.

 

In the context of the topic though it was implied that some people behave our of fear of the Karmic results, as opposed to doing things for their own sake. Not stealing because you don't like stealing feels better than not stealing because of fear of getting caught.

 

Those who do good out of desire of reward, are not doing good at all.

You can't chase after Bhakti.

 

I do not believe in action---> result as many do.

What I do believe is that all actions are results and all results are actions.

There is no fundamental difference between cause and effect, other than semantics.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Josh Young

[ZenStatic]

I do not believe in action---> result as many do.

 

Well, since you claim to follow the Buddha's teachings, here is some reading for you to get yourself in line with them if you wish.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html#causes

[Lucky7Strikes]

My 2 cents...

 

Karma is an illusion. Just like you sitting there...so a very real one.

 

The cycle of cause and effect itself is also an illusion. Although it "happens."

 

As long as you are stuck in the delusional realm of karma, you will reap the benefits.

 

And,

 

No method is also a method. It's just a matter of perspective.

 

You mentioned that you have a book on Buddhism but not one of a primary source...does that mean you've never actually read what the Buddha taught? Just curious....

[forestofemptiness]

Karma is also very real. Step out in front of a car, you'll get hit.

 

I've been researching madhyamaka philosophy lately, and find the two truth model to be helpful. Ultimately, there may be no golden chain that links cause with effect, yet conventionally, the universe behaves as though there is.

 

My 2 cents...

 

Karma is an illusion. Just like you sitting there...so a very real one.

 

The cycle of cause and effect itself is also an illusion. Although it "happens."

 

As long as you are stuck in the delusional realm of karma, you will reap the benefits.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Buddhism is not a teaching of Buddha that I am aware of.

 

 

What your not aware of is that the Buddha taught for 40 years in so many ways, each way suited for that particular audience. He started a monastic tradition and a lay tradition. The Buddha DID set out to create a specific type of spiritual tradition, a religion if you will.

 

 

So yes, Buddhism is taught by the Buddha.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Karma is also very real. Step out in front of a car, you'll get hit.

 

I've been researching madhyamaka philosophy lately, and find the two truth model to be helpful. Ultimately, there may be no golden chain that links cause with effect, yet conventionally, the universe behaves as though there is.

 

True that. It'll still hurt when you get hit. .

[Vajrahridaya]

You learn, then move on. When you're learning you should always keep this in mind. I have a bit of dislike for those who think they will become enlightened only under a master. It's not about Hinduism and Buddhism, but rather your approach to spiritual practices that I am questioning.

 

Everything you say screams attachment to Buddhism and even to Dependent Origination.

 

Your entitled to your opinion. The only real Masters that I know of had Master teachers.

 

The Buddha had master Hindu teachers before he found a deeper realization.

 

How can one have attachment to dependent origination? I do think your projecting dear sir.

 

I'm just clear about what it means and what it doesn't mean. I'm not a new age, follow my own way because my ego is great type of guy. I'm a my ego is strong so I need to humble myself to a really great teacher who has real knowledge and realization type of guy.

 

I'm a Vajrayana practictioner... and that's just what we do. It's such a blessed path to have sooooo many realized Masters too. It must work, eh?

 

Edited July 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your entitled to your opinion. The only real Masters that I know of had Master teachers.

 

The Buddha had master Hindu teachers before he found a deeper realization.

 

How can one have attachment to dependent origination? I do think your projecting dear sir.

 

I'm just clear about what it means and what it doesn't mean. I'm not a new age, follow my own way because my ego is great type of guy. I'm a my ego is strong so I need to humble myself to a really great teacher who has real knowledge and realization type of guy.

 

I'm a Vajrayana practictioner... and that's just what we do. It's such a blessed path to have sooooo many realized Masters too. It must work, eh?

 

 

Well when you write so much about it (D.O.) repetitively, one has to guess that you are attached to the theory. I guess it's really hard to convey an attitude through written words in this case.

 

Haha, your ego is a great type of guy...so says your other ego...

 

Humbling yourself to a great teacher...hmm...sounds dangerous!

 

"New age" has its pitfalls, but IMHO you shouldn't get so caught up in tradition. Perhaps the vajrayana school has had its masters...but what school doesn't? And master of what? Their own sect? Figures...

 

I didn't mean to say one shouldn't study under a teacher. But the world does need people to carry tradition on I guess...

[ralis]

Your entitled to your opinion. The only real Masters that I know of had Master teachers.

 

The Buddha had master Hindu teachers before he found a deeper realization.

 

How can one have attachment to dependent origination? I do think your projecting dear sir.

 

I'm just clear about what it means and what it doesn't mean. I'm not a new age, follow my own way because my ego is great type of guy. I'm a my ego is strong so I need to humble myself to a really great teacher who has real knowledge and realization type of guy.

 

I'm a Vajrayana practictioner... and that's just what we do. It's such a blessed path to have sooooo many realized Masters too. It must work, eh?

 

 

Associating the term Hindu at the time of the Buddha is incorrect. The use of the term Hindu is absent in early Indian literature. That term only applied historically to people living along the Indus river and did not apply to a set of spiritual practices or religion.

 

Your ideology around a "deeper realization" only can be stated as a contrasting argument of Buddhism vs. Hinduism. A naive argument at best. Until you realize both paths, you have no basis with which to compare. Your arguments are no more than expressions of religious fundamentalism at best. In other words "my religion is better than yours".

 

 

ralis