Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Then don't become a Buddhist it is that simple.
"Nirvana is the highest happiness." Says the Lord Buddha. To help others to reach the Highest happiness is a worthy goal in my simple estimation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Enlighten Was Buddha
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
Then don't become a Buddhist it is that simple.
"Nirvana is the highest happiness." Says the Lord Buddha. To help others to reach the Highest happiness is a worthy goal in my simple estimation.
I am acquainted with the basics of Buddihsm but am by no means a scholar. It strikes me how very knowledgeable Buddhists can have vigourous debates over so many topics. It makes me wonder how much we really now of the teachings of the historical Buddha. As I understand, Buddha like Jesus, never wrote his teachings. That was done decades after their deaths. I wonder in both cases if various schools of thought were present decades after their death and all that we know about their teachings is tinted by the different schools of thought.
Any Buddhist people wish to comment on this please.
Any Buddhist people wish to comment on this please.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I agree with that statement 100%.
People like Jesus or Buddha are just people and people have flaws and to assert that your particular flavor of savior is flawless is just ridiculous religiosity
Well to clarify, that statement was about the "old school philosophers" I was talking about. The ones that didn't claim to be anything other than a person. Wise they may have been, they were still susceptible to misinformation.
I see little reason to believe that the Buddha was anything other than a person as well, but that particular statement was about the philosophers.
I don't think the misogynist label can be placed on the Buddha.
It's misleading to judge people of other cultures and times on western 21st century political correctness. Certainly women's rights were nowhere near the central teachings of the Buddha. I'm sure basically all people in his culture had beliefs that are not 21st century politically correct regarding women.
Imagine someone in the 27th century labeling someone in the 21st century as unenlightend because we are at odds with 27th century political corectness. (for example, possibly our treatment of farm animals, possibly our environmental wastefullness, who knows)
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
If he was merely a child of his times with the same attitudes of those of his times then to me he still doesn't seem very enlighten.
Tathagata
Freethinker
The Buddha left his wife and child to live in luxury in a palace. How terrible! How did they survive!
The Buddha went on a mission to seek enlightenment and end all suffering and you have nothing but scorn for him? If anyone was in the prefect position to do this it would be the Buddha. His family was taken care of. Also, he returned to his family, he didn't leave them forever. I bet you have nothing but scorn for the men who put their lives on the line in the battlefield in World War II because they left their wife and kids. It's not like the Buddha was a deadbeat dad, he left for a cause for the benefit of mankind.
.
.
.
.
The Buddha went on a mission to seek enlightenment and end all suffering and you have nothing but scorn for him? If anyone was in the prefect position to do this it would be the Buddha. His family was taken care of. Also, he returned to his family, he didn't leave them forever. I bet you have nothing but scorn for the men who put their lives on the line in the battlefield in World War II because they left their wife and kids. It's not like the Buddha was a deadbeat dad, he left for a cause for the benefit of mankind.
.
.
.
.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Hyperbole much?
Tathagata
Freethinker
The Buddha was not mysoginistic. He had rules in the sangha to protect women because he knew they were physically weaker, not intellectually weaker. For example, they couldn't wander far off into the wilderness alone.
"The Buddha admitted there was no reason a woman could not be enlightened. "Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship.""
Women and the Buddha -- what the Buddha taught about women
.
.
"The Buddha admitted there was no reason a woman could not be enlightened. "Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship.""
Women and the Buddha -- what the Buddha taught about women
.
.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
dear george ananda ,
Having practiced buddhism for many years before coming to the vaisnava tradition, I understand your feeling there are many schools and many sometimes contradictory teachings and the argumrnts between schools over texts and practice were enough to put me off. however I feel that one can benifit greatly by sticking to the core teachings the four knoble truths and the eight fold path , as by perfection of the eight fold path one accheives all the teachings and may attain enlightenment by this practice alone . as it was the original discourse given by lord buddha I rely upon it above all texts, it has been handed down in all traditions as the core teaching . each tradition then has later discourses of lord buddha , first handed down , then written at a later date some centurys later . it is therefore difficult to safely vouch that they are the true words of lord buddha .
personaly I feel that each tradition has taken on a new character again as it has been taken up in the west , as you say "Tinted by " the different schools of thought it meets on the way , therefore it is constantly changing in small increments as it meets with other philosophies , there is a great danger that the orriginal message will be altered beyond the point which it was intended to convey , it is for this reason that I would stress the importance of reliance on the eight fold path
Having practiced buddhism for many years before coming to the vaisnava tradition, I understand your feeling there are many schools and many sometimes contradictory teachings and the argumrnts between schools over texts and practice were enough to put me off. however I feel that one can benifit greatly by sticking to the core teachings the four knoble truths and the eight fold path , as by perfection of the eight fold path one accheives all the teachings and may attain enlightenment by this practice alone . as it was the original discourse given by lord buddha I rely upon it above all texts, it has been handed down in all traditions as the core teaching . each tradition then has later discourses of lord buddha , first handed down , then written at a later date some centurys later . it is therefore difficult to safely vouch that they are the true words of lord buddha .
if you compare traditions it is easy to see that each has taken on its own character and the teachings very much reflect the culture and mentality of each comunity in which buddhism became established .Tibetan buddhism being highly influenced by indian mahayana buddhism and non buddhist tantric traditions , whilst retaining elements of the indiginous bon tradition , whilst theravada has a distinctly different flavor allthough relying on much the same original teachings it has fostered a very different motivation and application .
personaly I feel that each tradition has taken on a new character again as it has been taken up in the west , as you say "Tinted by " the different schools of thought it meets on the way , therefore it is constantly changing in small increments as it meets with other philosophies , there is a great danger that the orriginal message will be altered beyond the point which it was intended to convey , it is for this reason that I would stress the importance of reliance on the eight fold path
Seems that as the story goes Buddha didn't have a problem with women as much as the times he lived in had. He was aware of it but still ordained women which beat out those times to the point that Buddha thought it would hurt the cause. Same with any religion, if they are too outlandish for the times it wouldn't still be around today. The rules were a bit much though but I'm just shocked he ordained them in the first place.
This is why I prefer the Dakini tradition and it's Tantra teachings in Tibetan Buddhism.
There is more to the story than simple monastic segregation and cultural sexism. A lot of esoteric writings tell the stories of women establishing lineages, textual discourse, monasteries, and even some duties on the part of men that could be argued as misandrist.
The patriarchal texts and practices have been popularized and have lasted for millennia because patriarchy is much more accepted globally across cultures.
There is more to the story than simple monastic segregation and cultural sexism. A lot of esoteric writings tell the stories of women establishing lineages, textual discourse, monasteries, and even some duties on the part of men that could be argued as misandrist.
The patriarchal texts and practices have been popularized and have lasted for millennia because patriarchy is much more accepted globally across cultures.
Thank you Ratikala......It's nice to hear my impressions are generally shared by a knowledgeable person.
We're on the same wavelength. The basics of Buddhism are very good. You can't go wrong with the four noble truths and the eight-fold path.
But some of the metaphysical speculations and difficult scriptures lose me. I see thread debates that look like two enemies rather than two Buddhists and both sides lose me in their complicated scriptures with so many terms unfamiliar to us western-borns. Ego's, ego's in debate
I'm content to 'keep it simple, stupid' with Buddhism.
Nooj
none
Why not?
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I would like to reframe your statement, to men being more violent and abduction being a stronger motive towards females then males. That aside, your point is right on the mark. If woman were to walk all over the place. Only having a safe place to go during the monsoon. There life would be full of danger.
Last edited:
Chisti
Active Member
ratikala
Istha gosthi
dear george ananda ,
it has been handed down that lord buddha had prophecised that the buddhist doctrine or tradition that held the doctrine , would decline to the point where it had lost its streength , however different traditions impute different timescales for this decline some giving a period of 2500 years , and others 5000 years . however it is not difficuly to see that as different traditions slowly cover the core teachings by infering importance on other texts and practices , that the core teachings will become lost and that buddhism will take on a character which departs from its original nature .
to my mind there is a great difference between adherance to the principles of the doctrine , and attatchment to ones veiw of the doctrine .
it was the latter dogmatic approach that caused me to abandon buddism and takt up the vaisnava path , however I consider my self no less a buddhist as I keep the precepts and still practice the eight fold path , I am simply free from the "isms ".
however I salute all buddhists who have managed to maintain the simplicity and beauty of the true doctrine .
it has been handed down that lord buddha had prophecised that the buddhist doctrine or tradition that held the doctrine , would decline to the point where it had lost its streength , however different traditions impute different timescales for this decline some giving a period of 2500 years , and others 5000 years . however it is not difficuly to see that as different traditions slowly cover the core teachings by infering importance on other texts and practices , that the core teachings will become lost and that buddhism will take on a character which departs from its original nature .
My personal feeling is that there is a great danger of attatching to a veiw or doctrine , where by it takes on a quite different nature to the original meaning . and by attatching in this way , what is thought to be an act of reverence for the word of lord buddha becomes schisms within the sangha .where as the whole idea of attatchment or fixed veiw should be alien to buddhist thought .But some of the metaphysical speculations and difficult scriptures lose me. I see thread debates that look like two enemies rather than two Buddhists and both sides lose me in their complicated scriptures with so many terms unfamiliar to us western-borns. Ego's, ego's in debate
I'm content to 'keep it simple, stupid' with Buddhism.
to my mind there is a great difference between adherance to the principles of the doctrine , and attatchment to ones veiw of the doctrine .
it was the latter dogmatic approach that caused me to abandon buddism and takt up the vaisnava path , however I consider my self no less a buddhist as I keep the precepts and still practice the eight fold path , I am simply free from the "isms ".
however I salute all buddhists who have managed to maintain the simplicity and beauty of the true doctrine .
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Thats why practice itself is what should be addressed and everything else a grain of salt.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
That is a good question.
It could be the majority of one particular school, of most schools, all schools, or almost none from any of the schools.
So what are you striving for?