Religious/spiritual books written in our modern times.

[Spirit of Light]

When we look at religioues or spiritual bookes there is a lot to choose from in bookstores today.

But a question that comes to mind is. Why do people buy this modern books instead of reading the original teaching from the religions they follow? The original teachings contain all there is to gain wisdom so to reach the goal in any religion. So why do so many to buy books written by ordenary people of today?

There are original spiritual teaching of today too, like Falun Gong but Jone of the practitioners would try to make their own books from their understanding of the teaching in Zhuan Falun. That is Very clear and would be underminding our teacher.

 

[Secret Chief]

It doesn't have to be either/or.
The original may perhaps benefit from analysis, explanation, commentary.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It doesn't have to be either/or.
The original may perhaps benefit from analysis, explanation, commentary.

Well, who made the commentary? Were they enlightened so the would understand the true meaning of the original teaching?
Do they need analyse a text that hold the truth? And the explenation is it a personal understanding or the understanding of the teacher/founder of the spiritual path?

 

[exchemist]

When we look at religioues or spiritual bookes there is a lot to choose from in bookstores today.

But a question that comes to mind is. Why do people buy this modern books instead of reading the original teaching from the religions they follow? The original teachings contain all there is to gain wisdom so to reach the goal in any religion. So why do so many to buy books written by ordenary people of today?

There are original spiritual teaching of today too, like Falun Gong but Jone of the practitioners would try to make their own books from their understanding of the teaching in Zhuan Falun. That is Very clear and would be underminding our teacher.

Because what you assume is not what people actually think. The original teachings do not contain all there is to gain wisdom and reach the goal.

For centuries, clerics, scholars and religious people have devoted their lives to pondering the significance and implications of scriptures and recording insights, guidance and doctrines derived from this. These are considered to contain wisdom and to be a help to reach the goal.

Furthermore it is not the case that all versions of all religions believe that everything in the religion has to come solely from original scripture. The Christian church believed (at least until the Reformation) that the tradition established by the preaching and writing of the apostles and their successors (through ordination) also constituted a living and evolving source of teaching, complementing the original scriptures.

 

[Sirona]

Religions are generally not protected by copyright, probably with one exception, Scientology. So if one wants to publish their ideas about a particular religion or world-view (given they don't violate copyright), they have a right to do so under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

 

[exchemist]

Well, who made the commentary? Were they enlightened so the would understand the true meaning of the original teaching?
Do they need analyse a text that hold the truth? And the explenation is it a personal understanding or the understanding of the teacher/founder of the spiritual path?

The intelligent reader can work out for himself whether the ideas seem valuable, just as with any literary criticism or scientific speculation, for example. All part of the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Because what you assume is not what people actually think. The original teachings do not contain all there is to gain wisdom and reach the goal.

For centuries, clerics, scholars and religious people have devoted their lives to pondering the significance and implications of scriptures and recording insights, guidance and doctrines derived from this. These are considered to contain wisdom and to be a help to reach the goal.

Furthermore it is not the case that all versions of all religions believe that everything in the religion has to come solely from original scripture. The Christian church believed (at least until the Reformation) that the tradition established by the preaching and writing of the apostles and their successors (through ordination) also constituted a living and evolving source of teaching, complementing the original scriptures.

I did not assume
How can someone who are on a lower level of wisdom then the original teacher believe they understand the teaching same ør better, so they can add something of value to the teaching?

In Falun Gong as a practitioners we can not and will not even change or removes one single words to the teaching, because it has been made the original way on purpose to make it possible for us to reach consumation. If we change or add our own interpretation to it, it would be to damage the teaching, and our own chance to gain wisdom.

I do not understand why this is not in other paths too.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The intelligent reader can work out for himself whether the ideas seem valuable, just as with any literary criticism or scientific speculation, for example. All part of the marketplace of ideas.

Why mix science in to the spiritual practice?

 

[Secret Chief]

@Amanaki

I can only speak about Buddhism of which I have some little understanding, as I believe you do. Buddhism is not a "revealed" religion, it is not inerrant. Of course there is the Pali canon, but there are also many other texts considered foundational which were written after the death of Siddhartha Gautama, such as the Mahayana sutras; Heart, Diamond, Lotus etc. The Buddha is not the be all and end all of the Buddhist project, it is ongoing - for new places, new times and new peoples. For example, the teachings of Dogen; teaching and writing in 13th century Japan. And personally, without analysis, explanation and commentary from others, Dogen would have remained rather opaque to me.

It seems, from what you say, Falun Gong is very different; essentially an inerrant teaching - which is fine - but such an approach is not common to all, of course. I would find such an approach problematical because it implicitly communicates that one should not critically evaluate the teaching.

 

[exchemist]

I did not assume
How can someone who are on a lower level of wisdom then the original teacher believe they understand the teaching same ør better, so they can add something of value to the teaching?

In Falun Gong as a practitioners we can not and will not even change or removes one single words to the teaching, because it has been made the original way on purpose to make it possible for us to reach consumation. If we change or add our own interpretation to it, it would be to damage the teaching, and our own chance to gain wisdom.

I do not understand why this is not in other paths too.

Well, yes you did make that assumption, actually. What you said was: " The original teachings contain all there is to gain wisdom so to reach the goal in any religion". That is untrue, as I have explained.

Many people can add something of value to religious teaching, irrespective of the level of enlightenment they are deemed to have, simply by applying the teaching in a new circumstance, or by considering what the original teaching may imply.

In the case of Christianity, even the scriptures themselves include words written by many different people. (In fact there are no words at all written down by the teacher, Christ, himself.) The words of scripture are considered to contain divine inspiration, in spite of the multiplicity of writers and the span of history over which they wrote. Furthermore, the Christian church did not assume that that all divine inspiration just stopped with the death of St Peter and St Paul. The Church believed it was carried on in their spiritual successors.

Regarding Falun Gong, it seems to me that a religion that does not allow its adherents to read the ideas of others about how to interpret and apply their beliefs is doomed to be a dead religion, fit only for unthinking people. I find it hard to believe this can be true of Falun Gong. Are you not allowed to meet and discuss the teaching of your faith? If you are, why would it be a bad thing to record these discussions and publish them for others to benefit from?

 

[exchemist]

Why mix science in to the spiritual practice?

I chose scientific speculations and literary criticism as examples of other arenas where ideas that are not part of a pre-existing body of teaching may be valuable.

 

[Spirit of Light]

@Amanaki

I can only speak about Buddhism of which I have some little understanding, as I believe you do. Buddhism is not a "revealed" religion, it is not inerrant. Of course there is the Pali canon, but there are also many other texts considered foundational which were written after the death of Siddhartha Gautama, such as the Mahayana sutras; Heart, Diamond, Lotus etc. The Buddha is not the be all and end all of the Buddhist project, it is ongoing - for new places, new times and new peoples. For example, the teachings of Dogen; teaching and writing in 13th century Japan. And personally, without analysis, explanation and commentary from others, Dogen would have remained rather opaque to me.

It seems, from what you say, Falun Gong is very different; essentially an inerrant teaching - which is fine - but such an approach is not common to all, of course. I would find such an approach problematical because it implicitly communicates that one should not critically evaluate the teaching.

My understanding of Buddha Sakyamuni teachings is that it only contained 5 precepts, 8 folded path and 4 noble truth. Everything else in the Suttas was from others, not from the Buddha him self. So all the teaching needed to enlighten is in those 3 aspects i mention

In Falun Gong we should of course think for us self and not be a slave to the teaching, but we do not need to add our own thinking to the teaching, so we should not say this is what Falun Gong t each, then use our own understanding of the teaching, if we say something from the teaching we can do two things.

Say: in my understanding it means this.....
Or say, our teacher say this, then quote it from the teaching, that way we do not damage the teaching.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I did not assume
How can someone who are on a lower level of wisdom then the original teacher believe they understand the teaching same ør better, so they can add something of value to the teaching?

In Falun Gong as a practitioners we can not and will not even change or removes one single words to the teaching, because it has been made the original way on purpose to make it possible for us to reach consumation. If we change or add our own interpretation to it, it would be to damage the teaching, and our own chance to gain wisdom.

I do not understand why this is not in other paths too.

Whether people place it in writing or not, they interpret the original teaching.

 

[Secret Chief]

My understanding of Buddha Sakyamuni teachings is that it only contained 5 precepts, 8 folded path and 4 noble truth. Everything else in the Suttas was from others, not from the Buddha him self. So all the teaching needed to enlighten is in those 3 aspects i mention

Those three are indeed central to Buddhism. According to the oldest extant Buddhist tradition, the Theravada, the Pali canon is "The Word of the Buddha"; containing all of his teachings and disciples. It was maintained orally and eventually recorded. The canon is of course very long and contains much more than the three aspects you named. Off the top of my head, other foundational aspects are dependent origination (and the 12 links thereof) and the three marks of existence. There may be more! >>>

 

[Spirit of Light]

Those three are indeed central to Buddhism. According to the oldest extant Buddhist tradition, the Theravada, the Pali canon is "The Word of the Buddha"; containing all of his teachings and disciples. It was maintained orally and eventually recorded. The canon is of course very long and contains much more than the three aspects you named. Off the top of my head, other foundational aspects are dependent origination (and the 12 links thereof) and the three marks of existence. There may be more! >>>

View attachment 40253

I was a theravadin my self for 20 years so yes i know that the total Canon was se en as Buddhas words, i do not agree on this part of Theravada buddhism, maybe a reason i converted to Falun Gong

 

[Secret Chief]

I can't quite reconcile

In Falun Gong we should of course think for us self

with

we do not need to add our own thinking

?

 

[Secret Chief]

I was a theravadin my self for 20 years so yes i know that the total Canon was se en as Buddhas words, i do not agree on this part of Theravada buddhism, maybe a reason i converted to Falun Gong

Yes, it was not for you, in the end.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I can't quite reconcile

with

?

We can ponder about the teaching, but not add our thought to the teaching and think that our thoughts are better then the teaching. So no matter how much i realize the truth, it will not be able to replace any of the teaching given by Li Hongzhi

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Thread locked pending moderator review​

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Thread moved to General Religious Debates and unlocked.​