Secular Buddhism

[crossfire]

Actually, the poll indicates that there are three who admit to obsession.

So traditionalists are obsessives? That's a new one!

If you would care to read the posts and the suttas, you would understand that I was referring to identification/classification going according to obsession. Whatever.

"Monk, whatever one stays obsessed with, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified. Whatever one doesn't stay obsessed with, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified."

So classifications/identifications are according to ones obsessions.
The obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the obsession of ignorance.​

 

[Ablaze]

Actually, the poll indicates that there are three who admit to obsession.

So traditionalists are obsessives? That's a new one!

The last time I checked, "three who admit to obsession" does not mean "traditionalists are obsessives." Obsessions about any identity, whether traditionalist, conventional, secular, atheist, or otherwise, is a type of obsession to be done away with through the practice, which is what the Buddha teaches in the Bhikkhu Sutta (SN 22.36) and throughout the Pali Canon.

 

[DreadFish]

I'd just go with whatever crossfire and Ablaze say

Now if they start arguing, i'll be totally lost :thud:

Anyway, yeah, if we have to define what Buddhism is, it's about as simple accepting the 2 things to be develouped, the 3 marks of existence, the 4 noble truths, the 5 aggregates, the 6 senses, the 7 factors of enlightenment and the noble 8-fold path. Then if we skip a few numbers, there are also the 10 perfections, the 12 links of dependent-origination, the 37 factors of enlightenment and the 84 mahasiddhas. You also have to figure out the rule to that last sequence of numbers. What's the missing number?

After you get through mastering all of that, you'll probably get hit by a car, then die and forget about all of it and have to start over again somewhere else

Good luck!

 

[crossfire]

I'd just go with whatever crossfire and Ablaze say

Now if they start arguing, i'll be totally lost :thud:

Don't want to lose you, Dreadfish! (Don't worry, I don't plan on arguing with Ablaze.)

What's the missing number?

108. (Beads on a mala.) I don't know what they mean, so it is 108 things (at least) that I'm ignorant of!

I wiki'd 108 (number)

Pretty interesting!

 

[DreadFish]

Don't want to lose you, Dreadfish! (Don't worry, I don't plan on arguing with Ablaze.)

108. (Beads on a mala.) I don't know what they mean, so it is 108 things (at least) that I'm ignorant of!

I wiki'd 108 (number)

Pretty interesting!

You got it! Are you enlightened now?

 

[crossfire]

You got it! Are you enlightened now?

LOL! No. I found out that there are 108 delusions/forms of ignorance, though. (according to a web source) :help:

 

[DreadFish]

LOL! No. I found out that there are 108 delusions/forms of ignorance, though. (according to a web source) :help:

Shoot! So, like, thinking about the discursive details and conceptual semantics didn't reveal the secrets of reality to you?

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

If you would care to read the posts and the suttas, you would understand that I was referring to identification/classification going according to obsession. Whatever.

clasification can , and in this case is merely observation , there is no obsession from my side , it was just something I had observed over my time of practice .

"Monk, whatever one stays obsessed with, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified. Whatever one doesn't stay obsessed with, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified."
So classifications/identifications are according to ones obsessions.
The obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the obsession of ignorance.

it seems that you impute obsession on to the minds of others ..? rather than seeking to understand them ?

Originally Posted by crossfire
Actually, the poll indicates that there are three who admit to obsession.

after all who knows we might be seeing something to which you are blind ?

 

[ratikala]

LOL! No. I found out that there are 108 delusions/forms of ignorance, though. (according to a web source) :help:

I thought it was 84,000 deluded states of mind , therefore there would be 84,000forms of ignorance , .......

 

[DreadFish]

I thought it was 84,000 deluded states of mind , therefore there would be 84,000forms of ignorance , .......

Good job, those are the next numbers in the sequence!


Now all you guys need to do is get your decoder rings and use them to decode the sequence of numbers to reveal enlightenment!

 

[ratikala]

Good job, those are the next numbers in the sequence!


Now all you guys need to do is get your decoder rings and use them to decode the sequence of numbers to reveal enlightenment!

Ha ... it is simple ask a tibetan ....84,000 deluded states of mind is a lot to deal with so reduce it by encapsulation to 21 , (stages on the path) ...21 meditations , .....devide 21 by 7 (my favorite number , ...pure coincidence or intuition?) ...which leaved 3 poisons , ....A lot easier to study , observe their distructive nature from a point of no self , there you have it , .....nirvana

 

[DreadFish]

Ha ... it is simple ask a tibetan ....84,000 deluded states of mind is a lot to deal with so reduce it by encapsulation to 21 , (stages on the path) ...21 meditations , .....devide 21 by 7 (my favorite number , ...pure coincidence or intuition?) ...which leaved 3 poisons , ....A lot easier to study , observe their distructive nature from a point of no self , there you have it , .....nirvana

Well, send me a post card when you get there

 

[Ablaze]

Ha ... it is simple ask a tibetan ....84,000 deluded states of mind is a lot to deal with so reduce it by encapsulation to 21 , (stages on the path) ...21 meditations , .....devide 21 by 7 (my favorite number , ...pure coincidence or intuition?) ...which leaved 3 poisons , ....A lot easier to study , observe their distructive nature from a point of no self , there you have it , .....nirvana

Why can't 1 + 1 = nirvana? If only it was that easy.

 

[ratikala]

Why can't 1 + 1 = nirvana?

Ha ha more like 1-1= nirvana , .....

If only it was that easy.

but it is , ......surrender

 

[LuisDantas]

Unsure as to the difference. Are you sure there is any?

 

[ratikala]

namaste luis :namaste

Unsure as to the difference. Are you sure there is any?

thank you for replying ,
it seems that some think that there is no need for distinctions between traditional buddhist thought and some of the more recent accretionsand adaptations .I am merly attempting to bring awareness to what we are beliving and where it came from ,
I am out of time now but will return to it later .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you would care to read the posts and the suttas, you would understand that I was referring to identification/classification going according to obsession.

If you're saying attachment to views is a hindrance, then, yes, I agree. But identifying oneself with a particular school of thought as in this thread doesn't imply attachment to views, or "obsession".

If I asked "Do you identify with Buddhism" and you said "Yes", that wouldn't make you obsessive.

Sorry, I still think this point is tangential and off-topic, a red herring - perhaps a way of trying to shut down a discussion which some find uncomfortable?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The last time I checked, "three who admit to obsession" does not mean "traditionalists are obsessives."

But it does imply that people identifying themselves as traditionalists in this poll are obsessives.
I think you're point-scoring and nit-picking. Could we please return to the topic now?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

it seems that some think that there is no need for distinctions between traditional buddhist thought and some of the more recent accretionsand adaptations .

Clearly there are differences. Just as there are differences between the various schools and sub-schools of Buddhism.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

For a time, while I wouldn't identify myself as a secular Buddhist, I did like the idea. In some ways, I still do. It's a way to help westerners who may be interested in Buddhism accept it without having to go into the more religious aspects of it, and maybe, at some point, come to more fully accept Buddhism as a whole.

However, the more I thought about it, the less I liked the idea of secular Buddhism. If you can accept the Buddha's teachings on things like meditation, and the workings of the mind, and Buddhist ethics, then why reject the teachings on things like rebirth and karma? These are part and parcel of the teachings, and cannot be separated. The system works as a coherent whole. Get rid of one of it's parts, and, like removing a part of a car's engine, the whole thing stops working.