''The Validity of Opposing veiws in Buddhism ''

[ratikala]

namaskaram , ...

as in all religious traditions opposing veiws frequently occur , ....

it is my veiw that these differences are natural and if properly investigated can help us to reach a better understanding .

I would politely ask all participants to refrain from attempting to rule others out of the conversation by calling them non Buddhist , .....

if any one would like to start by raising what they feel to be a commonly opposing veiw please go ahaead , if not I will start with one this evening , .....

 

[Lyndon]

I think a lot of the conflict with Secular Buddhism, is people bringing Western non religious ideas to their Buddhism, and then claiming that their pre existing Western non religious ideas are somehow part of Buddhism, when nothing could be further from the truth of what traditional Buddhism is.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think I have to present anything, it's obvious to me, that many would likely be upset, at how I view Buddhism. The thing is, it's a broad label, really. If people want their own school to be the only legit form of Buddhism, then they can state as such

 

[Lyndon]

But you can't insert ideas that having nothing to do with ANY established school of Buddhism, and then try to claim you are a true Buddhist, and the traditional Buddhists are " non Buddhist". For what its worth Ratikala seems to be as close as I can see to a 'real" traditional Buddhist on this forum, and she is highly criticized for just that reason, not everyone that calls themselves Buddhist is actually following any kind of traditional Buddhist thought.

 

[Desert Snake]

But you can't insert ideas that having nothing to do with ANY established school of Buddhism, and then try to claim you are a true Buddhist, and the traditional Buddhists are " non Buddhist". For what its worth Ratikala seems to be as close as I can see to a 'real" traditional Buddhist on this forum, and she is highly criticized for just that reason, not everyone that calls themselves Buddhist is actually following any kind of traditional Buddhist thought.

traditional Buddhist,/ In fact, does that specific label have a set meaning? I don't think so. It's like ''traditional Xian''. Well, that could mean a few things.

you said ''true Buddhist''. Well, I can claim that if I want. I don't think your kneejerk reaction to me or my ideas should have any bearing on religious ideas, really. That's not my problem, basically.

 

[Lyndon]

That's why I label myself "influenced by Buddhism", Instead of "Buddhist", largely because I reject the Buddhism as it is mainly presented on the internet, but not the traditional Buddhism I was taught at temples when I was a monk and temple boy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Opposition is still dharma. =0]

I'm usually not privy for reading material first and then taking everything I read on a provisional basis with some limited exceptions made, like introductory and instructional material. Focus remains on meditation and it's applications, by which life and living brings about any understanding through wordless insight and not intellectual means alone. This ends up conflicting at times with intellectual and philosophical interpretations of Buddhism which time to time I will discard as being embellished and fabricated, as it's not being reflected through the experiences and nuances brought to the surface from meditation. Specifically Zazen.

I think this stems through scriptural dependency when I was involved in Christianity. It was a path already traveled in my experiences as not always what is written down will reflect in actuality. I prefer not to pass into speculation too much as can be helped.

That's why I like the opening, "Thus I have heard." Prior to engaging scriptural Buddhism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think I have to present anything, it's obvious to me, that many would likely be upset, at how I view Buddhism. The thing is, it's a broad label, really. If people want their own school to be the only legit form of Buddhism, then they can state as such

I think Buddhism is designed to expand in various ways hence the flowering of the dharma. I'm not privy towards all forms and do at times get critical towards practices and beliefs that carry the Buddhist label, yet I can still see the inter-relationship by which Buddhism plays a role, even in instances where I'm not in agreement. Bottom line is there is no effect towards your own form of Buddhism as long as you practice that form. Being a dharma protector imo reflects your own form of Buddhism as it pertains to your own set of circumstances and conditions. Open to change as It occurs.

 

[paarsurrey]

traditional Buddhism

Was Buddha a traditional Buddhist even?
Regards

 

[Lyndon]

Well he definitely established a tradition, and lived it for some 50 years after his enlightenment, and he seems to have been quite strict about following his own rules that he set for his monks and nuns, unlike some of these randy gurus we here about on the Internet. So yes, I would say I think the Buddha was a Buddhist in that he lived by the Buddhist rules and teachings. IE He lived by his own rules, he wasn't a hypocrite.

Its not a lot different from asking was Jesus a Christian, or Mohammad (pbuh) a Muslim.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well he definitely established a tradition, and lived it for some 50 years after his enlightenment, and he seems to have been quite strict about following his own rules that he set for his monks and nuns, unlike some of these randy gurus we here about on the Internet. So yes, I would say I think the Buddha was a Buddhist in that he lived by the Buddhist rules and teachings. IE He lived by his own rules, he wasn't a hypocrite.

Its not a lot different from asking was Jesus a Christian, or Mohammad (pbuh) a Muslim.

Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. Paul invented Christianity when Jesus had gone to India. Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity.
Buddha did not leave an written scriptures that he dictated or wrote. Buddhist scripture was collected much later.
Regards

 

[crossfire]

Buddha warned about "thickets of views" that would arise and be a hindrance to liberation when you didn't concentrate on dependent co-arising.

So yes, opposing views that pertain to the thicket of views named by Buddha would validate Buddha's warning.