My Girlfriend And The Bible...

[Kuroikaze]

Some teachins in Buddhism can be pretty offensive, one that is common to most forms except for Zen Buddhisms is the idea that only men can be enlightened, and all women will have to reincarnate as men before they achieve the last stage of enlightenment.

 

Zen is the only form I know of that rejects this, but they also seem to minimize the idea of reincarnation anyway.

 

The Dali Lama has has said some pretty negative things about homosexuality as well.

[Jun]

Some teachins in Buddhism can be pretty offensive, one that is common to most forms except for Zen Buddhisms is the idea that only men can be enlightened, and all women will have to reincarnate as men before they achieve the last stage of enlightenment.

 

Zen is the only form I know of that rejects this, but they also seem to minimize the idea of reincarnation anyway.

 

The Dali Lama has has said some pretty negative things about homosexuality as well.

 

I'm going to put on my Zen preaching cap here for a moment -

 

Point one - women in Buddhism:

 

It is important to realise that the history of the world has been men's history as it was written without much reference to women. The role of women in society the world over has been severely restricted, stereotyped, and minimised. Language, culture and habitual thought patterns of mankind are predominantly the creations of males. It is not surprising that the texts of all the worlds religions have focused on male characters and male themes. The exceptions I'm aware of are the Druids and Shintõ (anyone know any others?).

 

Even today, despite formal equality and access to education, women are still accorded a subordinate position in our society. In almost all early societies a female as first born was seen as undesirable and unfortunate.

 

Within the Buddha's own sangha (his group of followers) there were many women whom he regarded as wise, maternal, creative, gentle, and compassionate. There were many women among the Buddha's followers who did become arahants, fully liberated and enlightened. Why aren't they recognised and written down in texts? For the very reasons I've noted above. When Buddhism spread to other Asian cultures, it was the male dominated versions - minus the womens achievements. Nuns were accepted, but relegated to secondary and this pretty much meshed with the prevailing thoughts of the time in those countries anyhow.

 

The Buddha had a very positive and revolutionary attitude toward women as can be seen in the early Pali writtings attributed to the Buddha. The Buddha opened the doors of his Dharma for the equal benefit of both men and women - a position that was exceptional for the time and was perceived as radical and dangerous by his critics. The Buddha's acceptence of women was ahead of the times, and therefore, must have drawn many objections from men - especially his male followers who were used to the accepted culture of the time.

 

The various rules and restrictions placed upon women in Buddhism, including the eight rules associated with Gotami Mahapajapati, were imposed AFTER the death of the Buddha.

 

The death of the Buddha created a void as far as women were concerned. In his absence, the old ways of believing women to be second class soon reasserted themselves. This was evident at the first council when Ananda (the Buddha's number one follower) was vilified for agreeing with the Buddha in accepting women into the sangha in the first place.

 

Point two - reincarnation:

 

Buddhism - every tradition and every form - DOES NOT BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION.* The Buddha taught that there was no transmigration (reincarnation). The belief in reincarnation comes from the Brahmanic religion (Hindu). The doctrine of Buddhism denies the existance of a soul (anatta). The Buddha was opposed to the belief in a soul and reincarnation.

 

In the Buddha's own words:

 

"It is what I do not affirm that is wrongly, erroneously, and falsely charged against me by these Brahmin who would make me out to be a believer in their transmigration."

 

The Brahmanic religion (Hindu) believes in atman (a soul) and believes that this very same soul transmigrates through the eons from body to body.

 

Buddhism denies such a belief. Buddhism is the teaching of anattman - no soul.

 

When the Buddha was asked about life after death, he said, "The question does not fit the case." Living NOW is what the Buddha was teaching about, not looking forward to a supposed afterlife.

 

The Buddha once asked, "If I light your candle from my candle is it the same flame or a new flame? Does my flame transfer entirely to your candle?"

 

 

 

*Tibetans believe in reincarnation in the Brahmanic sense - so to many Buddhists of other traditions (especially us arrogant Zen followers! ) Tibetan Buddhism CANNOT be Buddhism at all.

[ShackledNoMore]

I shudder at the thought of Soka Gakkai.

 

I "met" a follower of Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism online back in the days of BBSs.

 

What I knew about Buddhism could have been summarized in one or two high level paragraphs, and I was interested in learning more.

 

Turns out this character was as dogmatic and pushy as the best of the xian evangelicals. Ugh.

[Grandpa Harley]

The New Kadampa Tradition chaps are a little like that. I've not met Gyatso, so I can't speak for him, but the members I've met are, shall we say, disturbing. The 'Learn Meditation' classes can be 'stacked' with followers, a little like an Alpha course. The meditation method is ok... follow the breathing sensation, and it's competently taught. Same with the So-Ah-hum and mala counting of breaths. The doctrine is pretty much what you'd expect of Tibetan Buddhism... Reincarnation, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Buddha, literal truth of the 6 realms. More what Atisha taught than what the Buddha taught, as Jun pointed out. In some respects, it reminds me of the Christian view of of Christ.

 

They now have centres across the UK, even in one horse dorps like the one I was born in

[Jun]

In some respects, it reminds me of the Christian view of Christ.

 

That sums up Soka Gakkai pretty well too.

 

There are those who erroneously hold Buddhist "beliefs" (Buddhism is devoid of "belief"), and those who "pray" to the Buddha (as if he were a god), and then there are those who believe that the Buddha didn't reveal everything and that there is a hidden secret super-level supernatural teaching from an all-encompassing all-powerful super-Dharma, i.e. Vajrayana Buddhism - Shingon-shu, Tendai-shu, and Tibetan.

 

The practice of Buddhism is actually nothing special or extraordinary, and certainly quite simple really. It is ultimately a search for truth and reality and quite open to interpretation and adaptation. The problem is when all the religious hocus-pocus rituals are added.

[Mongo]

Well guys, it seems like I have nothing to be worried about anymore. I casually asked her how was the book she was reading, and she said she thought it was really boring so she started reading "catch me if you can" instead

 

I guess the "teacher" failed, at least with one of her victims. I should have known she wouldn't fall for it. Man, I feel silly now...

 

No need to feel silly, your concerns were legit.

 

You know I noticed that she was only given a New Testament.

 

Maybe when you visit you can bring your OT and show her some of the bullshit that xtianity....

 

Aw heck... you'll be too busy.

 

You know what... I'd still buy her a Japaneese version of the God Delusion and you guys need to chat more about religion.

 

Mongo

[Grandpa Harley]

I can see why rituals come in handy... it gets the mind 'prepared' in some respects. We like rituals. It seems to have been bred into us...

[Jun]

I can see why rituals come in handy... it gets the mind 'prepared' in some respects. We like rituals. It seems to have been bred into us...

 

We ritualise many things in order to plant them into memory and to resolve feelings surrounding events. Births are ritualised, weddings are ritualised and deaths are certainly ritualised in most if not all societies.

 

Some ritual is found in Zen, but it has more to do with behaviour towards others and keeping a peaceful atmosphere than calling upon magical powers.

 

This site has an interesting opinion on rituals - http://www.dpjs.co.uk/needfordogma.html

[Kuroikaze]

Yeah, I agree with you completely Jun. In my studying of Buddhism it always struck me as odd that Buddha seem to be so against filling up the Buddhist system of thought with traditions and dogma's, and yet it seems that most forms are nothing BUT ridiculous amounts of traditions and nonsense religious beliefs. And Tibetan form is probably the worst that I've studied.

 

I believe if I'm correct that Buddha refused to answer people when they asked him if he believed in a god, because he believed that even asking if god exists revealed that a person was concerned with the wrong things, He seemed to think that concern for either god or the after life was pointless because thoughts on those subjects did nothing to alleviate human suffering.

 

Zen is probably the most interesting form I've looked at, but then I may be biased, since Zen has some Taoist influence and thats one of my favorite eastern philosophy's.

[Kuroikaze]

I can see why rituals come in handy... it gets the mind 'prepared' in some respects. We like rituals. It seems to have been bred into us...

 

Another thing I think rituals are good for is to make us feel part of a group. In many ways they are the glue that holds a society together, because they give us all a common experience with one another.

[Jun]

Yeah, I agree with you completely Jun. In my studying of Buddhism it always struck me as odd that Buddha seem to be so against filling up the Buddhist system of thought with traditions and dogma's, and yet it seems that most forms are nothing BUT ridiculous amounts of traditions and nonsense religious beliefs. And Tibetan form is probably the worst that I've studied.

 

I believe if I'm correct that Buddha refused to answer people when they asked him if he believed in a god, because he believed that even asking if god exists revealed that a person was concerned with the wrong things, He seemed to think that concern for either god or the after life was pointless because thoughts on those subjects did nothing to alleviate human suffering.

 

Zen is probably the most interesting form I've looked at, but then I may be biased, since Zen has some Taoist influence and thats one of my favorite eastern philosophy's.

 

Here are some very common misconceptions that even "Buddhists" follow as if true - (from the Gāndhārī Dharmapada)

 

* Karma from a past life has an effect on a future life. - FALSE! The Buddha used the common Brahmanic term "karma" (kamma in Pali) in a different sense to the religions of the time. The Buddha's law of karma applies ONLY to karma and its effect on our present life. In the words of the Buddha, "The Brahmans claim that if a man is born poor, or with a congenital defect it is due to an accumulation of past bad karma. In this interpretation of karma there is no room left for human effort. Everything is predetermined for him by his past karma. This is superstition and is comparable to there being some grand scheme for man as created and controlled by a creator god. Delusion is inherent in such a belief."

 

* Reincarnation is a belief of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha. FALSE! I've already covered this here quite a few times.

 

* The Buddha advocated vegetarianism. FALSE! The Buddha and his followers accepted whatever food was given to them. They ate whatever was available. The Buddha actually died from eating pork (poisoned? Off?) The whole "don't eat meat" rule was added to the vinaya by the monastic community because of that fact. The Buddha accepted that as humans it is necessary to consume the flesh of animals - he advocated the middle path - to only kill when it is necessary to survive. This is also clear from reading the Tikotiparisuddha. The Buddha instructed his followers to eat meat and fish and referred to them as panitabhojaniya - "delicate necessary foods to be eaten cooked." It was forbidden to eat raw food, but that has more to do with the culture of the time than with any Buddhist teaching.

 

* The underlying teaching of Buddhism is to escape samsara - the cycle of rebirth. Although the Buddha stated this in all of his early sermons, and it is the foundation of his teachings. It is evident that he was using terminology that was easliy understood by the people of the time. He borrowed many terms and ideas from Brahmanism, but turned them around to suit his teachings. They are often just there to colour the teachings for the audience. Later, when speaking with Ananda the Buddha said, "You can escape samsara right here and now. Samsara and nirvana are all in your head. Change your mind, no more samsara."

 

Following is a basic list as to what IS NOT DHARMA:

 

Belief in the supernatural is not Dharma

Belief in God (Ishwara) is not Dharma

Dharma in union with Brahma (God - supernatural forces) is not Dharma

Belief in a soul is not Dharma

Belief in sacrifices is not Dharma

Belief based on speculation is not Dharma

Reading and following books and scriptures is not Dharma

Belief in the infallibiltity of books is not Dharma

Belief for the sake of faith is not Dharma

Practice without doubt and introspection is not Dharma

Ritual is not Dharma

 

The Buddha did answer when people asked if there was a god. Among his best answers he said, "The question does not fit the case."

[Grandpa Harley]

Which translation of the Dhammapada?

[Grandpa Harley]

Some teachins in Buddhism can be pretty offensive, one that is common to most forms except for Zen Buddhisms is the idea that only men can be enlightened, and all women will have to reincarnate as men before they achieve the last stage of enlightenment.

 

Zen is the only form I know of that rejects this, but they also seem to minimize the idea of reincarnation anyway.

 

The Dali Lama has has said some pretty negative things about homosexuality as well.

 

NKT has no problem with women being enlightened, and has no teachings on homosexuality (which is odd for Tibetan based Buddhism

[Jun]

Which translation of the Dhammapada?

 

Japanese. Actually also the Udanavarga. The two are combined in Japan with some of the same verses repeated side by side (for comparison?). There is also a commentary by Ungen (9th centruy).

[Kuroikaze]

Wow, interesting stuff, My world religion prof in college was something of a pluralist, so I think he tended to marginalize the disagreements between Buddhist sects. I was always sitting there in class thinking that it seemed a bit unlikely that they all got along as great as he seemed to make out. Since he basically said that all forms of Buddhism respect all other forms as being just different paths to enlightenment.

 

Anyway, Its cool to hear some of this from a practicing Buddhist. I'd love to talk more about it.

[Jun]

he basically said that all forms of Buddhism respect all other forms as being just different paths to enlightenment.

 

Perhaps outwardly it would seem that way, especially outside of Asia.

 

Anyway, Its cool to hear some of this from a practicing Buddhist. I'd love to talk more about it.

 

Don't take my words for anything - you should experience and search for your own opinions and draw your own conclusions. I simply offer my perspective from my experience and knowledge. I am only one person and not a special one at that. Test and research everything you hear from everyone - no matter who they are or what qualifications they have.

 

I don't mind talking and trying to clear up misconceptions or adding alternative views. My teachers would probably have a different take on things, as would their teachers, as would their teachers teachers, as would...........

[Grandpa Harley]

Reading between the lines it's less acceptance and more just putting up with it.