Ever Feared not Believing in Jesus?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I was thinking more a parallel practice that achieves similiar results.

i'm unaware of another practice which makes the claims that Vajrayana tantric practice does, in particular the generation stages. though i cannot say too much about it one can find several texts by well respected Vajrayana teachers which give more detail on the practice, if one is interested in such things.

Although I'm ignorant concerning actual vajra practices, does Jesus going out into the wilderness and fasting for 40 days, and being tempted in Matthew 4:1-11 sound like there might be a parallel there? Or, as is stated in the Book of James 1:12-15

12 Blessed is a man who endures trials, [a] because when he passes the test he will receive the crown (J) of life that He [b] has promised to those who love Him. (K)
13 No one undergoing a trial should say, "I am being tempted by God." For God is not tempted by evil, [c] and He Himself doesn't tempt anyone. 14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death. (L)

Any parallels there?

any parallels to what? it is certain that aspects of their path was similar as was the case for literally thousands of ascetics that went forth into the homeless life so this, in and of itself, is not a very distinctive aspect of their paths, in my estimation.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vajradhara, You said,

"...i'm not really sure how you are reconciling the teachings of these two disparate religious paradigms...."

--> I want to make it clear I am not reconciling modern Buddhism and modern Christianity. I am reconciling what I perceive to be what Buddha and Jesus originally taught. I reconcile them by saying both sets of original teachings came from a common source, a kind of "Cosmic Dharma."

i don't know much about modern Buddhism or modern Christanity, just Buddhism and Christianity.

leaving aside the question of Jesus' teachings, as they are for another section of the forum, when you say "what Buddha originally taught" to what are you referring?

I want to make it clear that, in my humble opinion, the teachings of modern Buddhism and Christianity can never be reconciled.

i'd be interested to hear your understanding of this idea of modern Buddhism and modern Christianity though i wouldn't want to derail this thread.. perhaps we could start a new one?

"....i'm not really sure of the benefit therein."--> I am quite convinced of the benefit.

doubtlessly.

There is the idea that both sets of teachings came from a common source. (1) There are those of us who accept such an idea — I am such a person. (2) There are those of us who do not accept such an idea — you are such a person. I fully respect your right to feel this way, and I celebrate our differences.

indeed, there is such an idea and it is that idea which i challenge, not your acceptance of said idea, if that makes sense.

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Yoroshiku, Vajradhara-san! You said,

"...i wouldn't want to derail this thread.. perhaps we could start a new one?"

--> I think this thread is just fine. Please do not worry about it.

"...modern Buddhism and modern Christianity...."

--> I am sorry, I have used these terms in a confusing way. Modern Buddhism and modern Christianity are just that — the teachings we hear when we walk into any Christian church or Buddhist temple. There is also the idea that the original teachings of Jesus and Buddha are not the same as what we find in modern Buddhism and modern Christianity. Without a doubt, you and I are on different sides of such an idea, and that works for me.

"...when you say "what Buddha originally taught" to what are you referring?"

--> According to my belief system, Buddha taught some things only to his inner group of students, and taught other teachings to the general public. As you probably know, some Buddhists are adamant in saying Buddha had no "secret" teachings. (I disagree, and I am sure you agree.) Also according to my belief system, some of these secret teachings are now known to the world. The idea is that these teachings differ from "modern" (that is, orthodox) teachings.

"...it is that idea which i challenge, not your acceptance of said idea, if that makes sense."

--> Absolutely! The fun of comparative religions is the "challenging" of other people's ideas, without getting defensive. I think there is real value in such discussions.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Yoroshiku, Vajradhara-san! You said,

"...i wouldn't want to derail this thread.. perhaps we could start a new one?"

--> I think this thread is just fine. Please do not worry about it.

as neither you or i started this thread it is not our call to make.. but as it seems that the OP isn't responding perhaps it is moot

--> According to my belief system, Buddha taught some things only to his inner group of students, and taught other teachings to the general public. As you probably know, some Buddhists are adamant in saying Buddha had no "secret" teachings. (I disagree, and I am sure you agree.) Also according to my belief system, some of these secret teachings are now known to the world. The idea is that these teachings differ from "modern" (that is, orthodox) teachings.

what do you make of the teachings where the Buddha says things like (paraphrased) "i make no distiction between esoteric and exoteric teachings, those are views and teachings of others schools and other teachers."?

metta,
~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vajradhara-san! You asked,

"what do you make of the teachings...."

--> In my humble opinion, I am not sure Buddha actually said something like that.

I decided a long time ago not to base my beliefs on words in a book. I do not let any priest, monk, Pope, or Dalai Lama tell me what to believe. I feel it is my responsibility to decide what goes into my belief system.

This reminds me of the Buddha's "very own" words:

Kalama Sutta

"Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it." — Buddha

--> Now THAT is a philosophy I can live with.

I would also like to say I feel closer to Buddhism than any other religion. My numerous reincarnations as a Buddhist monk have built up within me a strong affinity for Buddhism.

[marmalade]

"Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it." — Buddha

Now, that is awesome. I wish more religious texts had messages like this.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by marmalade

Now, that is awesome. I wish more religious texts had messages like this.

This, plus watching The Life of Brian and you're sorted

s.

[marmalade]

Ahh... The Life of Brian. It brings a smile to my lips just thinking about it.

Just look on the bright side of life,
Marm

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by marmalade

Ahh... The Life of Brian. It brings a smile to my lips just thinking about it.

Just look on the bright side of life,
Marm

Watched it again last night. Forgotten how spot on (and therefore funny) it was.

Recluse: I hadn't spoken a word for 18 years and then he turns up!

The crowd: Another miracle!

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vajradhara-san! You asked,

"what do you make of the teachings...."

--> In my humble opinion, I am not sure Buddha actually said something like that.

"These three things, monks, are conducted in secret, not openly. What three? Affairs with women, mantras of the Brahmins and wrong view.

But these three things, monks, shine openly, not in secret. What tree? the moon, the sun and the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata."

AN 3:129

I decided a long time ago not to base my beliefs on words in a book. I do not let any priest, monk, Pope, or Dalai Lama tell me what to believe. I feel it is my responsibility to decide what goes into my belief system.

i would agree. how, then, do you learn from science texts or anything like that? do you base your views of modern science on those or just what you feel should be accepted?

in relation to our discussion, it seems you accept some of the teachings of the Buddha so you do, indeed, accept some of the words of book or series of books in this case. how are you able to determine which of the Suttas represents authentic teachings of the Buddhas?

This reminds me of the Buddha's "very own" words:

Kalama Sutta

"Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it." — Buddha

--> Now THAT is a philosophy I can live with.

why did you not quote the rest of the Sutta?

many, many beings use this very Sutta to affirm their view to accept or reject whatever teachings that they do not like yet that is not, in fact, what this Sutta is going on about.

some understanding of how the Buddha taught is in order to make sense of this as the teachings are given to beings that have a certain proclivity and mindset, in order to determine if this would apply to us we need to figure out the situation of the Kalamas and see if we are in that situation.

whilst not suggesting that you should listen to a monk regarding the substance of this discourse you may find this exposition of the Sutta of some interest:

Bhikkhu Bodhi: A Look at the Kalama Sutta

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vajradhara, you asked,

"how, then, do you learn from science texts or anything like that?"

--> I am not sure why you are comparing the scientific method with a need to take responsibility for one's own religious beliefs. But to answer your question, the scientific method helps me to learn a great deal from science texts. In a way, religion and science teach us the same thing — we need to evaluate what we see, and we are ultimately responsible for what we do and do not believe.

"do you base your views of modern science on those or just what you feel should be accepted?"

--> I base my view of modern science on what is observable. Whether an observable phenomina is acceptable or not is irrelevant to scientific data that is actually collected.

"how are you able to determine which of the Suttas represents authentic teachings of the Buddhas?"

--> I have a source of information on Buddha's teachings that is independent of the Sutras. I compare it with what the Sutras say.

"why did you not quote the rest of the Sutta?"

--> I quoted it from that webpage. Did I leave part of it out?

"...many beings use this very Sutta to affirm their view to accept or reject whatever teachings that they do not like...."

--> The Sutra is open to interpretation. I see it as promoting the idea of taking responsibility for what we believe. As we can see, you interpret it differently.

This brings up an important point — the exact point that Buddha was trying to make. Let's say that we hear an idea that we cannot accept. If, after thinking deeply about it, we still cannot accept it, we need to discard it, instead of accepting the teacher's words blindly. For example, many Buddhists teach that humans are reborn as animals. I cannot believe such an idea, so I naturally move away from any Buddhist teacher who teaches such a thing. (Yes, even away from the Dalai Lama himself, who teaches that humans are reborn as animals.) I firmly believe this is what Buddha was talking about, and I am sure Buddha would have approved of such movement.

"we need to figure out the situation of the Kalamas and see if we are in that situation."

--> I took a look at the post you linked to, but I did not see a significant difference from my interpretation. Does your interpretation of the Sutra differ from mine? In what way?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vajradhara, you asked,

"how, then, do you learn from science texts or anything like that?"

--> I am not sure why you are comparing the scientific method with a need to take responsibility for one's own religious beliefs.

i'm not. you stated that you do not base beliefs from words in books and i was wondering if this was an accurate statement of your or something reserved for religious teachings.

-> I base my view of modern science on what is observable. Whether an observable phenomina is acceptable or not is irrelevant to scientific data that is actually collected.

do you accept the existence of black holes?

--> I have a source of information on Buddha's teachings that is independent of the Sutras. I compare it with what the Sutras say.

i'd be happy to read it.

"why did you not quote the rest of the Sutta?"--> I quoted it from that webpage. Did I leave part of it out?

you left most of it out.

--> The Sutra is open to interpretation. I see it as promoting the idea of taking responsibility for what we believe. As we can see, you interpret it differently.

then i would suggest, that you have missed the point of the Sutta and not understood who the Kalaams were and why they were given the answer that they were given.

nevertheless, let me ask you this... when the Buddha mentions in the Sutta that beings should uphold and put into practice teachings which they can affirm and, and here's the key, are upheld by the wise.. who do you think the Buddha was referring to as "the wise" in this Sutta?

This brings up an important point — the exact point that Buddha was trying to make. Let's say that we hear an idea that we cannot accept. If, after thinking deeply about it, we still cannot accept it, we need to discard it, instead of accepting the teacher's words blindly.

this does not seem consonant with the Buddhas teachings. there are many teaching of the Buddhas which we cannot verify, currently, which we accept on provisio until we are able to verify it ourselves, for instance the Jhanas. the Buddha frequently claims that it is through absorption in the Jhanas that a being can discern things such as all their previous arisings and all of that sort of thing. the Suttas oft mention states of being which we have no direct experience of yet, we are assured, exist.

i suppose it really does boil down to a matter of practice. once you've gained confidence in the teachings which you can verify it is easier to accept teachings which you cannot currently verify.

For example, many Buddhists teach that humans are reborn as animals. I cannot believe such an idea, so I naturally move away from any Buddhist teacher who teaches such a thing. (Yes, even away from the Dalai Lama himself, who teaches that humans are reborn as animals.) I firmly believe this is what Buddha was talking about, and I am sure Buddha would have approved of such movement.

you must move away from the Buddha, then, as well since he specifically teaches these things.

I took a look at the post you linked to, but I did not see a significant difference from my interpretation. Does your interpretation of the Sutra differ from mine? In what way?

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality.

Nevertheless, after advising the Kalamas not to rely upon established tradition, abstract reasoning, and charismatic gurus, the Buddha proposes to them a teaching that is immediately verifiable and capable of laying a firm foundation for a life of moral discipline and mental purification . He shows that whether or not there be another life after death, a life of moral restraint and of love and compassion for all beings brings its own intrinsic rewards here and now, a happiness and sense of inward security far superior to the fragile pleasures that can be won by violating moral principles and indulging the mind's desires. For those who are not concerned to look further, who are not prepared to adopt any convictions about a future life and worlds beyond the present one, such a teaching will ensure their present welfare and their safe passage to a pleasant rebirth -- provided they do not fall into the wrong view of denying an afterlife and kammic causation.

However, for those whose vision is capable of widening to encompass the broader horizons of our existence, this teaching given to the Kalamas points beyond its immediate implications to the very core of the Dhamma. For the three states brought forth for examination by the Buddha -- greed, hate and delusion -- are not merely grounds of wrong conduct or moral stains upon the mind. Within his teaching's own framework they are the root defilements -- the primary causes of all bondage and suffering -- and the entire practice of the Dhamma can be viewed as the task of eradicating these evil roots by developing to perfection their antidotes -- dispassion, kindness and wisdom.
Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance.

We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when they lie beyond one's own capacity for verification. This, in fact, marks the acquisition of right view, in its preliminary role as the forerunner of the entire Noble Eightfold Path.

Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been put into brackets.

What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering.

Bhikku Bodhis explanation of this Sutta and its implications seems to be significantly different than what you are intimating here.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,


do you now agree that the Buddha taught that the Dhamma and Discipline is not taught in secret?

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vajradhara, you said,

"you stated that you do not base beliefs from words in books and i was wondering if this was an accurate statement of your or something reserved for religious teachings."

--> I did not say I do not base beliefs from words in books. I said the final choice as to believing what is in books rests with me.

"do you accept the existence of black holes?"

--> I do.

"I have a source of information on Buddha's teachings that is independent of the Sutras. I compare it with what the Sutras say. --> i'd be happy to read it."

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky

"you left most of it out."

--> I listed the most important part. There was no need to list more.

"who do you think the Buddha was referring to as "the wise" in this Sutta?"

--> He meant the wisemen of any religion, not just Buddhist wisemen. What Buddha is saying is, if a Christian hears something that makes sense, and what he reads in the Bible supports what he believes to be good and true, then he should believe it, even when it goes against what Buddha taught. I completely agree with such an idea.

"this does not seem consonant with the Buddhas teachings."

--> It does to me.

"you must move away from the Buddha, then, as well since he specifically teaches these things."

--> I disagree. My belief system tells me Buddha taught that humans are not reborn as animals. Fortunately (for me), my belief system provides me with a clear difference between what Buddha may have actually said, and what the Sutras say he said. My belief system actually moves me closer to Buddha, as opposed to the Sutras (which move me further away from Modern Buddhism).

"These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance...."

--> I disagree. The Four Noble Truths apply to everyone.

"...a life of moral restraint and of love and compassion for all beings brings its own intrinsic rewards here and now...."

--> All people can benefit from hearing such a wise teaching, not just Buddhists.

"...it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify."

--> That is not what Buddha is saying. Buddha does not ask us to accept only what we can personally verify. He asks us to decide for ourselves if a particular belief system makes sense. If it does, we may then be willing to accept the parts of it that we cannot prove. However, If a person encounters an idea he or she cannot agree with (for example, my disbelief in humans being reborn as animals), he or she should also start considering the idea that such a belief system may be flawed and lack a guarantee of infallibility. Buddha has taught us a great lesson here.

I am glad the Sutras teach (in my humble opinion, mistakenly,) that humans are reborn as animals. I recommend that anyone who feels that humans are not reborn as animals start deciding which parts of modern Buddhism they do and do not believe in. There is a great and deep beauty in someone taking responsibility for their belief system, instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

"These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition."

--> Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the Sutras are what Buddha actually said. I allow for the idea that Buddha's original teachings may have been altered.

"To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering."

--> Yes, if they make sense to that person. On this point you and I totally agree. On the other hand, if they contain indeas (humans are reborn as animals, etc.) that do not make sense to a person, Buddha encourages us to look at such teachings critically

"Bhikku Bodhis explanation of this Sutta and its implications seems to be significantly different than what you are intimating here."

--> It does. Fortunately, I have the freedom to choose something else that makes more sense to me.

"do you now agree that the Buddha taught that the Dhamma and Discipline is not taught in secret?"

--> I do not.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"do you now agree that the Buddha taught that the Dhamma and Discipline is not taught in secret?"

--> I do not.

as you choose, the Suttas clearly state that such is not the case and place an important emphasis on this very point.

i believe our discussion is concluded.

metta,

~v