[quote=“antarcticbeech”]For some inexplicable reason I feel a strong affinity for the Hudsonian Godwit, pictured below, which is famous for its trans-equatorial migrations. I think that perhaps I was a Hudsonian Godwit in a previous life, which is why I flew trans-equatorially to Taiwan from Australia. Does this mean my metabolic systems are ripe for Buddhist cultivation?
PS: I also like crustaceans and oysters and getting me toes wet at the beach.[/quote]
Very nice photo. Thank you for sharing with us. Cute connetion! You are your own boss, you also possess the Buddha nature in yourself, you are the person to deceide whether it’s ripe or not. Perhaps you might start with reading this thread, collecting and piecing all the info together while getting your toes wet at the beach.
Adikarmika: Indeed, you are well prepared for Buddhism, as your mentality and the bodhisattva capacities of virtues and merits you have accumulated through countless past lives are gradually blossoming. “Once an individual heard the preaching of the Ultimate Reality would initiate his/her faith and confidence in it, we could conclude that this individual had not only accumulated his/her wholesome root before one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or even five Buddhas’ worlds, but also had accumulated all various wholesome root at hundreds and thousands of Buddhas worlds…” the Buddha stated in the “Diamond Sutra.”
Though, words and languages are meant to communicate and get the best interaction results. Many thanks for helping me out with explanations. This is also a manifestation of your bodhisattva mentality.
Having orderly practiced the pure Buddhist teachings in our daily life, we discover it is so useful in various fields as: psychology, sociology, science, and academia that the more we study Buddhist teachings, the more awesome and grateful we have to the Buddha, meanwhile the more humble and shameful feelings towards ourselves (full with greed, ignorance, and hatred.)
Most importantly, Buddhism is not an academic research, but an actual practice, thereby the potential functional distinctions of the Buddha nature will eventually appear.
【“Buddhism", on the other hand, thinks that those tantric cults are non-Buddhist, possibly simply because of their rituals, and not because of anything they believe. 】
Remark: The issue is focused on the doctrines of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism; its doctrines say one could attain buddhahood through sex. This is definitely misleading the masses innocent public into endless transmigrations.
【How do you define a Buddhist? 】
A Buddhist is someone who truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings to cultivate to attain Buddhahood with an intention to benefit all sentient beings forever.
【Is it purely in terms of beliefs, or do we have to consider practice, too? 】
It depends. There are fifty-two stages of practice for Buddhist followers, the first ten stages are people who only hold their beliefs in different degrees (very strong, middle, weak, or their merits and virtues are not yet enough to let them practice – no time, illness, distance, etc.). Every individual is his/her own boss to make the decision.
[quote=“Buddhism”]【Is it purely in terms of beliefs, or do we have to consider practice, too? 】
It depends. There are fifty-two stages of practice for Buddhist followers, the first ten stages are people who only hold their beliefs in different degrees (very strong, middle, weak, or their merits and virtues are not yet enough to let them practice – no time, illness, distance, etc.). Every individual is his/her own boss to make the decision.[/quote]
Correction: My previous post stated “There are fifty-two stages of practice for Buddhists” should be modified to “There are fifty-two stages of practice for the Buddhabhood-Way Buddhists, and four stages of practice for the Liberation-way Buddhist.” Because I am so used to my own path of cultivation, I forgot to mention the Liberation-Way (Hinayana) of cultivation. Sorry for my mistake.
You can see the big difference between these two ways of cultivation. As a result, the Liberation-Way would at most merely achieve the highest level of nirvana within foreseeable lifetimes, while the Buddhahood-Way would attain Buddhahood after three huge eons (asamkya). Therefore, the cultivation attitude would also be different. Practitioners of the Liberation-Way would mainly focus on themselves for observation, so most of the time, they concentrate on themselves, their attitude tends to avoid creating new karma, they would choose to be aloof from mundane affairs.
I often choose to be aloof from mundane affairs. Perhaps I was a Liberation-Way Practitioner in a previous life. I wonder if/how you can figure out about your past lives.
So is it a good and realistic goal for Buddhists to not to be reborn? In Christianity, which I am more familiar with, the goal seems to be to get one more life (in heaven).
*Warning: I am not a professional religious philosopher. If I misrepresent a religion or philosophy or philosophy of religion, I hope that doesn’t give me bad karma.
[quote=“zender”]I often choose to be aloof from mundane affairs. Perhaps I was a Liberation-Way Practitioner in a previous life. I wonder if/how you can figure out about your past lives.
So is it a good and realistic goal for Buddhists to not to be reborn? In Christianity, which I am more familiar with, the goal seems to be to get one more life (in heaven).
*Warning: I am not a professional religious philosopher. If I misrepresent a religion or philosophy or philosophy of religion, I hope that doesn’t give me bad karma.[/quote]
We are living now, it’s not much worth to know or track the past lives, don’t you think so? Besides, every individual has past lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, which one do you prefer the most?
You could have been a religious cultivator, who still keeps the habitual cultivation tendency, but not necessarily a Liberation-Way practitioner. Since the Buddhahood-Way cultivation also requires observation and tranquility. There are more elements to be considered before we can draw a conclusion.
If you have the potential to fly, would you stay crawling all the time? The Liberation-Way only benefit yourself from no more suffering within the three-realms, once entering the state of nirvana, you become useless to other beings. While taking the Buddhahood-Way, you will be albe to fly around and benefit so many beings lives after lives, you can help others with your expertise, don’t you think this is much better life than the Liberation-Way? Most of all, you have the potential to choose for the best, why would anyone take a much lesser choice?
Don’t worry about bad karma, your intention was simply asking questions, that does not induce bad karma.
I’m a little worried, seeing as how I achieved nirvana – true nirvana – several years ago. Are people going to make gold statues of me with a g\fat belly and wearing lipstick? Its really NOT my look at all! Plus, them lotus leaves they make me sit on give me a rash.
Seriously! Factions in Buddhism! “We’re right! Them other guys are impostors!”
“No WE’RE right! Its them OTHER fellows who are the impostors!”
What a JOKE! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Your definition of a Buddhist also reflects your own tradition since it excludes Liberation-way practitioners, who do not aspire to Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.
Would you care to give us a better defnition?
[quote=“Buddhism”]【How do you define a Buddhist? 】
A Buddhist is someone who truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings to cultivate to attain Buddhahood with an intention to benefit all sentient beings forever.[/quote]
I don’t believe that Sandman achieved REAL nirvana. The last time I saw him, he still had that look in his eyes of wanting something. Sandman —> :liar:
Anyway, he makes a good point about there being all these different religions with different theories. With all these different religions, is it fair of me to begin my investigation with an assumption that any one of them has gotten it wrong? (and perhaps all of them have it wrong?) Is that what you did before you came to believe in Buddhism? Did you go into it with some doubt; asking questions with a critical eye for the truth?
And how do you find out if something is really true?
“Buddhism” said, “1. We are living now, it’s not much worth to know or track the past lives, don’t you think so? Besides, every individual has past lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges,…”
For me, the worth of being able to see your past lives and be sure that they were indeed YOUR past lives, would be that it provided some proof that Buddhism is the true way. It’s really true! I was wasting my time with Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology and Islam! So, how do you know that each individual has past lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? How do I know that’s really true?
[quote=“zender”]And how do you find out if something is really true?
“Buddhism” said, “1. We are living now, it’s not much worth to know or track the past lives, don’t you think so? Besides, every individual has past lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges,…”
For me, the worth of being able to see your past lives and be sure that they were indeed YOUR past lives, would be that it provided some proof that Buddhism is the true way. It’s really true! I was wasting my time with Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology and Islam! So, how do you know that each individual has past lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? How do I know that’s really true?[/quote]
Logical thinking, every individual should have reasonable doubt about other’s saying. Check and find out the truth yourself.
Regarding my own experience, I also made my own judgement by reading books and tried to make sense out of them.
But I did sincerely pray to the Buddha in Amsterdam (I stayed in Holland in the past) that I wished to learn the true Dharma so I would be able to share the Dharma to the Westerners. (I have written my past story in a Chinese version, if you are able to read Chinese, I am willing to send a copy to you)
Average human life span is only 80-100 years, while we possess the unceasing Buddha nature, of course, we must have been through countless forms of lives.
The Truth does exist whether one believes it or not.
If a person happens to be an athist that is another story.
[quote=“adikarmika”
Your definition of a Buddhist also reflects your own tradition since it excludes Liberation-way practitioners, who do not aspire to Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.
Would you care to give us a better defnition?
[quote=“Buddhism”]【How do you define a Buddhist? 】
A Buddhist is someone who truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings to cultivate to attain Buddhahood with an intention to benefit all sentient beings forever.[/quote][/quote]
My definition here (above) should be a bodhisattva Buddhist (菩薩佛教徒)。
In terms of Buddhism, I wouldn’t say the definition above was no good. However, I hereby provide a more general definition:
A Buddhist is someone who has taken refuge of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Samgha (the three treasures) and truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings.
The Buddha manifested as humankind, He wished every individual to cultivate to attain Buddhahood since every sentient being has the potential to become a Buddha. In the Lotus Sutra (法華經), the Buddha specified “One Buddha Vehicle”(我有方便力，開示三乘法；一切諸世尊，皆說一乘道。…諸佛語無異，唯一無二乘), and “the two-vehicle learners (small vehicle) are not the Buddha’s sons”, because they would enter nirvana instead of passing down the Buddha lineage.
It is only logical, if you were a Buddha, would you only instruct your disciples to attain the simplest nirvana instead of the unsurpassed Buddhahood that could benefit all sentient beings?
Or if you wish to know more specific fields of Buddhist?
It helps if you are a Cartesian dualist.
As I see it, the Buddhist argument for past lives rests on the idea that the substantial cause of matter is matter and the substantial cause of consciousness is consciousness.
Since your own personal stream of consciousness is not matter and was not produced from matter, it must be the product of a consciousness that existed before you were born.
Of course, you still have the standard problems of Cartesian dualism, like explaining how mind affects body and vice versa.
Then again, you could choose to subscribe to the Cittamatra (“mind-only”) school of Buddhism, for whom there is no matter - only consciousness.
Or the Madhyamaka school, for whom there ultimately isn’t any distinction between matter and consciousness.
By then, you’ll stop asking “How do I know that’s really true?”, since there’s no such thing as really true, or even an “I” who could possibly know.
Or so I’ve heard.
Consciousness creates consciousness? That sounds interesting, but I don’t really understand it.
I guess I’ve always thought that matter (the brain) creates consciousness. Sometimes when I hear people talking religion, I feel like I can’t grasp what they are saying because of my poor (or just different) language skills. My vocabulary and background are so different to theirs. They talk of a consciousness with no brain. I can’t picture that.
I wonder if, according to Buddhism, there’s any new life being created in this world, or has it all been around for millions of generations? When a man and a woman create a baby are they really just creating a vessel for some dying soul’s rebirth?
It’s fascinating how the mind affects the body and vice versa. I think this is an exciting area of science, which I know a little more about than Buddhism. As science gains greater insight into the human brain, and as we gain new tools to watch the brain “in motion”, I think we’ll learn much more about the effects that stress or meditation might have on the body and brain.
I think we’ll learn more about all the chemical releases and reactions, the hormone and andrenaline surges in times of stress and their effects on our perception and memory. I wonder if we’ll get to the point in my lifetime of having a clear picture of not only what a religious experience looks like in your brain, but how to induce one without taking a dangerous drug. Science will tell us a lot, but I don’t think science will ever show us our future lives or past lives. That may always remain untestable and unprovable.
[quote=“Buddhism”]My definition here (above) should be a bodhisattva Buddhist (菩薩佛教徒)。
In terms of Buddhism, I wouldn’t say the definition above was no good. However, I hereby provide a more general definition:
A Buddhist is someone who has taken refuge of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Samgha (the three treasures) and truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings. [/quote]
The first part of your defintion is standard, but the second part (“truly follows the Buddha’s pure and orderly teachings”) is not.
While it’s clearly aimed at excluding highest yoga tantra from the Buddhis umbrella, it won’t work.
First of all, who can say what the Buddha’s teachings actually were?
All we have is a lot of teachings propogated by his followers, most of whom lived many centuries later.
This is particularly true of Mahayana, the tradition you yourself seem to belong to.
Before Nagarjuna, if a Buddhist scholar want to write something, he/she had to present it as Buddhavacana ("Buddha’s speech) in order for it to be accepted. They were the rules of discourse at the time.
What I’m saying (and what most people nowadays believe) is that the Mahayana sutras are not the teachings of the historical person known as Sakyamuni.
That’s fine, I wan’t call Mahayanists non-Buddhists, just because they follow the teachings of some anonymous monks who lived several centuries afer Sakyamuni.
So unless you want exclude yourself from the definition of Buddhist, I suggest you limit yourself to simply “someone who has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Samgha.” That’s the standard defintion
Perhaps it’s because English is not your mother tongue, but it looks like you are saying that the Lotus sutra teaches that sravakas and pratyekabuddhas do not attain Buddhahood. As I’m sure you are aware, the central teaching of the Lotus sutra is precisely the opposite.
In fact, it may even be said that they DO NOT enter nirvana at all. “[Śrāvakas] conceive themselves as situated in the state of nirvāṇa …” (nirvāṇabhūmisthitāḥ smaḥ ityātmanaḥ saṁjānatām.) but that is just their false conception.
That’s what all those parables about looking like having reached one’s destination, but still only being half-way along the road are all about.
I think that may be where Sandman :loco: is at. He’s a Śrāvaka. He thinks he’s attained the state of nirvāṇa, but that is just his false conception.
Sandman :aiyo:
Buddhism sounds a bit like Christianity. It’s a shame that no one at their(Buddha and Christ’s) time was writing down their every word. Maybe there wouldn’t be so many different sects if there had just been a decent scribe attached to each of them. :neutral:
Buddhists are the ones who wish to have answers. Once we were born, we ought to be alive forever; once we are in love, why should we be drifted apart later? Why are matters beyond our controls? What is nirvana? What is eternity? “One who understands the world”(世間解) is one of the Buddha’s ten titles. Therefore, the Buddhist teachings are supposed to be compatible with the world logic and common sense. Yet the Buddha stated that what are cherished by the world shall be disregarded by the true path; what are cherished by the true path shall be disregarded by the worldly public. It’s not like a piece of cake to follow the cultivation of the truth.
The cultivation methods of the Liberation-Way are achieved through eliminating both self-view and self-attachment. Self-view refers to considering the mind associated with seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing as the “everlasting and indestructible self.” Moreover, it consists of strongly believing that this conscious mind has transmigrated from former lives and will proceed into future lives, and thus erroneously thinking that the conscious mind acts as the main vijnana (discernment) during transmigration.
[quote=“zender”]----------------------------
Buddhism sounds a bit like Christianity. It’s a shame that no one at their(Buddha and Christ’s) time was writing down their every word. Maybe there wouldn’t be so many different sects if there had just been a decent scribe attached to each of them. :neutral:[/quote]
You do have brain with your remark up to now;
I assure you, if you concentrate and read properly, you would not say so.
Buddhism does not focus on peace/harmony/freedom/love/compassion etc., these are human basic knowledge, we have learned from school days already. There is no need for Buddhism to preach on these topic. Buddhism is focus on “Why should every face death, and what is the fact after death and before birth?” The Buddhists are seeking the answer.
Most of all, do you remember you mentioned when at birth, the Buddha did say “the unique and honorable self!”
This means everyone possesses the unique and honorable self, everybody is able to attain Buddhahood, equality to all sentient beings.
Christianity holds God is the only shepherd.
There’s a great series of lectures by, IMO, the greatest contemporary philosopher of consciousness, John Searle.
It’s published by The Teaching Company, but you can download it from the net if you know where to look.
Basically, Searle is arguing against a computational model of consciousness, i.e., that the brain is the hardware and mind is the software.
Along the way, however, he deals extensively with the mind/body problem of Cartesian dualism, as well as the monist attempts (e.g., idealism and materialism) to solve the problem.
Well worth a listen, as is anything by John Searle - real hard-nose, no nonsense stuff.
