[Obsententicab]

The discord, schisms and separations in the religions that [someone] inquired about recently, occur precisely due to differing speculative views, myths and superstitions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha noted that this is what happens when speculative views clash, and this is precisely why he based his own soteriological teachings and practices in the rational and the empirical: in what one can see and know empirically for oneself without relying on superstition or myth or speculative view.

If all of these sects were to let go of these superstitions and speculative views, and turn instead to the Buddha's liberative teachings, none of these separations would occur and there would be no sects, no schisms, and none of this discord.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Finanziamento]

Being speculative in the sense that one defends certain conclusions based on insufficient evidence is quite different from the sort of speculation that is tentative and arises from a healthy sense of curiosity. The former needs a benevolent teacher, while the latter needs more experience, I think.

Speculation in the sense of exploring and experimenting isn't such a bad thing. That's what Siddhartha did in his effort to find the solution to stress. It's what most of us are doing here, as far as I can tell.

[nd90t3sf]

Yes, FBM, and the Buddha is pretty clear on what he means by speculative
views. Nothing at all wrong with speculation so long as one recognizes the limits of speculation. Turning speculation into worldview is the problem-- it is pathological. The product is superstition. It is the difference between an hypothesis and a groundless, unfounded assertion.

[Qwjyrgij]

And now posts are being edited and changed and "disappeared" so that there is no referencing what was actually said. Sad.

[SpyRemo]

Its about me giving the thread a different title rather than squabbling, Stuka - lets move on now please.

[Everwondopedo]

-- and getting back to the OP, like should have been done in the first place all along, instead of all this censorship and horseshit? I'm all for that...

[pooncophy]

...soteriological teachings...

Soteriology (Greek σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior, preserver" + λόγος logos "study" or "word") is the study of religious doctrines of salvation, which are a feature of various religions. Salvation theory occupies a place of special significance and importance in some religions.

[NodePark]

-- and getting back to the OP, like should have been done in the first place all along, instead of all this censorship and horseshit? I'm all for that...

Soteriology is cool

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times."

Matthew 18

[Emalodoulouts]

The discord, schisms and separations in the religions that [someone] inquired about recently, occur precisely due to differing speculative views, myths and superstitions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Buddha's teachings.

hi Stuka

my reading finds the Pali suttas show the Buddha taught dhamma to be interpreted as "rebirth" to certain audiences, without any expressed intent to teach or 'upgrade' them to supramundane (lokuttara) doctrines

i have seen no evidence in the Pali suttas that the Buddha acted with what appears to be your intent, which is to save all sentient beings via supramundane doctrines

the Pali suttas show the Buddha obviously considered mere morality to be the most suitable form of soteriology for certain audiences

the Pali suttas also show the Buddha taught a kind of 'Tantra', where faith & love in the Triple Gem served as objects of devotion

for example, if i am not mistaken, in some suttas, the Buddha taught laypeople when they die, they should reflect on the Triple Gem

MN 117, without ambiguity, states there are two kinds of right view

thus, Herr Stuka, your views may not actually accord with the Pali suttas

instead, your views may be: "the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples"

with metta



Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven.

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile

[bWxNFI3c]

The discord, schisms and separations in the religions...

quoted below is what appears to be an idiosyncratic view about what the Buddha taught:

What should a lay person study?

WE SHOULD NOT waste time thinking out our own answer. If anyone wants to have his own ideas, well and good, there is nothing to stop him. But if we are to answer in accordance with what the Buddha taught, then we must say, “Lay people should study all the suttantas, that is, the discourses of the Tathāgata about suññatā (emptiness).”

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa now, it seems the Buddha did not exactly teach what Bhikkhu Buddhadasa asserted he taught

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa here seems to be referring to one sole passage in the entire Pali Cannon, found at SN 55.53 (no link)

NOTE: as a 'sole passage', it can easily be rejected on the basis of the Great Standards

in SN 55.53, some laypeople asked the Buddha an open question: "Instruct us in a way that may lead to our welfare & happiness for a long time"

the Buddha replied: "from time to time, enter and dwell upon those discourses that are connected with emptiness"

the laypeople replied: "Venerable Sir, this is not easy for us because we dwell in homes crowded with children, enjoying sensual pleasures, etc. But we are established in the five precepts"

the Buddha replied: "therefore, you should train yourself to possess confirmed confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha and virtues that lead to concentration"

so, to end, what the Buddha taught here seems to not really be what Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said the Buddha taught

[yWleIJm4]

below is what appears to be another idiosyncratic view about what the Buddha taught:

The Buddha refused to have any dealing with those things which don't lead to the extinction of Dukkha. Take the question of whether or not there is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance ? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa is this really true? do the Pali suttas offer any evidence of what Bhikkhu Buddhadasa asserted above?

did not the Buddha, in MN 117, MN 60, etc, teach about a (mundane) "right view" that does not lead to the extinction of dukkha?

[yWleIJm4]

If all of these sects were to let go of these superstitions and speculative views, and turn instead to the Buddha's liberative teachings, none of these separations would occur and there would be no sects, no schisms, and none of this discord.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

And if my aunt had a whanger, she'd be my uncle. Liberation will never be possible as long as one is incapable of or unwilling to find peace with the way the world actually is, instead of trying to make it conform to one's lofty ideals.

[DghtRdc]

And if my aunt had a whanger, she'd be my uncle. Liberation will never be possible as long as one is incapable of or unwilling to find peace with the way the world actually is, instead of trying to make it conform to one's lofty ideals.

That is inherent problem with views, isn't it? Not that we have them ( which we all do ) rather that we believe them and then " see " that is how " it " should be, rather than " seeing " and dealing with how " it " actually is. Dealing with reality is what leads to the extinguishing of the fire / the end of suffering not trying to change the world to fit our view/s.

[Intockatt]

Soteriology (Greek σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior, preserver" + λόγος logos "study" or "word") is the study of religious doctrines of salvation, which are a feature of various religions. Salvation theory occupies a place of special significance and importance in some religions.

Soteriology is used here to denote the Buddha's liberative teachings, as distinguished from superstitions which preceded him. Yes, in this case, soteriology is very cool.

[CVEGK7mV]

what appears to be your intent, which is to save all sentient beings via supramundane doctrines

Straw Man.

the Pali suttas show the Buddha obviously considered mere morality to be the most suitable form of soteriology for certain audiences As you have said before many times, children and grandmothers. The world has changed.

the Pali suttas also show the Buddha taught a kind of 'Tantra', where faith & love in the Triple Gem served as objects of devotion

for example, if i am not mistaken, in some suttas, the Buddha taught laypeople when they die, they should reflect on the Triple Gem Irrelevant to the topic.

MN 117, without ambiguity, states there are two kinds of right view Yes. One that is mired in the effluents and which consists of superstitions that preceded him, and his own which he identified as being liberative.

thus, Herr Stuka, your views may not actually accord with the Pali suttas That is not the case at all.

instead, your views may be: "the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples" Nice try.

with metta

I am not convinced.

[zatronanec]

Buddhadasa...

I said nothing of Buddhadasa, Roseanne. Your filibuster is irrelevant.

[ardsdelinq]

And if my aunt had a whanger, she'd be my uncle.

Irrelevant.

Liberation will never be possible as long as one is incapable of or unwilling to find peace with the way the world actually is, instead of trying to make it conform to one's lofty ideals. Tell that to the ones vowing to "save all beings". "Trying to make the world conform to one's lofty ideals" and "not finding peace with the way the world actually is" is the domain and mandate of the superstitious. In this thread, it's a Straw Man.

[socialkiiii]

That is inherent problem with views, isn't it? Not that we have them ( which we all do ) rather that we believe them and then " see " that is how " it " should be, rather than " seeing " and dealing with how " it " actually is.

Again, the Buddha did not criticise views per se, but speculative views that were taken to be reality without basis.

Dealing with reality is what leads to the extinguishing of the fire / the end of suffering not trying to change the world to fit our view/s. Indeed. And there are whole branches of Buddhism that would do well to learn that.

[Thunderzee]

...

[AM1VV9r6]

Soteriology is used here to denote the Buddha's liberative teachings, as distinguished from superstitions which preceded him. Yes, in this case, soteriology is very cool.

Stuka

as i already suggested, 'soteriology' does not always imply total soteriology (solace/liberation)

it seems only supramundane buddhadhamma can offer 100% soteriology

but to limit soteriology to 100% soteriology would preclude most, if not all, other religions from soteriology

however, this is contrary to what the Buddha taught because the Buddha taught there are at least four ways of soteriology, including soteriology via loving-kindness (see MN 43)

if fact, in what appears contrary to your views, the Buddha seemed also teach about soteriology via morality

One that is mired in the effluents and which consists of superstitions that preceded him, and his own which he identified as being liberative.

hi Stuka

you seem to be denigrating the mundane right view but it seems the Buddha did not share your attitude

thus he specifically called it "right view" and praised it

it seems the Buddha did not denigrate dhamma that encouraged morality, gratitude, respect for mother & father, fear of the lower worlds, etc

the Buddha praised honoring one's mother & father, etc, (even though this is the mundane right view)



[the Buddha said:]

And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit & results in acquisitions?

There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.

This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit & results in acquisitions.

MN 117 [the Buddha said:]

This venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is an other world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

MN 60 [the Buddha said:]

1. Many deities and men longing for soteriology have pondered on (the question of) blessings. Pray tell me what the highest blessings are.

2. Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise, and to honor those worthy of honor — this is the highest blessing.

3. To reside in a suitable locality, to have performed meritorious actions in the past, and to set oneself in the right direction — this is the highest blessing.

4. Vast learning, skill in handicrafts, well grounded in discipline, and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.

5. To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the highest blessing.

6. Liberality, righteous conduct, rendering assistance to relatives, and performance of blameless deeds — this is the highest blessing.

7. To cease and abstain from evil, to abstain from intoxicating drinks, and diligent in performing righteous acts — this is the highest blessing.

Maha-mangala Sutta [the Buddha said:]

Living with Brahma are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children. Living with the early devas are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children. Living with the early teachers are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children. Living with those worthy of adoration are those families where, within the home, mother and father are respected by their children.

'Brahma,' bhikkhus, is a term for mother and father. 'Early devas' and 'early teachers' and 'those worthy of veneration' are terms for mother and father. For what reason? Because mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care of them and bring them up and teach them about the world.

With Brahma