[indartwm]

Again, why bother calling oneself "Buddhist", if the teachings of the Buddha are of no consequence?

Do you contend that Mahayana regards them as "of no consequence?"

[Singukil]

Do you contend that Mahayana regards them as "of no consequence?"

I point out that "mahayana" -- as well as the "abhidhammists" and the tibetan religions -- have tried to stuff a lot of crap into his mouth and call it his teachings. I also point out that the same folks largely ignore the Buddha's liberative teachings, and that when their own dogmas conflict with the Buddha's liberative teachings, they throw out the Buddha's teachings in favor of their own dogmas.

[Zugaxxsn]

I point out that "mahayana" -- as well as the "abhidhammists" and the tibetan religions -- have tried to stuff a lot of crap into his mouth and call it his teachings. I also point out that the same folks largely ignore the Buddha's liberative teachings, and that when their own dogmas conflict with the Buddha's liberative teachings, they throw out the Buddha's teachings in favor of their own dogmas.

This is your view stuka - I understand and appreciate your view, my experience and practice does not support the wide sweeping generalisation which such a view makes.

[NarhozNic]

This is your view stuka - I understand and appreciate your view, my experience and practice does not support the wide sweeping generalisation which such a view makes.

Claiming that "this is [just] your view" is what is known as a Perspectivist Fallacy (also Subjectivist Fallacy).

I can understand why you would find what I point out here unpalatable. But that does not change the truth of it at all.

[Dildos]

It is not unpalatable to me at all and this is not an argument debate, so using debating terms is not really appropriate. The truth is the truth - known through practice not what we believe.

[Afigenatjola]

This is the Beyond Belief forum, and yes it is a debating forum, but pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning is not limited to formal debating, either. And again you are invoking the Perspectivist Fallacy. The truth is indeed the truth, and the truth of what I am pointing out here can indeed be seen for oneself. By one who has the courage to look.

[karkinadze]

Ah, Element, I don't see an actual definition presented in the exerpt you posted. It just says what will happen as a result of choosing one or the other. Would you care to elaborate?

Naturally, you don't see because you seem to regard "Dhamma" as various religious doctrines rather than something which overcomes suffering.

Regards

Dharma (Sanskrit: धर्म dhárma, Pali: धम्म dhamma; lit. that which upholds or supports)

Wikipedia Nahi dhammo adhammo ca, ubho samavipākino;
Adhammo nirayaṃ neti, dhammo pāpeti suggatiṃ.

For Dhamma and non-Dhamma do not bear equal fruit
Dhamma leads to a good destination; Non-Dhamma leads to hell. So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away as human beings, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are more numerous who, when they pass away as human beings, are reborn in hell.

For what reason? Because bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four?" The noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.

SN 56.121 (Bodhi translation) Here some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sexual desires, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, he is not covetous, is not ill-willed and has [mundane] right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

MN 136 At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

SN 25.1

[PareKeect]

I think if plwk could let us know what he considers to be the 'orthodox' position it would be helpful and avoid confusion. (for me at any rate!) Well, the one challenge you have raised here on an 'orthodox' position.

And why I have left that blank is because in our times today, in the context of 'Buddhism', there are the three major traditions, each with their own views and positions of what is orthodox and heterodox or what the latter is labeled commonly as 'heresy'.
Heck, within each of these Traditions, there is a further branching out on the matter with its own diversity. Unless one takes an all inclusive view that anything not found in the Three is 'heresy'? The first ones to jump at that would probably be those who strictly adhere to one Tradition alone! LOL

Then to adherents of a particular tenet/sect/view, that tenet/sect/view alone is seen as most supreme and taken as a 'gold standard' in how they see themselves and others as well as phenomena around them. Kinda like saying that the Hilton is the best of all in the hospitality industry until the Fourseasons and Hyatt comes along to contest that claim...

That's why this thread is sitting in 'Beyond Belief', hearing from everyone what they think on this matter, what I think is unimportant: how this issue of 'heresy' (thanks to Element & Lazy Eye who brought up the terms of 'dhamma' and 'adhamma') is viewed in 'Buddhism' (as explained above) in this matter and what do they do with others who think and practice differently than themselves, as not all of us come from the same point of view nor experience, so trying to champion one particular view as the 'orthodox' or 'heterodox' aka 'heresy' would be a sticky matter at the very least.

For example, I am not sure if you would have recall this from your days spent with Tibetan Vajrayana: to someone who is following the Sravaka Path, the Vinaya's Pratimoksha is most supreme in matters concerning sila but the stand taken by someone who follows the Bodhisattva or Tantric Path would have a differing view as to which set of rules would be most expediently used for the welfare of a sentient being.

Some would see/interpret that as superseding the Vinaya's Pratimoksha and hence 'heretical' but to the latter, it is in the best interest for the sentient being's scenario, hence there is no abrogation nor 'conflict' with the former, taking into account the spirit of the precepts in exceptional cases.

Another would be those who assert that rebirth and karma are not taught by the Buddha or dismissed as irrelevant altogether. To the 'majority' of the Buddhist world, this may be viewed as the 'heresy' of a 'fringe' group but the 'fringe' group would assert otherwise. And even within the 'fringe' group, they have variances on the same matter. Would the fringe group be any less 'Buddhist' then? Are the majority a bunch of misguided champions of the 'wrong orthodoxy'?

Heresy is only possible with attachment to a view. Interesting...
So when the Buddha rebukes certain persons like in the Sutta raised by stuka and elsewhere in the Pali Suttas or in works like Lankavatara where Mahamati is being told on what is/not Tathagatagarbha or that the prevailing worldly views on Nirvana are not what He taught, what comes across your mind? I recall one response to this on the now defunct E-Sangha was 'such intolerance and fundamentalism'.

So, is 'heresy' defined as deviation from the context of an upheld text? tradition? interpretation? group, the majority or fringe in Buddhism?
What do you do with those who think differently?

[addisonnicogel]

This is the Beyond Belief forum, and yes it is a debating forum, but pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning is not limited to formal debating, either. And again you are invoking the Perspectivist Fallacy. The truth is indeed the truth, and the truth of what I am pointing out here can indeed be seen for oneself. By one who has the courage to look.

Yes this is a debating forum, the point I am making is that truth is not an argument and I have seen the truth for myself- you believe my argument is flawed, that does make it so to you.

[Tyncneiff]

I point out that "mahayana" -- as well as the "abhidhammists" and the tibetan religions -- have tried to stuff a lot of crap into his mouth and call it his teachings. I also point out that the same folks largely ignore the Buddha's liberative teachings, and that when their own dogmas conflict with the Buddha's liberative teachings, they throw out the Buddha's teachings in favor of their own dogmas.

Completely agree Stuka,

I think there is some sort of dishonesty not telling that such and such teachings are about such and such traditions which never have came out from the the Buddhas deliberative teachings.

[RastusuadegeFrimoum]

I think there is dishonesty in asserting that it is possible to know the experience of others who think and practice differently than yourself.

[k1ePRlda]

Originally Posted by stuka This is the Beyond Belief forum, and yes it is a debating forum, but pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning is not limited to formal debating, either. And again you are invoking the Perspectivist Fallacy. The truth is indeed the truth, and the truth of what I am pointing out here can indeed be seen for oneself. By one who has the courage to look.

Yes this is a debating forum, the point I am making is that truth is not an argument and I have seen the truth for myself- you believe my argument is flawed, that does make it so to you.
Your assertion "that is [just] your view" is an argument. What I have stated is a matter of record. We can see this happening right here in the forum time and again, and in other forums, too. The Buddha's teachings are being presented by folks who know them and constantly rejected here because they do not accord with the "lotus sutra", the "lankavattara sutra", the "heart sutra", the "diamond sutra", the "sutras handed to the nagas and given to mortals 500 years later", etc. That is truth that we all can see for ourselves, right here, right now. Look at Keith A's sniping in this very thread. The OP itself is an example of this. It is not a function of your Perspectivist Fallacy of "you believe this, so it is so to just you". It is a function of folks who reject the Buddha's liberative teachings because they do not conform to the beliefs that have been spoon-fed to them by their gurus, their Masters, their lamas.

[gymnAnemoe]

I think there is dishonesty in asserting that it is possible to know the experience of others who think and practice differently than yourself.

No one has asserted this. Straw Man.

[Uttephabeta]

I did not state, nor do I believe or imply that it is " [ just ] " your view. Is it not a fact that it is your view that as a Tibetan practitioner I have been spoon fed beliefs which are not consistent with the teachings of the Pali canon in important ways and that my practice is therefore wrong?

[avaiguite]

And why I have left that blank is because....

So you are being deliberately vague and evasive to what, stir the pot?

[rbVmVlQ2]

No one has asserted this. Straw Man.

You told me earlier that if I had the courage to look I would see the truth, asserting that until now I could not and have not seen the truth, due to practice within a different tradition ..... I disagree with this view.

[onlyfun_biziness]

I did not state, nor do I believe or imply that it is " [ just ] " your view.

The implication was certainly there, yes. I merely clarified it.

I said:

I point out that "mahayana" -- as well as the "abhidhammists" and the tibetan religions -- have tried to stuff a lot of crap into his mouth and call it his teachings. I also point out that the same folks largely ignore the Buddha's liberative teachings, and that when their own dogmas conflict with the Buddha's liberative teachings, they throw out the Buddha's teachings in favor of their own dogmas. And you claimed "This is your view". It is not my view. It is a matter of record that anyone can see for themselves.


Is it not a fact that it is your view that as a Tibetan practitioner I have been spoon fed beliefs which are not consistent with the teachings of the Pali canon in important ways and that my practice is therefore wrong? That is correct: It is not a fact.

I don't know, and you have not stated to me, what beliefs have been spoon-fed you.

[MightyMasc]

You told me earlier that if I had the courage to look I would see the truth, asserting that until now I could not and have not seen the truth, due to practice within a different tradition ..... I disagree with this view.

Excuse me? Can you cite the post where I told you "if you had the courage to look you would see the truth, because until now you cannot and have not seen the truth, due to practice within a different tradition"?

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is in order.

[JorgiOLusinio]

Excuse me? Can you cite the post where I told you "if you had the courage to look you would see the truth, because until now you cannot and have not seen the truth, due to practice within a different tradition"?

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is in order.

Your post #26

[paydayus]

Your post #26

My post #26 says:

This is the Beyond Belief forum, and yes it is a debating forum, but pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning is not limited to formal debating, either. And again you are invoking the Perspectivist Fallacy. The truth is indeed the truth, and the truth of what I am pointing out here can indeed be seen for oneself. By one who has the courage to look.
Where in there do I say, ""if you had the courage to look you would see the truth, because until now you cannot and have not seen the truth, due to practice within a different tradition"?



Again, a course in reading comprehension is in order.