DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**SergZHy67** · 04-10-2010, 07:43 PM

Hi andyrobyn,

pink_trike said: The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

andyrobyn said: Hi Pink_trike .... would you agree that this can been extended to any " ism " really? sounds less terse - to use Frank's terminology.

Yes, an understanding of the Dharma dissolves any mental fiction, and any conceptual tool used to make a point.

It was and is meant to be terse. Terseness has its place.

pink_trike said: I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

andyrobyn said: Is it not in the intention of the person who is using the title?

Siddhārtha Gautama, aka "The Buddha" is a mythological and anthropomorphic conceptual tool that was carefully architected to reflect a classical shamanic-type journey/experience into the depths of the mind and the breadth of the world in a way that was intended to make this ancient journey/experience easily understandable and accessible to every human being.

This journey that "he" experienced and "his" dedication to sharing it is an anthropomorphic/ mythological story that was common all over the globe for thousands of years in various forms prior to the alleged life and times of "The Buddha". The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration.

I won't assume your intention for using the term - but I can't think of any intention that wouldn't be radically at odds with the realizations that the Dharma, as described in Buddhist mythology, is intended to provoke in us. When we refer to Buddhist mythology's central conceptual tool as "The Lord Buddha" and believe this fiction literally, we create the very clouds of delusion and obfuscation that an understanding and practice of the Dharma is intended to dissolve away.

The mythological story of Sid's excellent adventure falls into the same category as Alice's journey into Wonderland and Dorothy's journey into Oz. We understand them as conceptual tools designed to take us on a journey into the mind. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" is no different, even though the teachings are more thorough. Dorothy declined to the the Queen of the little people. No one bows to Alice or Dorothy and refers to them as "The Lord"...that would be just silly, wouldn't it? Worse than silly, it would be the very madness that the Dharma is the antidote for.

04-10-2010, 07:43 PM	#24
SergZHy67 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	Hi andyrobyn, pink_trike said: The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism". andyrobyn said: Hi Pink_trike .... would you agree that this can been extended to any " ism " really? sounds less terse - to use Frank's terminology. Yes, an understanding of the Dharma dissolves any mental fiction, and any conceptual tool used to make a point. It was and is meant to be terse. Terseness has its place. pink_trike said: I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick. andyrobyn said: Is it not in the intention of the person who is using the title? Siddhārtha Gautama, aka "The Buddha" is a mythological and anthropomorphic conceptual tool that was carefully architected to reflect a classical shamanic-type journey/experience into the depths of the mind and the breadth of the world in a way that was intended to make this ancient journey/experience easily understandable and accessible to every human being. This journey that "he" experienced and "his" dedication to sharing it is an anthropomorphic/ mythological story that was common all over the globe for thousands of years in various forms prior to the alleged life and times of "The Buddha". The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration. I won't assume your intention for using the term - but I can't think of any intention that wouldn't be radically at odds with the realizations that the Dharma, as described in Buddhist mythology, is intended to provoke in us. When we refer to Buddhist mythology's central conceptual tool as "The Lord Buddha" and believe this fiction literally, we create the very clouds of delusion and obfuscation that an understanding and practice of the Dharma is intended to dissolve away. The mythological story of Sid's excellent adventure falls into the same category as Alice's journey into Wonderland and Dorothy's journey into Oz. We understand them as conceptual tools designed to take us on a journey into the mind. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" is no different, even though the teachings are more thorough. Dorothy declined to the the Queen of the little people. No one bows to Alice or Dorothy and refers to them as "The Lord"...that would be just silly, wouldn't it? Worse than silly, it would be the very madness that the Dharma is the antidote for.
	Quote