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

**JAMES PIETERSE** · 06-26-2011, 08:46 PM

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Keith

OK, let say yes... If one takes a honest try it can be seen that the teachings of the historical Buddha are about that many useful teachings. Indeed the historical Buddha teachings include all them. The problem I have seen with people attached and entangled into their tradition is that the teachings of the historical Buddha do not offer them amusement of mind... adornments, rites, and the such...

The other important issue with traditions is how far away are from what the Buddha taught and they tell themselves "Buddhism" when what has to be said is "Mahayanism", "Theravadism", "Tibetanism", "Chinese Zen", "Lamanism" and the like... Then it is right to say that there are many other useful teachings because they surely are for themselves, in their own right.

If one believes in Rebirth... say it! But please, do not come and say... the Buddha taught it because that is dishonest. Do not hide behind the Buddha to tell that. Many useless discussions can be avoid if one states "I believe in Rebirth and I was taught about it by the Tibetan Religion.

The problem comes when, like in the case of the best sellers of Thich, for example, he tells people that the Buddha taught that Consciousness is the root of Fabrications and is an Alaya with seeds of Consciousness, when explaining the Aggregates, and when you go deeply into the teachings of the historical Buddha you do not find such things. The Buddha never told that... Do not say the Buddha told that... It is better to say that Thich told that, and then there will be no problem. Each one will be at peace with her or his particular teacher.

The only common language that can put together traditions is around what the Buddha taught. If Mahayana and Theravada and Zen all are teaching Not Self as taught by the historical Buddha, then we can talk about Buddhism, and, paradoxically, there will be no need for Mahayana, Theravada or Zen.

Also, to be hooked into the particular view of such and such tradition leads us into fundamentalisms...

As in the quote you selected from the [my] post... to think that the Boddhisatva is the only way to be compassionate toward others and deny the achievements of the Arahat... or the other way... that is fundamentalism... To know the teachings of the historical Buddha well enough, deeply and mastering them will... one day... vanish in our heart the need to be meshed into a particular tradition... to leave it in a secondary site and its proper place and to go toward the goal: The cessation of suffering; deliverance of mind.

06-26-2011, 08:46 PM	#14
JAMES PIETERSE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 520 Senior Member	There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book. Keith OK, let say yes... If one takes a honest try it can be seen that the teachings of the historical Buddha are about that many useful teachings. Indeed the historical Buddha teachings include all them. The problem I have seen with people attached and entangled into their tradition is that the teachings of the historical Buddha do not offer them amusement of mind... adornments, rites, and the such... The other important issue with traditions is how far away are from what the Buddha taught and they tell themselves "Buddhism" when what has to be said is "Mahayanism", "Theravadism", "Tibetanism", "Chinese Zen", "Lamanism" and the like... Then it is right to say that there are many other useful teachings because they surely are for themselves, in their own right. If one believes in Rebirth... say it! But please, do not come and say... the Buddha taught it because that is dishonest. Do not hide behind the Buddha to tell that. Many useless discussions can be avoid if one states "I believe in Rebirth and I was taught about it by the Tibetan Religion. The problem comes when, like in the case of the best sellers of Thich, for example, he tells people that the Buddha taught that Consciousness is the root of Fabrications and is an Alaya with seeds of Consciousness, when explaining the Aggregates, and when you go deeply into the teachings of the historical Buddha you do not find such things. The Buddha never told that... Do not say the Buddha told that... It is better to say that Thich told that, and then there will be no problem. Each one will be at peace with her or his particular teacher. The only common language that can put together traditions is around what the Buddha taught. If Mahayana and Theravada and Zen all are teaching Not Self as taught by the historical Buddha, then we can talk about Buddhism, and, paradoxically, there will be no need for Mahayana, Theravada or Zen. Also, to be hooked into the particular view of such and such tradition leads us into fundamentalisms... As in the quote you selected from the [my] post... to think that the Boddhisatva is the only way to be compassionate toward others and deny the achievements of the Arahat... or the other way... that is fundamentalism... To know the teachings of the historical Buddha well enough, deeply and mastering them will... one day... vanish in our heart the need to be meshed into a particular tradition... to leave it in a secondary site and its proper place and to go toward the goal: The cessation of suffering; deliverance of mind.
	Quote